Author: Alexis Asher

The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR) are due to come into force on 1 October 2011. Employers need to be aware of the changes these Regulations bring, if running an employment agency or using agency workers as a hirer. Below we look at the main impact of the Regulations in some more detail.

Equal treatment
The main aim of the Regulations is to create equality between agency workers and directly employed employees.
The Regulations provide agency workers with the right to be told of any relevant vacancies at the user’s company during the assignment and the right to be treated no less favourably than a comparable worker in relation to collective facilities and amenities. These rights will be available to agency workers from day one of an assignment (“day-one rights”).
If the agency worker has worked for the same hirer in the same role for 12 weeks, he/she will be entitled equal treatment to that of a comparable employee in relation to rights such as holiday, rest breaks and pay etc as well as access to job vacancies within the hirer’s business.

Your obligation as an agency
If you run an employment agency it is your obligation to ensure that the agency worker is receiving equal treatment by enquiring about the relevant information from the hirer.

Your obligation as a hirer
As a hirer, you must ensure that you comply with the Regulations and that you provide the relevant information to the employment business upon request.

You are prohibited from structuring your business in a way which is intentionally aimed at avoiding the provisions of the new regulations, e.g. you must not move the agency workers round within the business so that they do not fulfil the 12 week qualifying period.

The regulations come into force in October so you must ensure that you and your business are prepared to deal with the changes. You should start by answering the following questions:

1.Do you tend to use agency workers for 12 weeks or more?
2.Do you know who the comparators would be in relation to each agency worker?
3.Do you know which information the employment agency is entitled to request from you?
4.Do you know the impact of the new regulations to your business including costs?
You must ensure that you fully understand the changes and your obligations. There are many factors to take into account and precisely what you need to know will depend on the nature and structure of your business.

The risk in non-compliance has not yet been determined fully, and this is an area that will evolve through case-law. However, failing to understand and implement the required measures could have costly consequences both financially, and for the reputation of your company.

Further Information
If you are interested in learning more about the AWR changes or how it affects your business, come along to one of our free ‘Temporary (Agency) Workers -Equal Treatment’ Seminars. To find out more or to book your place, click here.

Contact Us
For further information or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact Alexis Asher at our St Albans office by email at alexis.asher@salaw.com or on 01727 798023.

Author: Chris Alexander

Misrepresentation claims in property transactions are notoriously difficult to succeed with. When the recession hit, I saw an increase in clients wanting to explore misrepresentation claims as a means of escaping the consequences of contracts that they had entered into, alleging that the agents had promised them the earth but that the vendor had only contracted to provide them with the moon.

The best way to protect yourself against these circumstances is always to ensure that the contract fully reflects the parties expectations and if some of those expectations are not going to feature in the contract that everyone is at least aware of this. However, there will always be some circumstances where a disagreement will emerge some time after exchange of contracts…

To read the full article click here.

Author: Steve Kenneford

What is Chancel Repair Liability?
Chancel Repair Liability is both a confused and confusing area which dates back to medieval times. Many churches in England and Wales, previously ministered by rectors, were acquired by monasteries which then became responsible for the church chancel (the space around the altar at the east end of a traditional church). However when Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries the responsibility passed to new owners and, down the years, successors in title. Hence we arrive at the situation of today where potential liability falls upon present day successors.

Could this affect me?
The potentially dramatic effect of Chancel Repair Liability was highlighted in the case of Aston Cantlow v Wallbanks which was heard in The House of Lords in 2003. Mr & Mrs Wallbanks were asked to pay approximately £10,000 towards the cost of repairs to the local church chancel. They agreed but sought to make their co-operation conditional upon the church waiving any future claims. The church refused and the matter was referred to the Court. Mr & Mrs Wallbanks lost and were ordered to pay a repair bill of approximately £250,000 (by the time the case reached Court significant problems with the foundations had also been identified) and also legal costs of around £200,000…

To read the full article click here.

Author: Jacqueline Button

St Albans is a bustling market town 22 miles north of London with expensive houses, high end shops and a multitude of pubs and restaurants. It has done well in the recession with shops opening where in other towns they have closed although there are still empty shop units, particularly at the north end of the town. St Albans is popular with tourists and, although it is fairly well served by hotels one operator, Premier Inn, has seen a gap in the market and wants to fill it.

2000 years ago Verulamium was the first major stop for travellers heading north on Watling Street. It had, as far as we know, expensive town houses, a forum, basilica and theatre. It prospered in Roman times although, as no copies of Retail Week’s forerunner Vendere Hebdomas survive, there are no records of shop unit vacancy rates.

As an important trading centre and the Roman equivalent of motorway services Verulamium would have contained a selection of places to stay for all types of visitor from the luxury guest villa with en suite bath house to the budget hostelry – rooms for 29 sestertii a night with hire 2 slave girls get 1 free offers. As Lenny Henry’s Roman ancestor might have said “omnia princeps nisi pretium”.

Premier Inn is a budget hotel operator and it really does offer rooms from £29 a night and has a stay 3 times get 1 night free offer. It has submitted a planning application for a 4-5 storey 125 bedroom hotel with gym facilities at the north end of St Peters Street. Three empty shops (including the old McDonald’s unit) form part of the development site and will be revitalised as either shops or restaurants.

This is surely a good decision. St Albans is a tourist destination not only in its own right but also because of its proximity to London (where, lets not forget, a fairly big sporting event initiated by the Roman’s Greek rivals, is taking place next year). More tourists means more spending in shops and restaurants and on local services. The north part of the town will receive a much needed boost and a medium sized hotel will create a large number of jobs.

