covid19

The response towards COVID-19 mirrored most people’s naturally cynical expectations. The UK was almost completely unprepared at that start, the response was improvised without much planning, and then most of the populace fortunately and very Britishly just hunkered down to get on with it, save for some defiant quarantine-breakers. As long as most of us can give a good moan about it, by and large we are now on a downhill trend with a bodycount that betrays the ineffectiveness of the early response – and a fresh new pile of debt as the state had to step in to subsidize the economy.

Like for example, both World Wars. Previous notable pandemics like the 1968-70 flu pandemic likewise emptied out factories and forced half staffing to limit the spread. Things have yet to become truly irrecoverable. It may take years of recovery, but the engines of commerce shall surely turn again as long as people don’t make things worse for themselves.

COVID-19 is not a hoax or a conspiracy. There have been many other pandemics like it before, the difference why those previous pandemics seem to have done comparatively little damage is from how we are looking at it from the inside. Damage mitigation strategies that succeeded get little news.

Also, there were far less people in previous decades that suffered pandemics and they were taught by their parents to treat quarantines seriously, rather than born a world which had effectively eliminated most contagious killers like smallpox, measles, typhoid fever, cholera, etc. – which had been seasonal epidemics through many centuries.

There is little need to stress over the long-term economic prospects as that is the realm of the subconscious cultural response. Consumer confidence matters. For the long term to become viable, first we must deal with short term concerns. Worker and employer rights should be maintained, or else they aren’t rights at all.

Right of Employees and Employers

It cannot be Employees vs Employers in this case because lives cannot be spent to fuel the economy in the same way some comic book tribe throwing virgins into the volcano to appease their angry volcano god. At the same time however, the nation can’t keep itself shuttered for long before collapsing.

Employers have a ‘duty to care’ for staff, consumers, and anyone else who might visit their workplace. While it may be difficult to prove legally that someone entering contracted coronavirus in your place of business, employees should not be risked and then serve as a vector for additional infection.

A business without employees cannot operate. A business that risks its employees’ health itself may be risking legal action. But bankrupting vulnerable businesses will also put more people out of work.

A more open-minded view is that every employee is also a consumer, so the best thing for national recovery is to have as many people primed to keep buying.

The Survival of Small Businesses

Small businesses employing less than 250 people employ most of the workforce in the UK – about 23 million people. Survival strategies for small business are outside of the scope of this article, however.

This is merely to emphasize that at this point, we should not take an adversarial position. The eternal enemy is bureaucracy. Employers should be able to claim up to 80% of wages they pay for employees on furlough, and employees ought to keep their jobs even when most of the business must shut down under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

If you find yourself having difficulty claiming your grants or emergency loans, collective political action with legal support and media exposure may be required to communicate the urgency of your need to your local government units and banking representatives.

Being Forced to Come to Work

Who among the employees are to be sent on furlough are on the discretion of the employers, with importance towards those most at-risk populations. Younger workers may still be required to come to work, at most 50% of regular staffing to promote social distancing.

When you do report to work, remember that your employer is obligated to make your workplace as safe as possible. Being forced to work at threat of being fired is unlawful. You are supposed to be protected against

  • Constructive dismissal or being pressured to resign or leave rather than being dismissed
  • Disability discrimination
  • Age discrimination
  • Breach of health and safety laws

If you are living with someone who is vulnerable (pregnant, old, disabled or suffering from ill health), it may be unlawful for your employer to insist you come to work and risk their health.

If you are self-isolating due to symptoms or advised by medical authority, you are entitled to statutory sick pay. You may not be dismissed for self-isolation due to the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Harassment of At-Risk Essential Workers

If you are a medical worker or an employee in an industry deemed essential and you are thrown out of your residence or denied access to services because people fear catching COVID from you, that is unlawful.

If you are being harassed or attacked, that’s a criminal offense and seek help immediately. It may protect other at-risk workers from further attacks by serving as an example.

Anti-Asian Sentiment

This is just outright an unjustified crime and unfortunately the stress of coronavirus is causing it to spike. Stay safe, prefer to move in groups, and make sure you can provide video or recorded evidence. It is unfortunate that most of these attacks are also hit and run and prosecution is difficult when the perpetrators can’t be easily identified.

