Changes to the Help to Buy Scheme

There will be significant changes to the Help to Buy Scheme in April.

Under the current rules, Help to Buy equity loans are available to anybody purchasing a new build home worth up to £600,000. The scheme is not limited to first-time buyers and can also be used by those looking to move home, particularly families looking to up-size and purchase a larger new build home than they would otherwise be unable to afford.

However, from April next year the Help to Buy Scheme will only be open to first-time buyers meaning those who are looking to sell their current property and buy a larger home cannot apply.

It is important to note that the official definition of a first-time buyer can be somewhat different to what clients often perceive. The question is not whether you have bought a property in the past, but whether you have owned any interest in land whether that be in the UK or overseas. If, for example, you have inherited a house in the past you are not a first-time buyer and will therefore be unable to use Help to Buy.

There will also be a significant reduction in the maximum permitted purchase price across all areas in the country apart from London. From April, the purchase price will be capped on a regional basis at 1.5x the average price paid by a first-time buyer in that area. The new maximum purchase price for each region is shown below.

• London: £600,000
• South East: £437,600
• East of England: £407,400
• South West: £349,000
• North East: £186,100
• North West: £224,400
• Yorkshire and the Humber: £228,100
• East Midlands: £261,900
• West Midlands: £255,600

Our clients who are purchasing a home in London will be unaffected by the regional changes as the cap has remained unaltered. However, those who are looking to buy a new build home in Dorking and other areas throughout the South East will see a 27% reduction in the maximum purchase price.

If you are looking to move to a larger home using Help to Buy you would need to do so before the scheme is restricted to first-time buyers. Similarly, if you are considering using Help to Buy outside London and the purchase price is likely to exceed the new regional limits you would need to do so before the changes are implemented.

If you have any queries regarding Help to Buy or any aspect of buying a New Build Home, please contact Stephen Carr on 01306 884432 or email scarr@meaby.co.uk

/by
Blogs

The new Job Support Scheme – How does it work?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak has today unveiled his new Job Support Scheme. This has been introduced as a consequence of the ongoing battle against Covid-19 which as we go into the colder months of the year is resulting in increased infections. It is also aimed at keeping the economy afloat and minimising job losses.

The Government’s current Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme is still due to expire on 31st October 2020 and employers who still have qualifying staff on Furlough are having now to contribute towards salary costs in addition to employer national insurance and pension contributions. Some larger employers are in fact entering into collective redundancy consultations with the closure of the scheme in 6 weeks’ time.

The new scheme models Germany’s Kurzarbeit (short-time work) scheme and is similar to France’s wage top-up scheme.

So what is involved and how different is it to the current job retention scheme? The main difference is that employers will be required to provide their staff with 33% of their usual contractual hours and the Government will cover some of the salary of the remaining hours that are not worked.

The Scheme is scheduled to start on 1st November 2020 and will last for a period of six months.

The aim of the new scheme is to offer staff shorter working hours in viable jobs as an alternative to making them redundant.

In relation to the hours not worked by the employee the Government will pay one third of their usual wage with the employee paying a further third on top.

To clarify this means that an employee working 33% of their normal hours would receive 77% of their pay with 55% paid by the employer and 22% paid by the Government. The amount payable by the Government will depend on the employee’s usual salary but will be capped at £697.92 per month. To qualify the employee must not be on notice of their redundancy.

All businesses are eligible even larger ones as long as they can demonstrate that their business has been adversely affected by Covid-19. It has also been stated that larger employers must not be making any dividend payments to shareholders whilst using the scheme.

Employees must also have been on the employer’s Real Time Information submission on or before 23rd September 2023. Working patterns can also vary under the scheme but each short-term working arrangement must cover a period of seven days.

The Chancellor has also confirmed that further support will be available to the self-employed by way of an extension to the Self Employment Income Support Scheme. Here a grant is payable for those who are eligible where 20% of monthly profits up to a maximum of £1875 is payable and which covers three months’ profits for the period 1st November to 31st January 2021.

There is a second grant available for the period 1st February 2021 to 30th April 2021 which may be adjusted to respond to changing circumstances.

In addition businesses can take advantage of a ‘Pay as you grow’ loan previously known as the ‘bounceback’ loan where the repayment period is being extended from six years to ten. The cut off point for applying for such loans is 31st December 2020 with a new successor loan due to be introduced in January 2021 with the details yet to be announced.

