Well HR are saying he must have next week off sick again, they will meet him on site and risk assess him a week on Monday. There is no reasoning or justification for the delay.

Thanks, HR are calling him today so he will ask them then.

Well that's why I'm asking the question. If he was, for example, a delivery driver - he cannot do 100% of his job, I understand that. But he can do most of his job, and there is easily scope for him to fill a full time week, with some slight amendments to duties for a short period of time. I was under the impression that the fit note was intended to assist employees to go to work when they can, and assist employers by not having someone off for ages. There are 3 people whose role, like OH, is a mixture of desk work and warehouse work. When one is on annual leave (or off sick, or paternity leave etc), the work is covered by the others. So they all know how to do all the tasks. Is it so unreasonable for his employer to just shuffle responsibilities for 5 weeks? I thought that was the point of the fit note as a concept. Anyway - I have digressed. Whether he can or cannot do his duties has become irrelevant, we aren't even getting that far in the discussion - his employer is stating that he cannot enter the building with a cast on, due to Health and Safety. They are not interested in whether he can or cannot do his job. Therefore, as they are refusing to allow him to enter the building, is this classed as suspension on medical grounds? Thanks.

I have read several threads on here regarding fit notes. His manager is saying that it is irrelevant whether he can perform his duties or not, the very presence of the cast means he is not safe to be on site until it is removed. Am I right in thinking that "suspension from work on medical grounds" applies here?

My partner works full time as a Stock Controller. His job is around 50/50 desk work and warehouse work. He has broken his foot and is now in a cast for 6 weeks, mobile and weight bearing but on crutches. His employment contract states SSP only for sickness, but that full pay may be paid at the discretion of the line manager. OH was given a fit note by the fracture clinic yesterday, stating that he must not work this week, but that from next Monday he can work as long as it is desk based and no heavy lifting. OH feels that for this 6 weeks, duties could be shuffled around and he could take on some more admin and A. N. Other could take on his warehouse duties, until he is healed. OH's line manager has refused to even discuss the "amended duties" and said that OH is not allowed in the building with a cast on due to H&S, and must therefore have 6 weeks at home on SSP. The Doctor was quite clear that there is no reason why OH can't be working at a desk after one week off. Where does OH stand on this? Can his employer refuse the amended duties and in essence, force him to not work and receive only SSP? Or do they have to pay him because he is both willing and capable of work but they are refusing?

Hello, I'm back again So, I've had my "final tax credits decision" letter. They say I owe them £1360 - which is a bit better than the £2000 they were originally asking for... Awaiting response from SAR, I've also been putting a bit aside each month since my original post and will continue to do so, so that if I do need to make a payment I can at least offer something, and then hopefully pay the rest monthly. I *am* going to challenge the overpayment though as I do feel it meets the criteria for official error. I've pored over every letter I've had from them and my details are right every time except one - and in that one my income is HIGHER than what the actual figures ended up being, (which I corrected with a phone call), so I don't see how I could have known I was being overpaid until they told me. So that's my update. My question is: The most recent letter says: "We will continue to seek recovery of the overpayment whilst we are considering your dispute" So - should I set up a payment plan while the dispute goes through? And then if I am right they give it back? Or should I refuse to pay anything until the dispute process has finished?

Yes all details on the letters they have sent me have been correct (apart from the amount of tax credits, obviously, haha). When I had my "pay us back the £2k" letter, I rang them and said I didn't understand how this happened etc, that I'd given them the details they had asked for , the advisor said there was nothing they could do about it until I get my renewal pack (between April and July) , that I need to fill that in, send it off, I'll get some sort of final statement and THEN if I don't agree with it etc I can get in contact with them at that point. I'm now wondering if that is right as they seem to have messed up once already..... is that right?! Should I wait for renewal or should I fill in a form now? Thanks so much for answering by the way. I'll send off the SAR tomorrow. Knowing you can pay in instalments is a bit of a relief, I definitely feel less panicky about it !!!!

Yes I did receive one in that time, as I originally applied back when DS was first born (2012) as that's when I was on maternity leave and thought I might get something as my income had dropped considerably (obviously!) but we were assessed at zero. I had the renewal forms at the right time in 2013 but nothing had changed on the form (was still on mat leave) so filled in, sent back, still entitled to zero. Then I had a change in circs August 2013. My partner and I split up and he moved out. I rang up to ask if I was now eligible. The call handler said I needed to end my joint claim of zero and start a new claim, and that the quickest way was to do it with her on the phone. I did this, and answered all questions honestly. I was now back at work so my earnings were higher (I told her this) but I now had childcare costs too, plus a change in my other income. We went through it all, she said I was eligible, they started paying me. The conversation about earnings and so on was lengthy, because my income is made up of salary, a car allowance, an 'other benefit' on my P11D and also some rental income. So we had to go through each bit individually and we talked at length about it, we talked about me being on maternity leave because of the £100 disregard, we talked about me being back at work and earning again. At no point did she mention the if my wages were more than £5000 more than the previous year thing. In November 2013 I moved house, and then DS's dad and I decided to give things another go so he moved in. I rang tax credits and informed them he had moved in - I was 2 weeks late in doing that, but did tell them the actual date he moved in. They ended my single claim, and asked if I wanted to do a joint claim - to which I said no because we weren't entitled when it was just OH's income being assessed back in 2012 so I didn't see the point in doing it now when there were now 2 full salaries coming in. I'm struggling to understand how an advisor on the phone can ask me such detailed questions, know my exact circumstances, I can be written to and told I'm being given 2000, I'm then given 2000, for them to then say "oh sorry actually after all that you weren't entitled, pay it back now". If you hadn't already guessed, I spent the money! I'm not trying to keep money that I wasn't eligible for, if I thought I wasn't eligible I wouldn't have applied - but that's why I rang, to speak to a real person and get information. Basically I'm going to have to find £2000 aren't I , gulp

