Witness In Court - Claiming Lost Earnings

[Macadoodle]

WinstonWolf said:

Breadvan72 said:

The criminal courts are run on a shoestring so the money would have to come from elsewhere. Your employer is choosing to be inflexible about swapping shifts, for reasons that aren't clear.

The courts rescheduled for reasons that are not clear.

How is the courts funding his problem?

BV - I didn't mean that the waste was particularly within the criminal courts, more that tax revenue in general gets spent on things it shouldn't, where it could be more wisely allocated.

My employer isn't being particularly inflexible about swapping shifts - it's just the way it works out. There are hard and fast rules about shift work in my terms and conditions and the scope for flexibility just isn't there, unfortunately.

The offence happened back in January, and the original court date was set for July. The court wrote to me in June to say that the trial was unable to take place in July and was rescheduled for October. They didn't give a reason.

LoonR1 said:

No. It will have the impact of 4.5 hours pay less tax on a normal weekly wage of 60 hours, assuming 5 days at 12 hours per day. So it will be 7.5% gross less this week. Over a year it isn't sifgnificiant, over a moth it isnt, over a week, possibly, over a day yes.

In the week in question, I am meant to be working four day shifts (48 hours), so I don't know how that works out as a percentage of that particular week.

WinstonWolf said:

You can probably afford to lose 7.5% unnoticed, to the op it might be the difference between a full and an empty fridge.

I did a very quick rough working out, and it amounts over £120 difference between having to go to court and not having to go to court (before any expenses are claimed for). Coupled with the fact that my wife's car goes for its MOT tomorrow, the tax on my car runs out this month and last night my boiler went kaput, means it has come at the wrong time for me really (not fishing for sympathy, just saying how it is).

[Macadoodle]

Sorry, forgot to add that £120 is before tax etc. Still not peanuts.

[g3org3y]

Despite doing the correct thing, the OP is ending up a victim. Now where's all that cash from the surcharge?

[Drawweight]

Let me recap...you're losing £120 for 4 hours off your normal 12 hour shift.

Now by my simple maths this means you earn £360 per shift.

Aww diddums how can you possibly survive.

[Mound Dawg]

Drawweight said:

Let me recap...you're losing £120 for 4 hours off your normal 12 hour shift.

Now by my simple maths this means you earn £360 per shift.

Aww diddums how can you possibly survive.

Any jobs going there?

[anonymous-user]

I sympathise with the OP, and don't see him as whingeing but still wonder if his employer can't be persuaded to be more helpful om shift bookings. Ideally, the OP would be paid in full, but the cost of that, if applied to all witnesses and jurors, would be prohibitive.

[WinstonWolf]

Perhaps you could charge less seeing as you view this as a noble cause?

That would certainly help court budgets...

[anonymous-user]

How? My clients are mostly private sector clients in civil courts. None of my income comes from the Ministry of Justice or legal aid system. I pay higher rate tax on fees. If I charge less, the public purse gets less.

[defblade]

Macadoodle said:

When I made my statement to the police, I really didn't expect to end up in court. It's pretty obvious the defendant is guilty - even the police can't understand why they are contesting it.

Isn't this totally SOP? Plead NG until you get to court and see if the other side turn up, with their witnesses; if they do, change plea to Guilty with seconds to spare in order to benefit from reduced sentencing.

So don't worry, after losing your shift and making the effort to turn up, you won't be needed anyway...

[TooMany2cvs]

Macadoodle said:

I did a very quick rough working out, and it amounts over £120 difference between having to go to court and not having to go to court

If one third of your daily income is £120, then you're still getting paid £240 for that day. If you work 20 days per month, then you're earning £7,200 per month, £86,400 per year - yes, before tax.

[Whatty]

OP: Two opposing thoughts.

1. Sadly no good deed goes unpunished.
2. No one likes a squealer.

Bookmarked, if only for the sparring twixt the eclectic car collecting counsel and the bloke from the Directline ad's.

[anonymous-user]

If the OP earns well, good luck to him. PH is schizophrenic about earnings. On the one hand it's all full on private enterprise, goatee wearing and check out my Lambo innit; but on the other hand how very dare anyone have a good income.

[TooMany2cvs]

Breadvan72 said:

If the OP earns well, good luck to him. PH is schizophrenic about earnings. On the one hand it's all full on private enterprise, goatee wearing and check out my Lambo innit; but on the other hand how very dare anyone have a good income.

Not at all what I was meaning above. I have no problem with people on good pay. What I was meaning was that £120 is NOT the difference between "an empty fridge and a full one" to somebody earning near-on £90k.

[walm]

This thread is plumb full of idiocy.

I thought everybody knew that if you are up for jury duty or appearing as a witness you don't get paid!!
Frankly I think the OP's employer is being extremely generous!

To suggest that someone who is tangentially involved with the court system should cut his income - WTF??
Are we living in communist Russia?

And to cap it all, "no one likes a squealer" - what are you, ten?

