sorry i didn't have enough space to write all.
Answer and counter claim states:
Mr ……. has requested a refund of monies held in relation to NI/tax contribution during his tenure at the ……The ……….has no issue with this sum however we are concerned that our liability to HMRC will prevail if these funds are not paid directly to them.
We requested from Mr …….. solicitors evidence that this sum has been paid directly to HMRC but have yet to be furnished with completed documents. Documents received from the claimants legal adviser have been verified by our accountants as part filled. Further to this we have made enquiries with HMRC but have faced difficulties in respect to data protection, we are continuing to pursue this enquiry with HMRC.
The claimant has been self-employed or employed in the UK since 2008- this has been verified by reference checking with business that the claimant has worked for. We have been advised by HMRC that any self employed person carrying out services for ………, who were found not to be making relevant payments to the HMRC would leave the business liable. Monies held were agreed with the claimant when the business required proof of Tax receipts, which were not forthcoming after a 6 month tenure. The Claimant was provided with accommodation at the ………during his tenure, but was ejected due to repeated theft, it was after this point the claimant requested the monies to be released. WE have requested from …….. solicitors evidence that the appropriate sums have been paid to HMRC but have yet to be furnished with completed documents. Documents received from the claimants legal adviser have been verified by our accountants as part filled. Further to this we have made enquiries with HMRC but have faced difficulties in respect to data protection, we are continuing to pursue this enquiry with HMRC. We now understand the claimant has worked in the UK without an NI until 2013 MR… CV would have led any business to believe he has legal work status.
Our counter claim relates to …..police incident were MR ….admitted continuous incidents of theft from the hotel.The matter was not pursued as we both signed a restorative Justice Form.
The claimant admitted to this sum which was video recorded. We would like to be advised how we can submit this.
Reply to this:
- 1. Save where expressly admitted the Claimant raises issue with the Defendant on each and every matter raised in her Defence.
- 2. The Claimant relies upon the Statement of Case set out in the Particulars of Claim.
- 3. It is unclear from the Defence received if the Defendant is in true dispute with any of the Claimant’s claim, subject to any right of set-off she may seek to assert, although has not presently asserted, in relation to the counter claim issued and which the Claimant responds to separately below.
- 4. Whilst at section 1 of the Defence the Defendant only appears to admit the sum of £2,482.32 at section 3 the Defendant admits that she has no issue with the sums claimed by the Claimant, save that they are being retained on account of potential tax liabilities, which concurs with an email received from MR…… of the Hotel on the 15 April 2013 and which stated “I have just been advised by our accounts department that £3444.49.39 Has been held for Tax and that £1512.94 was held as the last invoice”. To the extent that the Defendant denies holding anything other than £2,482.32 in respect of tax then the Defence received fails to identify what grounds, if any, the Defendant takes issue with or seeks to defend the remainder of the Claimant’s claim.
- 5. As for the reasons given by the Defendant as to why payment has been withheld, there is no evidence the Claimant will or has failed to account to HMRC for all tax due on earnings received or of any formal demand having been made directly to the Defendant by HMRC. The Defendant’s concerns that she may yet be held accountable to HMRC are unfounded.
- 6. In relation to the Defendants assertions that evidence of declaration of income to HMRC has been requested but not provided, this was sent to her on the 2 April 2013 and following a request dated 1 March 2013 for proof that “monies paid by the Hotel have been accounted for via TAX returns plus associated costs & Self Assessment for the period 2011-2012 & 2012-2013”. At that time the Defendant was provided with a copy of those relevant pages only of the Claimant’s 2011-2012 tax return and which had been submitted online to HMRC on the 25 February 2013 and identifying a self-employed turnover of £17,162 to the end of the financial year. The Defendant was also reminded that the time for submission of a tax return for the then current tax year had not yet arisen but that the Claimant would be complying with his obligations in this regard in due course. The Defendant in her defence says the copy extract of the tax return provided is believed to have only been part filled, although does not elaborate further, and did not request any additional evidence of accounting to HMRC at any time following the 2 April 2013 or, indeed, indicate any reason why the sums continued to be retained. Whilst the Defendant did indicate she would respond further within 21 days no such response was ever reached.
- 7. The Defendant also appears to be suggesting that the Claimant was providing his services to her illegally, because he was awaiting a national insurance number at the time. This is firmly denied. As a Bulgarian National the Claimant is entitled to work in this country on a self-employed basis without permission. The Claimant applied for and has since received a National Insurance Number and is registered with HMRC for tax purposes.
- 8. As regards XXXXX XXXXX of repeated theft these relate to the counterclaim issued and are dealt with separately below.
- 9. For the reasons given above the Claimant does not believe the Defendant has a valid defence to the claim, or valid reason to withhold the sums claimed.
- Defence to Counterclaim
- 10. Save where expressly admitted the Claimant raises issue with the Defendant on each and every issue of her Counterclaim.
- 11. The Claimant admits that the Defendant terminated his services when he admitted eating three eggs from the Defendant’s kitchen on the 5 December 2012. However, the Claimant denies there was any theft or that the items eaten came to the value of £2,390 as claimed and the Defendant is put to strict proof as to all items it is alleged the Claimant took and their value, as paid by the Defendant.
- 12. Whilst working in the Defendant’s kitchen the Claimant witnessed several chefs regularly taking food from the kitchen to eat and believed this to be with the Defendant’s permission. On the 5 December the Claimant ate three eggs and, when asked where they had gone, confirmed he had eaten them. When asked he also confirmed that on a few other occasions, but certainly not to the extent asserted by the Defendant, he had eaten other food items but only when the kitchen was so busy he did not have time to take sufficient breaks and purchase food elsewhere. At all times this was in the mistaken belief it was permitted. As a result of this the police were called and the Claimant’s services terminated. At no time did the Claimant admit to eating the equivalent of £2,190 worth of food and the Defendant is put to strict proof in relation to the same. As set out at paragraph 6 of the Claimant’s particulars of claim he believes the value of the items eaten would not have exceeded £50 and has already given the Defendant credit for this.
- 13. The Claimant denies any further sums of money are owing, or that the Defendant has a valid counterclaim against the Claimant as alleged or at all.
And my question is if you were defendant/hotel what would you do? Or what should I be afraid/prepared to?