So everyone is happy about it? No, of course not. A debate on the Review website became heated as residents objected to both the location and the quality of the proposed hotel and, most vehemently, its design. Artists’ impressions of the new development are shown here.
And copies of the full planning documents can be viewed on the Council’s website.  The drawings, other than the fact that they are as bland as all artists’ impressions, don’t look too bad. Clean, smart and just a little bit unimaginative but not, according to the Review’s readers good enough for historic St Albans with our beautiful cathedral and clock tower. Oh, and those expensive houses.

Much has been written about the government’s proposed changes to planning laws (including by myself here) and, in particular, the concept of localism which is supposed to give councillors, communities and individuals more say in the development of their area. People (particularly the people of St Albans it seems) are sceptical about the new proposals and fear that the power promised to people to control development in their neighbourhood will be overridden by economic concerns.

Premier Inn are a reputable company and their hotels are popular. Some residents might think that a budget hotel doesn’t fit with St Albans’ upmarket image but they are ignoring the true history of the historic town as a trading centre and staging post.  Surely any development at the north of the town is better than none and the extra money the new hotel will bring will be welcome to the local economy. As for the design, there are some beautiful buildings in St Albans but there are plenty of ugly ones too and something plain and inoffensive certainly won’t make the balance worse.

The planning application has only just been submitted and it will be interesting to see how it progresses – with or without the input of the local community.

Author: Jacqueline Button

Most people who encounter it agree that the planning system in England is cumbersome, complex and confusing. Whether you’re putting a conservatory on your house or redeveloping a town centre you’re at the mercy of laws riddled with jargon, inconsistencies and red tape. You will encounter the local authority with its members and planning officers and committees and delegated powers and you might emerge with a planning consent or you might not. And either way you will have spent time and money on the process.

Earlier this year the government announced an overhaul of the system producing a framework which will be “localist in its approach, handing back power to local communities to decide what is right for them” according to Planning Minister, Greg Clark. He also promised that the new system would be “simpler and swifter”.

Most people agree that a revamp is desperately needed but the rows over the details began immediately. According to the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) an organisation which represents landowners and rural business the policy is too cautious and doesn’t address the lack of rural housing or sustainable jobs.

But other bodies representing rural interests take a different view. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) says the new laws will have “grave consequences for the English countryside and the character of our towns and villages” whilst the National Trust (NT)  says the framework “fails to protect the everyday places that local communities love.”

Meanwhile the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) is optimistic about the proposals and said that “a pro-growth approach must fast become reality on the ground with local councils saying yes to business growth and expansion far more than they do at present”.

So which of these acronyms is right?

In support of its argument the NT produced (in a more bizarre than alarmist manner) an aerial shot of Los Angeles with its high rise buildings and dense development but they can’t seriously fear than England’s green and pleasant land is going to be transformed by the proposed new laws into Beverley Hills with bad weather.

The CPRE in a more balanced response said that it welcomed “much of the thinking” behind the framework but worries about the “crude focus on economic growth”.

The government (of course) defended the proposals as encouraging “opportunities for sustainable growth to rebuild the economy” and says they commit to protecting the greenbelt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest and specifically deal with other environmental issues like electric car charging points and renewable energy projects.

Excessive development and development in the wrong place should be avoided at all costs and new laws need to make sure this does not happen. But the fact of the matter is that England needs development. The number of people owning their own homes is at the lowest level since the 1980s. House building is needed as is commercial and social development to go with that new housing.

The Home Builders Federation (who perhaps call themselves the HBF) justifiably accuse the NT of “scaremongering” and correctly say that the new policy must “focus on the wider needs of the country not the narrow focus of the few.”

The framework is now the subject of a 12 week consultation period. Whatever the outcome of that consultation it looks as if the rows will run and run.

Related Posts: Not so Premier – Jacqui Button comments on the planning application for a Premier Inn Hotel to be constructed in St Albans and the concept of localism issues following the proposed planning law changes.
Click here to read the post.

Author: Ben Ashworth

Following the recent decision in Paymex Ltd v Revenue & Customs, European Law has again shown its potential to cause complications for Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) engaged in Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs).

Commonly, where an individual comes to an arrangement with their creditors by entry into an IVA, a Supervisor is appointed to collect income contributions from the individual and make payment to creditors. The Supervisor is of course, entitled to charge a fee of this, but following Paymex,  there is now real doubt as to whether VAT can be charged on the same.

In Paymex, The First Tier Tax Tribunal held that the services of an IP in respect of an IVA, including both the nominee and supervisory stages, constitute a single exempt supply for VAT purposes, under Article 135(1) (d) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112/EC (the “Directive”).

The article explains that Member States shall be exempt from VAT in transactions concerning: negotiations about debt and payments, transfers, cheques and other negotiable instruments (i.e., payment handling). The decision in Paymex found that payment handling was the main duty of an IP in performing a supervisory role in an IVA. As such, The First Tier Tax Tribunal held that such services are exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 135(1) (d) of the Directive.

As a consequence of Paymex, IPs can expect individuals subject to an IVA, to argue strongly for a refund of VAT payments made in respect of Supervisor’ fees. Some comfort may however be had, by The HMRC’s brief, which confirms it will not be challenging the Paymex decision and by that, invites IP’s to make claims for any overpayment of VAT, in respect to the provision of supervisory services in an IVA.

Contact Us

For further information about our Litigation and Dispute Resolution services or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact Ben Ashworth at our St Albans office by email at ben.ashworth@salaw.com or on 01727 798058.

© SA LAW 2011

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.