Mr G Smith v The Insolvency Service Redundancy Payments Service: 3303728/2023
JUDGMENT
For the reasons given in the oral judgment at the hearing:[1]The Respondent must pay the Claimant £3,313.28 in respect of notice pay, £518.72 in outstanding redundancy pay, plus interest on these sums of £909.62. A total amount of £4,741.62.REASONS
[1]The Claimant claimed outstanding redundancy and notice pay from his former employer.[2]At the hearing on 12 July 2024, the Claimant attended, but the Respondent failed to attend but provided written submissions in which they explained their absence and agreed that the hearing should proceed in their absence. The submissions were taken into account by the Tribunal.[3]The Claimant provided a witness statement. The Claimant gave sworn evidence and agreed the content of his witness statement. He confirmed that he was owed £518.72 in redundancy pay, as no payment was received on 28 November 2022 as asserted by the Respondent . He also claimed £3,318.28 in notice pay which he asserted was unpaid.[4]The Tribunal was shown the judgment dated 23 July 2021 and correspondence from both the insolvency service and the administrator of his ex-employer SUK Retail Limited. Case Number: 3303728/2023 2[5]There being no evidence to contradict the evidence of the Claimant and the documents he produced, his evidence was accepted by the Tribunal.[6]The Tribunal was satisfied that these were wages which were ‘properly payable’ to the Claimant and that under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996, an unlawful deduction had been made. Further the Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant was owed the money and that he had not been paid.[7]Judgment was given for the amounts claimed, plus interest calculated from 24 July 2021 when the payment should have been made, amounting to £909.62. A total award of £4,741.62 was made. _____________________________ Employment Judge Cowen Date: …4 October 2024…………….. Sent to the parties on: 16/10/2024 For the Tribunal Office Recording and Transcription Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practicedirections/ Case Number 3303728/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr G Smith Respondent: The Insolvency Service Redundancy Payment Service[1]The Respondent’s application dated 30 October 2024, was placed before the Tribunal on 6 January 2025 and considered the same day.[2]The Tribunal concluded that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because; 2.1. The Respondent’s application for reconsideration sets out the same points raised in the Respondent’s ET3, ie. that payment has been made by BACS for the full amount of redundancy pay. The Respondent has provided no evidence to prove that payment was made to the Claimant’s bank account. However, the Tribunal heard the sworn evidence of the Claimant that the payment of £518.72 on 28 November 2022, which was asserted by the Respondent, was not in fact received by him. That evidence was not challenged and therefore the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Claimant. Case Number 3303728/2023 2.2. The Respondent, in their reconsideration application has not provided any new evidence or any other reason why the sworn evidence of the Claimant should not have been accepted. 2.3. The judgment of the Tribunal in relation to the outstanding £518.72 remains. 2.4. In relation to the unpaid notice pay, the evidence before the Tribunal was that the Claimant had attempted to engage in correspondence with the Respondent, who had failed to explain when and what they had requested from the Claimant. On the basis that there was no challenge to this evidence, there appeared to be no legitimate reason why the notice pay had not been paid to the Claimant. 2.5. The Tribunal noted that the reconsideration application does not provide any evidence, nor any explanation of why the Respondent did not provide the relevant clarification to the Claimant at the time. There is therefore no reason to reconsider the Claimant’s evidence, which was accepted by the Tribunal. 2.6. The judgment of the Tribunal that the notice pay amount of £3,318.28 remains. 2.7. Finally, the Respondent asserts that interest should only be owed from 12 July 2024, the date of the judgment against the RPS. The Tribunal does not accept this submission. Where an award is made by the Tribunal, interest begins to accrue immediately and is payable, if no payment is made within 14 days. 2.8. The current Respondent stands in place of the Claimant’s employer and is liable to pay, on the basis that the employer is insolvent. The sums outstanding therefore are the sums owed by the employer. The Tribunal therefore calculated interest from the date the employer ought to have paid the Claimant the sum, ie. 24 July 2021, as that was the date of the judgment against the employer for the notice pay amount. 2.9. The judgment of the Tribunal for interest of £909.62 remains.[3]For all these reasons the application for reconsideration has no reasonable prospect of success and is dismissed.