Coronavirus Scams and Bad Advice

It is advised to be very careful and don’t fall for any quick solutions. Scammers and hackers are using the coronavirus as a ‘hook’ to commit fraud and steal critical personal information.

It will be difficult to recover damages after a scam, and following bad medical advice can kill. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The government’s anti-fake news unit is having to deal with 10 new cases of coronavirus misinformation per day. This is a time when it is best to be skeptical of any easy solutions.

Be careful of those that prey on those trying to access economic grants and relief supplies. If you receive a suspicious email urgently asking you to send money or provide account numbers and personal information for verification, those are likely to be ‘phishing’ attempts. Never oblige anyone attempting to gather your financial data.

Websites that will give reports on potential coronavirus infected in your workplace or neighborhoods in violation of privacy in exchange for payment or sign up login information are just taking advantage of fears and a hunger to obtain privileged information that don’t exist.

Emails may pretend to come from trusted organizations that ask you to click on a pdf or word document for ‘more information’ that will launch malware to compromise your system and harvest your passwords.

If someone is selling you home testing kits, those are fake. The only possible home kits are sample collection kits and the contents to be mailed to an accredited testing laboratory, and they require a signed doctor’s order. There is a global shortage of coronavirus testing – not because of a lack of kits, but a in hard limit in lab processing. No home kit can tell you if you have coronavirus.

Be careful of predatory loan packages.

Desperation signals those who would take advantage of it. Limit exposure both in public and in social media. If you are unsure, it is best to send your own email to official channels directly instead of replying to a suspicious email. This isolation may also be taking advantage of scam calling – for some people may be the only human contact they have in weeks.

Beware of fake sites selling medical supplies and cures. Do not purchase cures or prophylactics that you can consume.

There are as of yet no real solutions, just mitigating factors, and nothing that can be done by throwing enough money at it. Self-isolation and protective personal equipment (facemasks, goggles, etc.) and routine hand washing may be boring but they work.

Scammers are plentiful and hard to prosecute because they quickly vanish after taking your money. The only real way to protect yourself is not to play their game.

The Strange Reality of the Pandemic

The proper response to COVID-19 is not panic. As long as certain essential services are maintained, it has been shown that most people can go for months without societal collapse and rioting. COVID-19 has exposed the reality of who are actually the most essential people in this modern digitalized world of ours. It goes:

  • Nurses and Doctors
  • Police and Military/Security
  • Truck Drivers/Mail and Delivery workers
  • Market Retail workers
  • Food Processing/Factory workers
  • Media/Information Technology workers
  • Scientists and Researchers
  • Politicians

Let us discuss this weirdness in order.

  • Nurses and doctors obviously are needed in times of pandemic. They are in fact heroes of this age, due to the extreme health risk they experience, the high stress and long hours they must work, and then the ingratitude, harassment, and being thrown out of their homes they suffer from others who don’t want to catch the virus from being around people who are working hard to save lives.
  • Someone has to enforce quarantine and keep public order from collapsing. Police workers and volunteer community guards are also under great health risk, while it’s vital for national security that particularly dumb criminal and insurgent elements don’t take advantage of this weakness to pull terrible shite. One surprising consequence for this pandemic has been the global cease of warlike behavior as people hunker down against the common enemy to all humanity.
  • Without logistics and being able to move goods and supplies around to where it is needed, society just stops. Period. Transport needs to move, and packages need to be delivered. As long as people can buy online, they won’t miss being able to shop and the sense of normalcy is maintained.
  • People need their groceries and this is the one unavoidable reason for people to leave quarantine. These workers are second to nurses and doctors in the risk of contracting COVID-19 and unintentionally passing it on. And they are already getting killed for politely asking people to obey simple mask orders.
  • Even the MI5 says that “Britain is four meals away from anarcy.” Neil Gaiman and Sir Terry Pratchett notes that “It has been said that civilization is twenty-four hours and two meals away from barbarism.” The nugget of truth is that as long as people can eat well and feel confident there will be more there is no reason to start to get desperate and start hoarding, which would create the situation they are hoping to avoid.

Factory workers are the unsung heroes keeping food prices level and ensuring that society keeps plugging on. They too suffer higher COVID-19 risks – one person infected in the plant can force a total shutdown. Without them, it is a ticking time bomb before things start being on fire.

  • Access to the internet and critical information is what allows people to stay sane, still shop and receive goods, and keep social contact while maintaining social distance. Without this, people will feel confined and forced to go out in search of something else to keep from going crazy with cabin fever and the tempers of their family.