This new Job Support Scheme will be good news to many employers and employees, however the issue for many will be whether they can afford to pay 55% of salary and additional national insurance and pension costs. Although welcome, this new scheme may not be able to salvage a number of businesses especially at the SME end of the scale.

If you have any concerns about the scheme and redundancies in general then contact Steven Eckett, Partner and Head of Employment at Meaby & Co LLP 020 7703 5034 seckett@meaby.co.uk

/by

Starting an online business? What you need to know.

The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating for millions but has brought with it an opportunity for businesses to consider establishing an online business across a number of sectors. Whilst these are both challenging yet exciting times, it is important that traders who are looking to either start or continue trading online are clear on their legal obligations.

When selling to individual consumers (rather than businesses) via an online shop you must comply with the relevant consumer regulations which include the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (“the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013”), E-Commerce Regulations 2002 (“E-Commerce Regulations 2002”), and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“the Consumer Rights Act”).

The obligations on businesses selling online include the information given to parties before and after an order is placed, the right for consumers to cancel and the quality of the good and services.

Obligations on businesses before an order is placed

Cancellation Rights

When selling online, a business must inform a consumer of their rights to cancel and withdraw from the sale during the cancellation period which lasts for 14 calendar days. The cancellation period entitles a consumer to change their mind about a purchase, cancel the contract and obtain a refund including any standard delivery cost that has been paid to the business. This right to cancel is separate to the consumer’s right to return goods if they are faulty. If a business fails to tell a consumer about their right to cancel, the consumer can cancel at any time in the next 12 months after the purchase. If a business tells a consumer about their right to cancel during these 12 months, a consumer then has 14 days to cancel from when they were told about their cancellation rights. Business professionals should note that a consumer will have no right to cancel during the cancellation period where goods supplied are clearly personalised or made to the consumer’s specification. Further, a business must supply the consumer with a model cancellation form. However, businesses should be aware that whist they are obliged to provide such a model cancellation form, a consumer is not required to use it when cancelling and may cancel the contract by making any other unequivocal statement to the business confirming cancellation.

Returns policy

A business must inform consumers before an online sale if the consumer must bear the postage costs of returning goods following a cancellation during the cancellation period.

Time of payment

A business must make it clear to a consumer at what stage they are entering into the contract with an obligation to pay by using a click button e.g. “Pay Now” or something similarly unambiguous.

Other Information

Other information that a business must provide to the consumer prior to an online sale include:

A clear display on how consumers can pay including delivery options and costs.
The steps available to consumers to correct errors in their order.
The languages available for consumers who intend to place an order.
The business email address.
The business VAT number (if your business is registered for VAT).
A description of the goods, services, or digital content.

Obligations on businesses after an order is placed

Once an online order has been placed, a business must confirm the contract as soon as possible and no later than when the goods are delivered. A business should also be sure to provide a copy of the contract on paper, by email or other format which the consumer can save for future reference. Finally, a business must deliver the goods within 30 days, unless you have agreed otherwise with the consumer.

The Consumer Rights Act makes it clear that goods must be fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. If goods are found to be faulty, you must give a full refund up to 30 days after the item was purchased. If goods prove faulty up to six months after purchase and they cannot be repaired or replaced, they are entitled to receive a refund.

Should you require any assistance in relation to your legal obligations when selling at a distance, consider taking legal advice. For any more information, contact Pranav Bhanot at Meaby&Co Solicitors (pbhanot@meaby.co.uk).

/by

Manic Monday for Landlords

From 9am today (Monday) (T minus 2 minutes), the courts (after an almost six month Stay) will start to deal with residential possession proceedings including initially:

1. Issuing reactivated claims lodged but not issued because of the stay and new claims (NB the claimant must ensure that required notice periods have expired before the claim is issued; required notice periods can now be up to 6 months).

2. Serving claims.

3. Hearing stayed cases that had case management directions.

4. Hearing applications to stay or suspend a warrant or appeals.

5. Listing for Review both reactivated claims and new claims.

Please note the following key dates:

6 October 2020 – the earliest date for evictions.

19 October 2020 – first Review Dates for cases (the priority cases).

16 November 2020 – First Substantive Hearings.

Today may come as a welcome relief to some landlords who have tenants in breach of their tenancy agreements. However, the process to obtain possession of a property has become significantly more complex. Landlords and tenants should start getting used to the terms Reactivation Notices, Reviews, Covid-Markings and Substantive Hearings as these are now the new normal.

