Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Can I ask quick advice about Maternity Pay. To confuse my situation I changed jobs in February so my previous employer pays my SMP (90% for 6 weeks then the standard rate for 33 weeks) and my current employer pays my OMP (full pay for 2 months then half pay for 6 months).

Question is:

Am I really eligible for both at the same time??? That means that for the first 6 weeks I am almost on double pay. Surely that's wrong. I rang payroll and they said it is definitely correct but I can't believe this is true. Obviously it would be great if it is but I'm worried about accepting it then getting a bill at a later stage when they decide it was an error. If it is wrong who should be paying me less??? Thank you!!!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/158289-advice-about-maternity-pay/
Share on other sites

Thanks Etta - It's slightly complicated in that I work for the NHS. OMP is based on continuous service in NHS whereas SMP is based on the actual hospital trust you work for. As a junior doctor I move hospitals every 6-12 months so never somewhere for more than a year. My due date Was 11/05/17. I stopped working for trust A on 2/2/17 AFTER my "qualifying week". I had worked there for 51 weeks . I then started in a new trust. The new trust has to pay my ONP as I have been working for the NHS. For 9 years. But I was not eligible for SMP. I then applied to Dept for work and Pensions for maternity allowance but they said I wasn't eligible for that as I had worked at Trust A for over 26 weeks and was there during mumy "qualifying" week. I then contacted trust A who said I was eligible for SMP from them and they are sending me a back payment to cover the 2 months pay I missed which includes the 6 weeks at 90%. Sobhabjng already received my 2 months full pay in OMP I am getting almost double. Payroll said that's fine and weren't interested when I queried this. Still nervous I am going to get a big bill months down the line....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Bit nerdy. But the traditional form of England/Wales local government was based on committees with themehmbers in proportion to the respective political parties numbers.  Blair government introduced for councils that chose it cabinet structure where the majority hold roles covering each of  former committee would decide/confirm. Additionally a Blair option for a super council leader Mayoral role such as Lewisham rather than ceremonial mayoral role who chairs council Council Assemblies of all councils. A number of councils have since moved from exec Mayoral role to cabinet basis.  Without Councillors being elected via a Proportional Voting system I personally would prefer to see a return to committee decision making structure. It ensures all Councillors have to know what they're doing rather than the ruling party leaving it to a few cabinet members and the rest just voting at Council Assemblies how they/re told. Just a personal view. 
    • With the elections coming up soon, it's interesting to note that residents over the boundary in Lewisham have a different system of local government than Southwark. Lewisham has a directly elected Executive Mayor while Southwark has kept a traditional local authority structure. Nothing is perfect, but I think Lewisham made a mistake with the Executive Mayor in that it blurs the legislative branch and executive branch of governance, and makes serious scrutiny of decisions less likely to happen - especially in a Borough like Lewisham which is essentially a one-party state. None of the political parties are offering any major reforms of local government for London, which is very disappointing since it seems obvious that having 33 local authorities - all with their own internal administrations - is not a good way to run things, when most of them are struggling even to maintain basic services.
    • My  understanding is that all developments whatever size, have to have an element of social housing…affordable housing… council housing..No longer sure of percentage but clearly less than years ago.. The point is house builders clearly make a profit or they simply would not  continue building what I refer to as modern  boxes!  Putting housing condensed or what originally was one house with land attached.  Huge development going on in Beckenham - 200 social housing and rest open market.. sited over several houses now demolished… up the road from the park on way into town centre.. might even be completed by now.. haven’t been that way in last year… certainly can’t miss it.. So, for example, let’s say a developer builds houses and flats on a site… social housing I assume would be in a separate block to other flats and I assume house as well. Ie to put it bluntly, away from main site.. Nothing wrong in that at all.  Many years ago, near Borough a developer built flats divided into blocks. . Price range £300/400,000. Social housing was in a different block…. Can’t remember how many… so families , couples etc got a brand new flat with modern kitchen and bathrooms, flooring etc  and could not even keep common parts clean.. trash thrown out and left including out of windows etc..total disregard for community and certainly not  grateful for brand new property and a home.. I hasten to add, not every flat in the social housing sector but certainly a fair few behaved that way.      
    • Please name all of the shops.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...