No, it wasn't my tax return, I'm confident of the difference between a tax return and a 4 page form from tax credits. I do have to do self assessment as I now have some rental income (fully declared to tax credits minus the £300 disregard). I did my tax return in November. The form with a deadline of the 31st was definitely from tax credits. The overpayment was received by me in this financial year but related to my earnings of the previous financial year.

Sorry, I'm not sure what the form was called as I sent it back to them - but it had a deadline of the 31st January.

Hi estellyn, that is with the deduction already taken out.

I estimated 22800, and my actual was 22863. This financial year it will be be £40+

I can't get my head around this. Ordinarily, we (as a couple) are not entitled to any benefits. I went on maternity leave, only received SMP, went back to work. A few months later I realised that my previous year's income having dropped so much because of being on SMP PLUS the disregard of £100 a week meant that we were possibly eligible for a small amount of CTC - so I rang them and they confirmed we were eligible. I applied, I gave full details, including figures from P60s, P11D, childcare costs etc - EVERYTHING THEY ASKED FOR. Our circumstances changed, I notified them the following day. Our circumstances changed again, this time, hands up, I took 2 weeks to tell them, but I did tell them it applied from XX date so they backdated it. They sent me a letter saying due to the most recent change in circs we are not paying any more (fine), and you have been over paid from XX date (the 2 weeks), so you have to give us that back. Ok, makes perfect sense to me. Then I had the form that you have to fill in by the end of January. I filled that in, the only thing that was different than any of the information I had given them previously was an additional income of £63. Now they have written to me and say I have to pay them back an overpayment of nearly £2k- basically the full amount I received. I'm totally baffled by this, how can the difference of £63 mean a difference of £2000?? So I rang them to query it, and they said that because my income for THIS financial year, ie the year that has not yet finished, has increased by more than £5000, then I was not actually entitled to any of the tax credits they paid me. I don't understand this at all. I spoke to an advisor on the phone when I originally made the claim and stated what my maternity pay was and what my usual salary was - they KNEW my drop in income was because of being on maternity pay, and that it would go back up to normal levels afterwards. I'm totally confused as to how I am expected to take the money I am earning now, and transport it back in time to when I wasn't earning it. Have I totally misunderstood the whole thing?!

It's not £500 though, it's £1000 - because half for the prep, half for attending. There is no loss of earnings, however, the ET judge ordered that my employer disclose the salaries of the 3 people who got the jobs that I didn't have a chance to apply for, for their consideration before making a vento award, and in the tribunal itself my boss messed up and admitted I would be a good candidate for the roles (haha). For 4 counts, am I likely to receive a middle band vento? As it is more than one act....or have I misunderstood how that works?

Hi all, hope someone can help. I had a tribunal recently, lost on equal pay to predecessor, but I am allowed to bring a separate claim of work of equal value (undecided on what to do) but won on 4 counts of sexual discrimination. The tribunal over-ran their schedule, meaning I now have a separate remedy hearing (it was meant to be within the original timescale). I depleted my savings paying for representation for my 5 day case (which naively I expected would be the end of it!) - they now want an extra £500 for "preparation costs" plus £500 to attend the remedy hearing. Do I necessarily need representing at this hearing? What does it entail? 3 of the counts of sexual discrimination were the failure to allow me the opportunity to apply for job vacancies. So in anticipation of making a settlement, my employer's solicitors want a copy of my CV because it "relates to assessment of the value of your claim, and your likely chance of having obtained one of the three jobs that you were overlooked for". My representation is pushing me as apparently there are "a few directions" that need dealing with - are there really? Or is this just trying to get more money out of me? I've already spent £4000 that I couldn't really afford in the first place, I don't want to get ripped off by these guys. any thoughts, musings, ideas welcome!

Hmm ok I'm going to have to sound dumb now....what fees? Also, some of his debts (with various collection agencies) are not showing on his credit report... .so does this mean the original company is still the owner of the debt?

Thanks for your response. The original debt is a Santander credit card. It still shows as Santander on noddle. My partner set up the payment before I started helping him with his debts, he set it up because they asked him to, he knows he owes the money knows he had to pay it eventually, he set up an amount he could afford. Should he not be paying this then??

