| A welcome email arrived in the inbox of payroll software developers on 1 June from the developers support team at HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
It concerns the issuing of incorrect online P6s via the Data Provisioning System (DPS) where erroneous zero entries are shown in the previous pay and tax fields.
Interestingly the email opens by saying that they've been made aware of the error as if it has just come to light, whereas in fact this was first raised with HMRC at the end of last year. At the time they published a statement saying:
"It is possible that previous Pay and Tax details are being issued as 0.00 where there is no actual change to the Pay and Tax information already held. Under these circumstances these fields should either be ignored or where there is any doubt investigated with the local office. We realise that this is far from ideal and are seeking definitive views on the subject and resolution as soon as possible."
It certainly was far from ideal, so one wonders how many employers have actioned these P6s as received as
a) communication from HMRC should be accurate and is rarely questioned by less experienced employers and
b) they may not have seen the statement from HMRC and are not in a position to judge whether the zeros are correct or incorrect. As to contacting their local office, well let's not go there.
It is disappointing that when such serious issues are raised by software developers it takes six months before consultation begins on fixing the bug. No deadline is given in the email for the fix other than feedback by 6 June as to whether the proposed amended XML code will cause any issues. In the meantime treat all P6s containing zeros with caution.
| Back to top | An interesting appeal has just been heard against a decision by the Pensions Ombudsman in respect of pension rights after a compromise agreement had been entered into.
The Ombudsman had originally found in favour of Mr Machin and Mr Browne, ex-employees of A F Blakemore & Son Ltd in respect of bonuses being taken into account when calculating pension benefits. This despite the fact that the employer had presented evidence to the effect that there had been an oral agreement with the parties to exclude bonuses, and that in any event when the two employees left employment they entered into a compromise agreement settling any future claims.
The employer appealed the ruling the inadmissibility of its oral evidence to the High Court. Mr Justice Lightman has asked the Ombudsman to look again at the issue of oral evidence.
The judge considered the wording of the compromise agreement, which as is customary included the phrase 'in full and final settlement of claims... against the company'. While this precluded any claims being made against the employer in respect of employment, or the termination package (including asking the employer to pay additional funds into the pension scheme) it did not affect their rights to challenge the trustees or their rights to pension benefits.
The ruling is another reminder of the dangers of 'template' compromise agreements. Compromise agreements on termination cover claims against the employer by the employees, not the member's rights under the pension scheme. If there are concerns that pension rights may be contentious, special wording will have to address this and would need the agreement of the trustees as parties to the agreement, which may of course not be forthcoming (they too would need legal advice). Equally the issues arose out of an oral agreement - if an employee agrees to vary any of their pensions benefits this must be documented in writing. Because the employer did not do this, this case has dragged on for nearly six years. | Back to top | Two trials have been announced in Birmingham, and the east of London to improve awareness of employment rights within certain employment sectors.
In Birmingham the hospitality industry will be the focus and in London the building and cleaning sectors.
Marketing Birmingham and the TUC in London will target school leavers, university students and migrant workers, ie, those newly entering the labour market who are most likely to be taking low paid jobs where employment rights might be knowingly, or innocently, compromised.
An HR hub for employment law advice will be set up, with the aim of making SMEs in those sectors legally compliant. In addition a business audit to identify strengths and weaknesses in employment practices will be offered.
For those keen to put their house in order this has to be good news. While for those exploiting vulnerable workers it is another weapon in the government's armoury to root out non-compliance, and sits alongside the new consultation on scaled compensation for national minimum wage arrears and penalties for employing migrant workers that are linked to the costs of removing them from the UK.
| Back to top | Following a trial in Scotland, Jobcentre Plus have rolled out a new telephone service to help those wanting to claim benefits and get advice on moving back into work
A new freephone number 0800 0556688 will be available from 8am-6pm Monday to Friday. For those ringing from a mobile, where a charge may apply, a ring back service is offered.
It is worth signposting the new service to employees and HR practitioners who may need to take advantage of free access to benefits information. Early intervention in cases where state support is available to employees can make the difference between having a productive worker on site, or a long-term absentee who may only be off work in a caring capacity and unaware that financial support is available. | Back to top | | | | |