For assistance with claiming or defending possession proceedings, please do not hesitate to contact Pranav Bhanot in the litigation team at Meaby&Co Solicitors – pbhanot@meaby.co.uk

/by
Form E- divorce.
,

What is a ‘Form E’ in divorce proceedings?

Whichever way you choose to resolve property and financial issues during a divorce, it is likely that you will have to complete a Form E at some point.

Our head of Family Law, Joanna Toloczko, explains all.

What is a Form E?

A Form E requires you to set out the financial needs of yourself and your children during the divorce process.

You and your spouse must give full disclosure of all of your finances, including your income, your savings, expenses, properties you may own, and any pensions.

Filling in a  Form E can be a daunting process but we are here to help. It runs to 30 pages and requires detailed information regarding your financial circumstances and also requires you to provide documents which confirm what you have said.

Form E provides the information for your financial order.  It is a financial order in a divorce that makes your agreement as to how you will split your finances legally binding.

The process of filling in a Form E.

We make the process of filling in a Form E as painless as possible.

As a starting point, we usually ask our clients to complete a Form E in draft as we feel that it is the best way for us to get the information and documents that we require.

If we ask you to do this there is no need to worry about making a mess of the Form E or putting the information in the wrong section because it is only a draft document for us to work from.

Instead of asking you to prepare a list of your income needs on a blank page, we will provide you with a comprehensive budget form which is designed to capture all of your monthly outgoings. When preparing your monthly budget form, start with your direct debits and standing orders first. You will then need to think about your regular supermarket shopping and things that you pay for in cash.

So where do you start with the rest of the Form E?

A good place to start is at the back of the form where there is a checklist of documents that need to be attached. We suggest that you have one session where you set aside 30 minutes to an hour to gather those documents together. That is part one of the task completed.

We then suggest that you set aside another hour, or so, to complete part two of the task which is to go through your documents and extract the information needed for the form.

This process makes the task more manageable to break it into two separate chunks of time. Schedule time in your diary to deal with these tasks.

What happens once I have prepared all the information for the Form E?

Make sure that you get your completed form and documents to your solicitor at least a week before any deadline for exchange. Your solicitor will need time to prepare what is called the ‘fair copy’ and get it approved and signed by you.

Once we have the draft Form E, we will then set aside some time to start preparing the fair copy. It is when we start doing this that we can tell if there is anything still missing and if any of our client’s financial circumstances are still unclear. If this is the case, we will arrange a telephone conversation with the client to seek clarification and go through outstanding matters with them.

When the fair copy is completed we can then submit it.

If you have any queries relating to divorce or any other aspects of Family Law please contact Joanna Toloczko on 0207 703 5034 or email her at jtoloczko@meaby.co.uk.

/by

The introduction of new Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure

A new statutory instrument has been laid before Parliament this week by Business Minister Paul Scully which amends and reforms the current Employment Tribunal rules of procedure.

The proposals are set out in the new Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) ( Amendment) Regulations 2020.

The Government wants to boost capacity in the Employment Tribunal system and provide quicker outcomes for both employers and employees at a time where we are seeing increasing caseloads in the system.

The Government aims to spend £80 million of funding and provide an additional 1,600 staff to reduce delays and to deliver justice in the Employment Tribunal which has been severely affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic.

There are a number of changes that will be made to the Rules of Procedure which will affect the ACAS Early Conciliation process and which come into effect on 1st December 2020. The changes also relate to the use of legal officers and the cross-deployment of Judges which come into effect on 8th October 2020. The proposed changes are set out as follows:-

1. To allow more flexibility around virtual hearings and to roll out improvements in technology to cater for remote hearings. At present the details are sketchy and are not clear from the press release. All it suggests is that there will be a need to reduce the number of physical hearings in the future and minimise the need to travel and incur travel costs;

2. To set up more temporary Nightingale Courts;

3. Non-employment Judges will be appointed into the employment tribunal system if they have certain criteria that is met. It is not yet clear what criteria need to be met;

4. The ACAS Early Conciliation process is also being amended to allow for greater flexibility in handling minor errors. The Early Conciliation period will also increase to six weeks (compared to the current one month) with the potential to extend by a further two weeks;

5. Legal Officers (who will not necessarily need to be legally qualified) will also be appointed to undertake some of the administrative tasks that are currently performed by Employment Judges. They will for example consider the acceptance or rejection of claim forms, extend time for an ET3 to be issued or to extend time for compliance with case management orders, allowing permission to amend claims and responses where both parties consent, ordering further information, and dismissing claims by consent upon withdrawal;

6. The Rules of Procedure will be amended to allow multiple Claimants and Respondents to use the same ET forms and ACAS Early Conciliation forms to avoid multiple Early Conciliation certificates being issued for the same dispute. This will minimise repetition and save time and costs.