Banking and online financial services could also be placed under this category as quick access to funding and the information exchange is critical to the peaceful continuation of the economy during a global crisis.

  • Figuring out COVID-19 and progress on the vaccine and the end to this nightmare can only happen if we allow our clever boffins to do their work without interruption.
  • And surprisingly, all over the world, it is being proven that as much as you may hate your politicians and feel that they are dishonest and self-serving – there is a vast difference between having at least a nominally competent leader and someone that is actively sabotaging their own nation’s attempts at staying alive.

Politicians should at least be hoped to do no extra harm.

The political and societal impact of the 2020 pandemic is also going to take decades to fully comprehend. This is one of the world’s watershed moments.

If you have a job during this period, the best thing to do is to stay safe and try not to increase the risk for others. If you are unable to work, read up on financial amelioration measures from legitimate sources. If you own a small business, it may be difficult right now to obtain loans and you may have to reach out to others in a similar situation to collectively present the urgency of your needs to banks and the local government.

For advice and help contact Employment Solicitors

divorce uk marriage law

Stop me if you’ve heard this one: A lawyer gets married to a lawyer. Once they divorce, one of them gets half the assets plus £400,000 extra for no longer being a lawyer.

More seriously: There was a recent example in case law judged by Mr Justice Philip sMoor, in which a couple met at a firm. She was an in-house lawyer by the time they were engaged, and was considered to have ‘a good chance’ of eventually becoming a partner at the law firm. The husband did not wish for her to remain at the firm when they married, and she accepted this outcome.

They first met in September 1999, when he was an associate solicitor and she was a trainee. She became an associate in March 2001, and their relationship initiated by 2002, and soon after the husband was made an equity partner. She was promoted to managing associate in 2006, and moved away from the office to work at a bank as an in-house lawyer in 2007. They married in 2008.

Since then they had been married for a decade with two children.

Justice Moor stated that while it was “unusual to find significant relationship generated disadvantage that may lead to a claim for compensation,” but this was such a case in which “the wife gave up her legal career, with the support of the husband.”

He added “He was somewhat ungallant as to the wife’s abilities, telling me that he did not think she was an exceptional candidate despite her two exceptional grades in her 2006 and 2007 appraisals. He has clearly convinced himself that her frailties mean she would never have been made a partner at the firm.”

The wife agreed that “compromises had to be made” when they got married, and she agreed to “put her career to one side for the children”. She considered herself “incredibly driven” and “it was very difficult for her to leave the firm”, not wanting to give up “her financial security or the ‘badge of honour’” she noted in the evidence that the husband “did not make her give up her career” – it was all by her own volition.

I am satisfied that, by the time the decision was taken to leave, she had formulated her plan which involved both marriage and, hopefully, children. She viewed herself as the parent who would take primary responsibility for the children. The husband’s career took precedence,” Justice Moore said in the judgement.

Mr. Justice Moor noted that this should not be a case that opens the way for other relationship-generated disadvantage claims.

He said: “I have already made the point that, in many of these cases, the assets will be such that any loss is already covered by the applicant’s sharing claim. In other cases, the assets/income will be insufficient to justify such a claim in the first place. It follows that litigants should think long and hard before launching a claim for relationship-generated disadvantage and they should not take this judgment as any sort of “green light” to do so unless the circumstances are truly exceptional.”

 

The Concept of Redress in UK Law

The obvious answer to the question in the title is: No, of course not.

When during a marriage one partner must take a step back to put family ahead of ambition and earning power, this is usually reflected in the division of assets and maintenance. While one may find material success in their career, the less tangible support offered by the other partner in emotional and mental needs should not be discounted either. Would the breadwinner have gone so far if they did not have their family to allow them to set down their burdens and/or prevent burnout? Taking care of children and one’s home used to be a full-time activity and being a mother remains a career in itself worthy of respect.

The concept of redress is to give compensation or payment for a wrong that has been done. Not usually is marriage considered a ‘wrong’ done to somebody. Relationship-generated disadvantage is already often compensated for, and any additional claims are usually awarded only for sake of child maintenance or when the relationship has things involved that are more abusive or criminal in nature.