Hi, I'm helping my partner sort out his debts - he has a debt which has been taken over by Moorcroft. He's been paying the agreed amount (£15 a month) since October 2010. I've been showing him his credit report and how that works etc - and we have realised that this debt is marked as 'default' every month even though he has been paying the agreed amount. Is this right? I thought if you pay an agreed amount (even if it is reduced) then it would not show as a default, or have I got that wrong? Thanks in advance

Hi, I have an ET for a couple of things, including an equal pay claim (I still to this day do not earn what my predecessor did), and some contractual maternity pay that they refused to pay (not acknowledging TUPE). I need to do a schedule of loss, and have a few questions, hope someone can help! Are there any special rules about format? I was going to use Excel with totals at the top and then all the calculations etc below. With the equal pay claim, my predecessor received a company car and fully expensed fuel card. How do I work out the financial value of this? Obviously the equivalent car allowance award (£6300) is not enough, in my view, because if you take in to account maintenance, tax, insurance etc then the car is worth much more than the allowance. And fuel is obviously variable so again how do I put a figure on that? My calculations will include 2.5 years of a significantly lower salary - can I include overtime and pension contributions (matched by employer) within that? EG by calculating the difference - what they would have been if I had been earning the higher salary. My ET is (mostly) for sexual discrimination (as well as some breach of contract), and I have subsequently filed another ET for victimisation, which is to be heard at the same time. As the claim is, in part, for sexual discrimination, I understand I could possibly be awarded more than just costs - there could be damages on top. Do I put damages in my schedule of loss? If so how do I calculate this? I don't really understand how that side of it works at all. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Oh, and I'm not represented, I have a friend who is a self-employed HR consultant who has given me a hand with things, but no legal representation. I cannot afford legal help, but do not qualify for legal aid.

Thank you - that makes sense about them arguing against older things - didn't realise they could do that, I thought they could only 'defend' against what I've accused them off (which so far has entailed them lying in my ET3 and also eq&div questionnaire - luckily I have evidence of the untruths, thank goodness). Due to them dragging out the company's formal grievance procedure to being 4 months long, I almost missed the deadline. I scraped by with days to spare for the most recent incident, and continued to finish the grievance procedure while waiting for my CMD. It was pure chance I found out what I needed to do in the time frame I needed to do it, it is incredibly disgusting that they clearly drag things out to abuse the 3 month rule - I dread to think how many people must have missed out due to thinking they are doing the right thing and waiting for formal grievance responses before going to an ET. Thanks to both of you for your help and support.

Sorry, just realised my post is quite "poor me" ....I don't mean it to be ,I'm just so frustrated with this whole ridiculous situation. My employer have already spent more in senior staff and solicitor time than the amount of money they are refusing to pay me - and yet they've deliberately treated me like sh!t since I put the ET in, knowing damn well I'm pregnant, and the whole thing is ridiculously stressful.

Thanks for the responses. Browncow, I want them to consider everything - they've made my life hell and I'm not going to let them get away with it. My career is destroyed by taking this action (due to the nature of the industry) as I will find it hard to find another job in the same field, so I want them to be hit as hard as possible by this, to show they cannot just do what they want because of their size and that there are people willing to stand up against them. I'm unrepresented because I can't afford representation. I've used up local solicitors' free half hours. I've just started on maternity leave (baby is now overdue, eek!) (and employer are refusing to pay, that's part of the et!) So I have no chance of affording even an hour. As the highest earner, we are about to lose 3/5 of our household income, and its looking like I'll be made redundant soon as I am no longer protected by maternity laws (they've started the ball rolling unofficially on that already) so I really can't afford it - hence coming on here.

Brown Cow: yes my claim was submitted within 3 months of the last incident, however the full situation dates back almost 3 years from the date of the submission of the claim. All of it was in my ET1 which, as the tribunal date has been set, I had assumed meant the judge was accepting it all - or is this not necessarily the case? If the answer is a) in your answer - how am I (the claimant) meant to fill in that column? As far as I'm concerned, yes the ET should be sorting it all out....but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right! It seems an odd thing to ask me to fill in, especially as I am unrepresented, and Bang!'s explanation supports the first one....again surely not my place as claimant to 'decide' whose jurisdiction it falls under? I will of course call the relevant ET office (but I posted this out of working hours!) when they are open, but I have asked them questions before and they were a bit "computer says no..." kind of responses that I didn't feel very confident with.

Hi all, hoping someone can point me in the right direction here. I did search the forum but couldn't find I have sumitted an ET against my current employer which has ended up including direct sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, breach of contract, and most recently, victimisation. At the case management discussion the judge asked for me to make a scott schedule, and gave the column headings. I'm fine with most of it (eg 'date of incident', 'nature of incident' etc), and the judge did explain it to me at the CMD (I am unrepresented). However, when I received the notes from the tribunal, it asks for an extra column that the judge didn't mention at the time (or I would have questioned it) called "jurisdiction". So - what does this mean? What am I supposed to put in this column?