Terms & Conditions

[JamesPickering]

Can somebody please clarify this for me.

A lady has a pay increase from July 05 but does not receive the increased pay until December 05. On her payslips of December 05 and January 06 she has adjustments for ‘other pay arrears’ which she states is her arrears from July 05 to November 05.

Reg 79(7) seems to say that it should be apportioned over the period it covers but Zebedee, Ward and Lister state that arrears of earnings for under 60’s count as capital.

I am probably being dopey and mis-reading one of them but the lady has appealed so some confirmation of what is right would be much appreciated.

[Anonymous]

I was also under the impression that the arrears should be assessed over the period to which they relate, as stated in HBR 79(7) – arrears of pay is not mentioned in HBR 46 (income treated as capital) or Schedule 4 (sums to be disregarded in the calculation of earnings), so I don’t see what the justification for Zebedee [i:fc9651856f]et al’s[/i:fc9651856f] comment is. What’s the Zebedee reference?

[JamesPickering]

Zebedee reference = HB 79(7)

I always assumed it was over the period they cover but it’s nice not to be in he minority.

Thank you.

J

[Anonymous]

I meant the chapter/paragraph reference in Zebedee, but never mind, I found it. God knows where they’ve got that from, the word ‘capital’ does not even appear in HBR 79(7).

It never ceases to astonish me that LA staff place so much faith in Zeb…that’s the third ‘new’ mistake I’ve seen in the latest edition in recent weeks.

[Kevin D]

I agree with Andy. Income is always attributed to the period it is in respect of, unless an exception applies (such as arrears of tax credits).

Regards

[Andy Simpson]

Andy – care to list the other mistakes in Zebedee so I can update the office copy?

[Anonymous]

PM on its way, Andy

[Author]

Posts