Where compensation does look similar comes from the nature of damages awarded in personal injuries – the claims cover not just hospital bills and suffering, but also wages lost and potential future earning potential in the case of permanent personal injuries.

Thus, in a way, the answer is also somewhat… yes? If you get married and get a divorce, it is inevitable of course that you have to sacrifice something. You’re supposed to both be putting something into the marriage as equal partners and not everything can be so easily given a monetary value.

In this particular instance, the woman gave up a particularly lucrative career, earning £100,000 a year before she left. Many eligible men now also fear marriage as something that will hack away half their net worth when they get divorced. However, being taken to the cleaners by a gold-digger is nothing new either. It is symptomatic of a relationship of un-equals.

For every high-flying international billionaire like say, Elon Musk, there’s also a similar sanity check Bill and Melinda Gates. Treating marriage as a potentially adversarial partnership will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

Relationship Disadvantage in Median Households

The case, as Justice Moor stated, should not open the floodgates to other similar claims. Most median households would not apply. This is not so much a ‘rich people exemption’ but that the potential earning power of both partners in the marriage would be close enough that it would not matter.

Only matrimonial assets can be divided as part of financial remedy proceedings. After a divorce with children, one of the spouse will be made to continue maintenance payments for their children.

It’s not only financial adversity that affects couples in divorce, but when involving children it’s not just the welfare of children that should be considered but also parental separation and adult psychological distress. The one with the children needs additional upkeep in order to raise their children, but additionally paying maintenance continues to give the other parent rights to equitably access their children and play a substantial role in their lives.

 

No Weight Given to Pre-Nuptial Agreement

Now, when one thinks of preserving one’s assets in marriage, one usually thinks of pre-nuptial agreements. Some might think that the division of assets and spousal maintenance after a divorce is biased towards the woman. They would be wrong.

It is biased against big money. Relationship-generated disadvantage can be most clearly seen with prenuptial agreements that treat marriage and time spent together as little more than a contract-based relationship.

Let’s take the example of Morgan McConnell, the great-granddaughter of the founder of Avon Products, and Anil Ipekci, whom she met when he worked as a concierge at Le Parker Meridien in New York. They first met in 2003 and began co-habiting in January of 2005. They decided to marry.

A pre-nuptial agreement was drafted by McConnel’s private lawyer and another lawyer was found in order to give Ipekci independent legal advice. It just so happened that this lawyer was the solicitor that acted for McConnel in her divorce for her first husband. He first met the lawyer on the 3rd of November 2005, and by then the marriage had already been fixed to commence on 26th of the same month of 2005.

The draft had surprising qualities, which as Mr Justice Mostyn noted:

“The husband must have been very surprised by what it contained. First and foremost, it provided that the agreement was deemed to have been made under the laws of the State of New York and that its validity and effect and construction should be determined in accordance with those laws regardless of where either party resided or was domiciled at the time of death or divorce or separation. Second, it provided that the parties wished any proceedings relating to the marriage to be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and that they submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that State.”

Among the provisions given to Ipekci (in event of marriage lasting at least three years and with two children) was that any increase in the value of three properties in the name of the wife that were sited within Barnes, Hanwell, and New York, would be divided equally between the parties on divorce. The husband would not be entitled to claim any alimony or any other money from the wife. In the agreement the three properties were attributed with the value of $1.6 million or at present £1.24 million.

The husband was counseled that the agreement was slanted heavily in favour of the wife. Nonetheless, he signed it on 11 November 2005 and the parties were properly married 15 days later.

Now what actually happened was that the proceeds of the three properties were folded into their existing family home in Barnes, which had a net value of £1.074 million. There being no increase in value for both parties to share, under the agreement the husband would receive nothing at all.

Mr Justice Mostyn held that it would be wholly unfair to hold the husband to the agreement he signed for several reasons:

  • The contract specifically stated that the agreement would be governed by New York law. Astoundingly, the agreement was not accompanied by a certificate that it conformed with the local law it attested, and thus the agreement in New York would have “minimal weight, if any” citing a previous case in the New York Appeal Court that a document “would carry no legal force except for the minor impact of its historical voice”.
  • It would therefore be unjustifiable to attribute weight to the agreement when under the law that both parties signed it under it would not be granted any weight,
  • While it could not be said that the husband was afforded a full appreciation of the legal implications of the document, and it was not proven satisfactory that the solicitor who gave the advice was not compromised. The situation showed apparent bias.
  • The agreement didn’t serve any needs of the husband,
  • Thus Justice Mostyn attributed no weight to the pre-nuptial agreement.

