Kimrummer, my previous comments still apply, don't waste our time here on something that is not relevant to this person's problems, especially something that was so long ago. Deal with such things through the proper channels, not continue whingeing, setting out Sun headline quotes with absolutely no background to enable anyone to take things in context in what is merely your attempt to try to justify the fact you did not have the b-lls or strong legal argument to push your perceived complaint through the appropriate channels.
The law was the same now as it was then, the regulation was broadly the same then as now, you had options, you did not follow them up, even through writing one letter (how much can that cost) to the IP's governing body. Nuf said.
Let's get back to the thread here.
Until a company goes into liquidation, the directors remain in full control of it. The Insolvency Practitioner has no locus standi, he can only deal with those issues that the directors formally instruct him to deal with. The sole duty to deal with employees lies with the directors. If the directors do not formally instruct the IP to do something with the employees (and that instruction must be in writing and the IP must actually be paid for his fees in doing that work before liquidation), then the IP can do nothing.
But for many companies about to go into liquidation, the directors effectively wash their hands of employee issues in the lead up to the formal meetings to put the company down. They do this because they have a number of people giving them grief all at the same time (notably the bank, suppliers, creditors, their family, other shareholders/investors and the IP as a large amount of work has to be done before the liquidation meetings), and frankly often have to keep the wolves from tehir own front door, going out to try to earn some sort of living to maintain their own family: it is a question of respective priorities. This, coupled with the fact that directors often have difficulty telling Jo or Joanne who has worked so hard for the company for so long that she is out of a job, and the fact that the directors have a duty to keep creditors losses to a minimum (by not incurring any further credit, and that means making the employees redundant immediately and this duty which s written into the law is far more important in the eyes of the law than the softer issues surrounding employees) means that they do not always address employee issues as well as they could in an ideal world. Thus, issues such as consultation go out of the window. And in any event what is there is consult about, liquidation means that the company is closing down, there is no other possible outcome for the employees, they lose their job, period.
In practice the period leading up to liquidation is a muddle, with the directors unable to do the completely right thing for the employees (such as they cannot pay them as their over-riding duty is to maintain the status quo, not make it worse for people such as the bank), and the IP not being able to do much because there is no cash to pay him and nor is he formally instructed, employees are often left in a sort of limbo for the 4 weeks or so until the liquidation.
What the original poster should be doing is asking the directors for a letter confirming her being made redundant (which she can then show to the dole office) and the forms to make claims against the government. Often in practice the IP will supply the redundancy letter, signed by the directors, and the forms to the employees. The employee should sign on immediately (if she does not do so, because she will be assumed to have done so and will have dole money knocked off her pay in lieu claim regardless of whether she received it or not). She should also send in the forms to wherever the letter on the redundancy letter says, sooner rather than later as the RPS do tend to batch claims up and will sit on forms until there is sufficient a number to pass through for that particular company.
Monies for the employees comes from the Redundancy Payments Service, part of the government, not from the company. But the RPS cannot deal with any claim forms until they have received certain forms from the Liquidator, and obviously the Liquidator can only submit forms after the company has gone into liquidation (as I said the IP has no power to do so until the Liquidator's appointment is confirmed) and he has checked the wages records/books of the company to check that what the directors and employees are saying is right. The government then take about a month or so to pay claims out (and different claims are paid at different times, a month is the minimum). That means that there is a long delay between being made redundant and when the employee gets their cash (note the cash comes direct from the RPS direct nowadays, but this still means thre will probably be an 8 week + delay). So the poster should contact her mortgage company and any other lenders, explain the position and get a payments holiday if she need one. But explain that any insurance claim forms regardling loss of income cannot be completed by the liquidator til he is formally appointed.
And obviously go out an get a job straight away!
As regards compensation for failure to consult, any such claim is paid out by the government, subject to vertain limits, but whether the employee gets anything depends on the circumstances and don't expect the RPS to pay out willingly when taxpayers' money is essentially being committed by actions of a third party, the directors, who often find themselves with hobson's choice: no ability to do the right thing. My advice, do not spend money employing a solicitor or employment specialist to help you on failure to consult, you could be spending good money chasing a pipe dream.
Finally, fill the forms out yourself, or call the RPS or IP for help on filling them out (note that neither may help until just after the liquidation). Don't waste your time and cash going to a lawyer or employment expert for help: you would be throwing good money away on something that you can do yourself. By the way Sandra, I see the engagement of an employent specialist in a liquidation scenario as more appropriate to helping highly paid employees with significant disputes, not the normal Jo or Joanne in the street who just happens to have been caught up in a liquidation: the costs of any professional, however low, cannot be justified. And don't bother going to the CAB or other free help agencies for advice, they do not have a clue in an insolvency scenario, they do not come across this often enough to build up the right bank of knowledge.
