]]>
Statistics:Posted by night owl — Thu 26 Dec, 2013 1:49 am
]]>
Words fail me. Maybe this will be first topic to be locked on the new forum.Perhaps they are going to turn it into a mosque and are being funded from elsewhere ? Lol.
Statistics:Posted by Darcy Sarto — Wed 25 Dec, 2013 9:18 am
]]>
Perhaps they are going to turn it into a mosque and are being funded from elsewhere ? Lol.
Words fail me. Maybe this will be first topic to be locked on the new forum.Statistics:Posted by leo densian — Wed 25 Dec, 2013 8:44 am
]]>
]]>
If in doubt of the cred of the person, do not employ.
Statistics:Posted by James007 — Tue 24 Dec, 2013 5:06 pm
]]>
Without knowning the explicit details, I would say it's pretty harsh to assume Bollywood's owners risked it.
As far as I am aware, by talking to friends in the catering industry the rules were changed a few years ago, that even if you took someone on good faith (such as, they showed your proof that they are legally allowed to work here) and subsequently was found that the details are fraudulent, the fine still applies. If they can prove you employed someone illegal on purpose the penalty could include prison.
It was introduced I believe on the basis that, owners were using the excuse they were "duped".
The size of any penalty is dependant on how much the employer has done to "vet" their workers and co-operated with the UKBA - From the UKBA website:As far as I am aware, by talking to friends in the catering industry the rules were changed a few years ago, that even if you took someone on good faith (such as, they showed your proof that they are legally allowed to work here) and subsequently was found that the details are fraudulent, the fine still applies. If they can prove you employed someone illegal on purpose the penalty could include prison.
It was introduced I believe on the basis that, owners were using the excuse they were "duped".
"The size of a civil penalty depends on the type of eligibility checks that the employer has made on its workers, the number of times when we have issued a warning or imposed a civil penalty, and the extent to which the employer has cooperated with us. The civil penalty code of practice, which is one of our guidance documents on preventing illegal working, contains more information"...
This does give them the flexibility to take into account how much "duping" has been going on. You can bet that if a substantial fine is imposed that the employer has either known they were in breach, not completing sufficient checks and/or were "uncooperative" with the agency.
Statistics:Posted by Darcy Sarto — Mon 23 Dec, 2013 1:54 pm
]]>
]]>
As far as I am aware, by talking to friends in the catering industry the rules were changed a few years ago, that even if you took someone on good faith (such as, they showed your proof that they are legally allowed to work here) and subsequently was found that the details are fraudulent, the fine still applies. If they can prove you employed someone illegal on purpose the penalty could include prison.
It was introduced I believe on the basis that, owners were using the excuse they were "duped".
While it may be the case that is correct in some cases, it does open the door, that there is always going to be the case that some people really are duped say with fake work visas.
Whether the owners of Bollywood's where "duped" or not, it's impossible from the outside to tell.
Statistics:Posted by daskier — Mon 23 Dec, 2013 9:54 am
]]>
If the owner(s) of the premises feels the need to compromise the safety of the customers (through building regulation abuse) AND continue to flout border agency employment laws then, when people don't visit the establishment, I can only see this place becoming another example of an empty value to Hertford's trade.
Statistics:Posted by James007 — Sat 21 Dec, 2013 1:50 pm
]]>
]]>
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/H ... 174354.htm
Statistics:Posted by Steve — Fri 20 Dec, 2013 12:53 pm
]]>
]]>
Statistics:Posted by Steve — Thu 19 Dec, 2013 6:23 pm
]]>