Since all of the assets in the case either were or had their origin in non-matrimonial property, the claim was decided solely by reference to the principle of needs.

Mr Justice Mostyn said:

“The following are relevant considerations in determining the reasonable needs of the husband:

  1. i) This was a 12-year cohabitative relationship.
  2. ii) As a result of the way that the parties organised their married life the husband has made no provision for himself from his earnings either by way of savings or pension.iii) The standard of living, whilst not by any means a determinative factor, is relevant and was in this case reasonably high.
  3. iv) It is in the interests of the two children of the marriage that their father has a reasonable home in which they can stay with him comfortably and that they do not perceive him as being in some way the poor relation.
  4. v) The husband will not be making any contribution to the maintenance of the children or to their school fees – they will be supported entirely by the wife save in respect of those incidental expenses met by the husband during the time that the children spend with him.vi) In respect of the sum allowed for the husband’s housing it is not necessary for all of it to be provided to him outright. There was agreement at the Bar that it would be reasonable for half of the housing sum awarded to be charged back in favour of the wife (or her estate) on the death of the husband.”

He awarded the husband a lump sum of £1,333,500 of which £375,000 was subject to a charge-back.

The English court is not bound to make an order in the same terms as a prenuptial agreement. While it could make a good defense against financial claims, at certain necessary times the court may make orders different to them.

Pre-nuptial agreements can be reviewed, they are not set in stone. A rational marriage can decide for itself if people should be held to the terms of a historic agreement and avoid costly litigation.

Or in summary, if big money wants to play silly buggers with contract law the courts will have none of that mischief and works with what is most realistic.

 

Money and Property after a Marriage Ends

The court in the UK will general divide things in half, but that is merely the starting point. Matrimonial assets refer to money and properties that were gained during the course of the marriage, which may include

  • Family home
  • Other real estate
  • Pensions
  • Savings
  • Vehicles
  • Furniture & appliances
  • Stocks, bonds and mutual funds
  • Businesses

The court aims to divide assets in a fair and equal manner, but this doesn’t mean a mathematically equal measure. The court will seek to provide for

  1. The relative needs of each party – the spouse with the weaker economic situation may be given more as part of the settlement, such as the home, etc., unlike the spouse who can afford multiple properties.
  2. Child custody – the spouse who is responsible for primarily caring for the children would need to be awarded more to secure their welfare.
  3. Compensation for future earnings – the spouse who sacrificed their career in order to care for their family and children may be awarded more in capital in order to get back on their feet and prepare to rejoin the workforce.

Also do note that it’s not just assets that can be distributed, but also debts. Everything accrued during the marriage period may be split during the decision. This may include mortgages, credit cards, loans, and other commitments.

It is not easy to quantify the worth of being a good mother or father, but such a thing has a far greater influence than merely the number of properties or figures in the bank account. The UK courts recognize the value of the physical, emotional, and psychological support provided by the non-working party in a relationship.

For divorce lawyers try Hadaway & Hadway Solicitors

redundant business woman

Enhanced Redundancy Protections 2020

Will you be removed from your job for redundancy in 2020? It’s an ever-more pressing fear in the looming environment of economic uncertainty, but as an employee you too have rights and options. There are some new legislation coming that may help to address some of these issues.

Defining Redundancy

Before you can appraise if you have a valid reason to claim or contest redundancy, first we must define what redundancy is. According to the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employee has been dismissed for redundancy if the reason is that:

  • the employer ceases to carry on the business in which the employee was employed;
  • the employer ceases to carry on that business in the place where the employee was employed;
  • the needs of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind cease or diminish; or
  • the needs of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed cease or diminish.

Note how this means a need for the same amount workers to do a particular job has diminished, not that the need to perform a job has diminished. If a task can be done with fewer employees, or if a company must move or restructure, then that is a valid case for redundancy. If there simply is less incoming work for employees to do, that is not redundancy. If you are doing a job and then they get someone new to fill that job, that is not redundancy! Redundancy happens when the job you are supposed to be doing no longer exists.

It is illegal in the UK to use redundancy as a reason for a dismissal when there no legitimate issues with employee performance.