As with all these things the devil is in the detail which will become clearer in time.

Steven Eckett is a Partner and Head of Employment at Meaby & Co LLP. If you have any questions relating to the Employment Tribunal and its procedures then contact him on 020 7703 5034 or seckett@meaby.co.uk

/by

Tensions in an Employer’s obligations to its employees and its regulator

The judgment (published on 30 July 2020) in Ramchandani v Citibank N.A. 3200403/2014 has shone a light on the tensions an employer may experience in complying both with its internal disciplinary procedures and its obligations to its regulator. When an employer owes obligations both to its employee and its regulator, if the former cannot be properly discharged due to the instructions of the latter, what is an employer to do?

The context of this case is pivotal, both in determining the priority of the bank’s duties and in trying to limit its liability which will inevitably result from being unable to satisfy its obligations to both parties. A wider discussion on the facts of this case can be found at http://go-ri.tr.com/Y6JsAl (subscription required).

Mr Ramchandani was a managing director of Citibank, London, whose primary daily function was trading G10 FX. In June 2013, the FCA informed Citibank that it was to investigate allegations that FX rates were being manipulated.

On 9 October 2013, the FCA told the Citibank that they had seen preliminary evidence indicating that there may have been serious misconduct in the FX market in the European time zone, asked that it monitor any relevant activity and, if any concerns were raised, to contact the FCA before acting.

On 15 October 2013, the FCA informed Citibank that it was one of several banks where FX misconduct may have occurred in Bloomberg chatrooms over at least the last five years, and on the same day, Mr Ramchandani was interviewed by Citibank’s lawyers about chatroom use. The FCA provided an interview protocol which the Citibank would be required to follow if it wished to conduct interviews with employees as part of an internal investigation.

On 30 October 2013, Citibank became aware that Bloomberg news were about to publish a story naming Mr Ramchandani and he was placed on unpaid leave. It was expressly stated not to be a suspension but to allow time for an internal investigation and to protect him and Citibank from media interest. He was told that no decision had been taken and disciplinary proceeds had not started. On 4 November 2013, Citibank informed the FCA that it had conducted a preliminary interview with Mr Ramchandani and that it was in the process of collecting and reviewing his communications between 2007 and October 2013.

The letter sent by Citibank said that it planned to conduct a follow up interview with him and would discuss with the FCA enforcement team how such an interview should be conducted. On 8 November 2013, the FCA required Citibank to provide documents relevant to its own investigation, including Mr Ramchandani’s Bloomberg chats and documents.

Citibank was told that it must not disclose the detail of the confidential FCA investigation to anybody other than those who needed to be involved to produce the documents and its legal advisers. On 14 November 2013, the FCA invited Mr Ramchandani to a voluntary investigation interview. He declined and FCA did not exercise its statutory power to compel him to attend an interview.

In an email sent to Citibank, the FCA confirmed the agreement that any interview of Ramchandani by the bank would take place after he had been interviewed by the FCA, and that Citibank would be required to follow the FCA interview protocol. In early December 2013, the FCA wrote again to Citibank confirming its intention to interview Ramchandani and limiting the assistance Citibank could provide to him.

By email dated 10 January 2014, Citibank informed the FCA that it was going to terminate Ramchandani’s employment based on its review of chatroom communications, which it deemed to be evidence of gross misconduct. On the same day, Mr Ramchandani’s line manager telephoned him and told him he was dismissed for cause, but with a payment in lieu of three months’ notice. It is noteworthy that in dismissals for gross misconduct, notice pay is not normally payable.

Mr Ramchandani subsequently brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Citibank. A significant part of that claim was based upon the allegation that Citibank had not followed its own disciplinary procedures, and so the dismissal was unfair for that reason.

In her judgment, Employment Judge Russell said that from 8 November 2013, it had not been reasonably possible for Citibank to interview Mr Ramchandani due to the involvement of the FCA and the express agreement that the FCA interview must take place before a further internal interview with him. She stated that the involvement of the FCA gave rise to a “procedural impasse.”