Some people need to grow up.

OP - good on you for doing the right thing. No doubt this cretin will plead guilty at the last minute and you won't be needed. But - that's life.

[WinstonWolf]

walm said:

This thread is plumb full of idiocy.

I thought everybody knew that if you are up for jury duty or appearing as a witness you don't get paid!!
Frankly I think the OP's employer is being extremely generous!

To suggest that someone who is tangentially involved with the court system should cut his income - WTF??
Are we living in communist Russia?

And to cap it all, "no one likes a squealer" - what are you, ten?

Some people need to grow up.

OP - good on you for doing the right thing. No doubt this cretin will plead guilty at the last minute and you won't be needed. But - that's life.

BV is suggesting the OP should "suck it up" for the common good, but doesn't seem to want to put his hand in his own pocket...

[walm]

WinstonWolf said:

BV is suggesting the OP should "suck it up" for the common good, but doesn't seem to want to put his hand in his own pocket...

No - he clearly stated that if asked to attend for jury duty or as a witness he would suck it up.
And since he doesn't have an employer covering 75% he would be putting his hand in his pocket to a far greater degree than the OP (as a % of income).

I want the OP to suck it up too - should I be writing the government a cheque?

However, since you think the court should cover lost earnings - feel free to send Osbourne a cheque to cover it.

I guess it might be likely that BV earns way more than the OP so in terms of hardship it might well be an easier pill to swallow - but again - that is life.

BV has just as much right to any £1 he earns as the OP. Oh except for the higher rate tax he is most likely paying already paying.

Sure you can argue for EVEN higher taxes for higher earners but that is another thread!

[WinstonWolf]

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

BV is suggesting the OP should "suck it up" for the common good, but doesn't seem to want to put his hand in his own pocket...

No - he clearly stated that if asked to attend for jury duty or as a witness he would suck it up.
And since he doesn't have an employer covering 75% he would be putting his hand in his pocket to a far greater degree than the OP (as a % of income).

I want the OP to suck it up too - should I be writing the government a cheque?

However, since you think the court should cover lost earnings - feel free to send Osbourne a cheque to cover it.

I guess it might be likely that BV earns way more than the OP so in terms of hardship it might well be an easier pill to swallow - but again - that is life.

BV has just as much right to any £1 he earns as the OP. Oh except for the higher rate tax he is most likely paying already paying.

Sure you can argue for EVEN higher taxes for higher earners but that is another thread!

It's easy to say suck it up when the amounts involved are small change to you. Less so if it's the difference between being able to honour your financial commitments or not.

[walm]

WinstonWolf said:

It's easy to say suck it up when the amounts involved are small change to you. Less so if it's the difference between being able to honour your financial commitments or not.

I agree. And I think courts SHOULD cover lost earnings - but they don't.
In other news, life still isn't fair!

The OP said it was bad timing - not that £120 was the only thing between him and bankruptcy.

You're the one who keeps suggesting someone on £80-90k can't afford to fill his fridge!

His boiler's gone so he is a home-owner - the 1% (ex-London) house price inflation over the last year from the government printing money will easily put him quids in relative to this lost £120.

[SlackBladder]

TooMany2cvs said:

Macadoodle said:

I did a very quick rough working out, and it amounts over £120 difference between having to go to court and not having to go to court

If one third of your daily income is £120, then you're still getting paid £240 for that day. If you work 20 days per month, then you're earning £7,200 per month, £86,400 per year - yes, before tax.

Lot's of 'if's' there, OP stated that the first 7.5 hours are normal pay but the subsequent 5.5 hours are overtime which is the bit that makes the £120. So, to use a similar formula but assuming that the OP works a 4 day week or 48 hours I recon he's on nearer £53K per year before tax

[Macadoodle]

Wow - lots of view regarding my income!

Drawweight said:

Let me recap...you're losing £120 for 4 hours off your normal 12 hour shift.

Now by my simple maths this means you earn £360 per shift.

Aww diddums how can you possibly survive.

TooMany2cvs said:

If one third of your daily income is £120, then you're still getting paid £240 for that day. If you work 20 days per month, then you're earning £7,200 per month, £86,400 per year - yes, before tax.

£86k? That would be nice No, I don't earn that. I don't work the number of shifts that you suggested. If you go back on the thread you'll see my income is made up with a shift rate percentage premium because of the long anti-social hours I do as part of my job, its not as simple as you think.

Mound Dawg said:

Any jobs going there?

No, they are making people redundant. I'm one of the lucky ones keeping their job.

walm said:

His boiler's gone so he is a home-owner - the 1% (ex-London) house price inflation over the last year from the government printing money will easily put him quids in relative to this lost £120.

Eh? Your saying that because my house has gone up in value then it's all ok then? What an odd thing to say. How do know I'm not in negative equity?


As it happens, I had the boiler fixed today. The cost?

£120

I think that is known as Sod's Law...