Redundancy is often used as a convenient excuse for firing employees for reasons less sensitive to voice. It may be a matter of job performance, friction in the workplace, business income failing to support the number of employees, or some form of discrimination. If you get a notice that you may be let go for reasons of redundancy, it may be prudent to look behind that for the real reason.

There are upcoming laws in 2020 that make the excuse of redundancy easier to challenge. It is also sometimes advantageous for an employee to claim redundancy, since there are enhanced redundancy pay arrangements for long-serving employees. Get all that you are entitled to in a dismissal.

 

woring beyond Retirement Age

Working Beyond Retirement Age

The UK does not have a default retirement age anymore, and employers may no longer force employees to retire. Now, a company may have its own retirement cut-off age policy, but all dismissals must come from a justifiable basis instead of simply entitled discrimination, age-related or otherwise.

In a recent judgment of Ewart v The Chancellor, Master and Scholars of the University of Oxford, the Employer Justified Retirement Age policy was meant to provide a proportionate means of creating opportunities of employment for younger and more diverse staff. However, the statistical evidence provided by the claimant proved that the policy only created a small number of vacancies. It was decided by the tribunal that the University did not show sufficiently that the policy contributed to the achievement of its legitimate aims to an extent that it can justify the discriminatory effect.

State pension age in the UK is increasing, and age discrimination is something that concerns many employees who are at approaching an age where finding a new job is quite unlikely if dismissed.

 

Maternity Leave

Pregnancy and Maternity Leave Protection

Many employers don’t like paying out for maternity leave because it is a long period of time of reduced productivity, and there is an urgent need to find someone else to perform the job that the pregnant employee must leave behind. Then once the new normal has settled in, is there a need anymore for the previous employee? This is why women need stronger maternity protections as the mere mention of ‘pregnancy’ sends alarm bells ringing for employers.

According to a government report, one in nine women had been fired or made redundant when returning to work after having a child, or were forced out from unfair treatment. Research estimated that up to 54,000 women a year felt they had to leave their jobs due to maternity discrimination.

Maternity discrimination is of course illegal, and those on maternity leave have special protections in a redundancy situation. Under the Good Work Plan of 2020, there will be expanded redundancy protections – six months after return to work, and up to two years in total for the maternity period.

According to Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, if your job is at risk of redundancy but you need to be present for interviews – if for health reasons you cannot be present, you do not have to attend interviews. Regulation 10 says that you should be given first refusal over suitable alternative jobs that are not substantially less favorable than your original job, over other employees being made redundant.

Sefton Borough Council v Wainwright EAT 2014 notes that a woman on maternity leave should be considered alongside other employees when assigning employees into other posts.

Men also have protections under Shared Parental Leave in the first year after birth or adoption to be immediately offered suitable alternative employment.

Dismissal Comes before Redundancy Trial Periods

The case of East London NHS Foundation Trust v O’Connor has Mr. O’Connor working as a Psycho-Social Intervention (PSI) worker for an NHS trust. In March 2017 he was informed that the role was being deleted under restructuring on 3rd of July 2017 and he was offered an alternative role of Care Co-ordinator. He began a trial of the role on that date.

O’Connor raised a grievance that the role was not a suitable alternative and the trust agreed to extend the trial period until this was resolved. In Nov 2017 his appeal was rejected and he declined the offer of the Care Coordinator role again. He was dismissed on Dec 2017, and the trust refused to make statutory redundancy payments on the grounds that it believed that the alternative employment had been unreasonably refused.

A tribunal decided that O’Connor had not actually been dismissed until December, and as such the trial period was not in actuality a statutory trial period.

If you are given notice that your role is being deleted, there is no rule of law that the notice of deletion was inevitably amount to a dismissal. Employment solicitors have noted that an employer must also carefully follow procedures in removing employees for redundancy instead of assuming things.

What if the Whole Company Goes Bust?

How will you get redundancy payments when your employer or company turned insolvent and now completely unable to pay your wages? Then you can claim it from the Redundancy Payments Office and the National Insurance Fund.

The Redundancy Payments Service was started to allow employees to receive their Statutory Redundancy Pay in a much more timely manner than having to wait for their employer’s assets to be liquidated.

You may claim your:

  • redundancy pay
  • holiday pay
  • unpaid wages/overtime
  • statutory notice pay

You may apply online at https://www.gov.uk/claim-redundancy.