Citibank’s actions throughout the matter were constrained by the demands of the FCA. It could not adhere to the normal chronology of “investigation meeting=>disciplinary meeting=>appeal=>dismissal=> appeal” process which complied with its internal disciplinary policy and the ACAS Code (which govern that).

EJ Russell found that dismissal was inevitable once a second batch of chats had been authorised for release by the FCA on 15 April 2014, and if there had been a disciplinary process, it was likely that it would have resulted in a fair and lawful summary dismissal within a month. She acknowledged that Citibank’s ability to follow the requirements of the ACAS Code had been restricted prior to April 2014 due to the FCA investigation.

She found that whilst Citibank was restricted in applying the ACAS code prior to April 2014 due to the concurrent FCA investigation, that was not the case from April 2014, after which date it could have complied. For instance, she said, it could have offered Mr Ramchandani an appeal once the FCA restrictions had been eased and the termination chats had been disclosed, but it had not done so. She concluded that there had been an unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code and that the appropriate uplift on an award to Mr Ramchandani was 25% for such a complete failure. This is the maximum that can be awarded in the Employment Tribunal.

The takeaway from such a case is that even in circumstances in which an employer must prioritise its obligations to its regulator over its employee, it still must adhere to those it owes to the latter, to the fullest extent possible. When its obligations to the regulator, which have prevented it from discharging its duties to its employee, have finished, it must consider all the possibilities by which it can remedy the deficiencies in its treatment of the employee. If it does not, the dismissal may be deemed to be unfair, with an uplift in any damages awarded to the employee for failing its failure to comply with the ACAS Code.

Meaby & Co are lawyers experienced in all aspects of regulatory and employment issues. Should you require advice on any aspect of employment law, including the above, please contact Chris Marshall on 0207 703 5034.

/by

Manchester based Pharmacy worker is successful in her claims for age and disability discrimination.

It has been reported  that a Pharmacy worker has been awarded more than £15,000 for age and disability discrimination, after enduring a campaign of age-based bullying by younger work colleagues.

The worker in question is Sue Walsh who was 63 years of age at the time, and who had some form of hearing impairment.  The Employment Tribunal heard that she was repeatedly mocked by younger work colleagues who were in teens and 20’s who would shout out ‘You can’t hear can you’ in front of customers.

Ms Walsh commenced employment with the Pharmacy in 2017 as a counter assistant at Rose Medical but was mocked from the outset. Her line manager was Russell Nolan aged 24.

Ms Walsh then complained to the Pharmacy Director, Martin Molyneux who told her to ‘Smile and just get on with the job’ and to ‘let it go over her head’ as the antagonists ‘were just kids’.

During the course of her employment, Ms Walsh did seek medical advice as she was embarrassed about her hearing and she was fitted with a hearing aid, however this did not stop the abuse.

Those responsible would shout from the dispensary to her at the counter until she had heard or was made aware by a customer whilst the calling became louder and more hostile.   The abuse carried on and was carried out in front of other colleagues and customers on a regular basis and over a long period of time.

Once her line manager discovered that she had complained she was subjected to increasing criticism of her work and he asked her how long she had until she retired.

In September 2018, Ms Walsh who suffered from arthritis, suffered a fall at home and hurt her back leading to her calling in sick.  Mr Molyneux then decided that this was the ‘last straw’ and then dismissed Ms Walsh the following week.

The employer tried to convince the employment tribunal that Ms Walsh was dismissed for poor performance.  However, they saw through this and decided that she had been the victim of both age and disability discrimination.

Ms Walsh was awarded £15,649.13 and £13,000 of that sum was for Injury to feeling.

It is vital that such behaviour in the workplace is nipped in the bud, and that employers adopt and follow their internal polices for example grievance policies, anti-bullying and harassment and equal opportunities, and to consider whether any reasonable adjustments are required within the workplace.

A failure to do so can be costly for the employer, even for staff with relatively short periods of employment.  More damaging for the employer is the adverse and negative publicity that this attracts and which makes it newsworthy in the media.

For more information of unlawful discrimination in the workplace contact Steven Eckett – Partner and Head of Employment at Meaby & Co LLP, Tel 020 7703  5034   E-mail seckett@meaby.co.uk

 

 

/by