Psychic News, SNU Spiritualist National Union and Liquidator

People may remember this news when the SNU published it

Perhaps people will find this latest "NEWS" posted on the SNU website on 10 November 2010 of interest.

Nevertheless, the Directors of the Spiritualists' National Union recognise that Psychic Press (1995) Limited was run on a profit making basis for the Spiritualists' National Union over a long period of time and that many long standing customers stand to be adversely affected by this liquidation.

The Directors are therefore making an application to the Charity Commission for authorisation to provide financial assistance to the creditors. The success of this application is not guaranteed and the outcome will be announced on this website in due course.

I had hoped to hear that the people they were going to help would be the very worst affected...Their Ex Employees and the SNU were seeking to pay out the full amount due to them because of the terrible hardship they had caused, a sum of 33,500 pounds Leslie Price's report on the Creditors Meeting now tells us.

But no that is not the case, there is no overwhelming sudden fit of conscience. As we now see in that report they are urgently going to try to help employees access the Government Funds, which will be probaly for a substantially smaller amount than they should have received.

No from what we understand, from Leslie's report, the SNU are seeking Charities Commission permission to repay subscribers for the copies of PN they never received not for any of the other creditors.

Now there are two factors about this:

Firstly a large proportion of affected subscribers are likely to be SNU members and Churches. It could appear they are making it up to this group, although it is hardly a major threat to their livelihood, as it has been to the staff. I am not sure how they will feel to have been picked out as a priority over the mistreated staff.

The second factor is that many subscribed after the date either the directors, or the working party, knew they were going to liquidate the company. Therefore they took money for goods they knew would not be supplied which may be considered a serious matter. Therfore maybe, like the ticket refunds, they are looking for a way to put this right. One wonders whether the SNU are just adding it to the debt owed to them by Psychic Press or accepting it as their own contribution

It is probably immaterial because at best they will get little of that money back, just like the other creditors. Just think they claimed a debt of 40,000 pounds in Leslie's report and to this will now be added 10,700 pounds for subscribers plus, presumably, this Liquidators fees, plus maybe more legal fees. The NEC could well be writing off around 60,000 pounds in total. This compared to receiving their outstanding debt if they had sold the whole Company, including masthead and archives to the JV Trust in August.

The SNU have added a brief statement to their announcement re Psychic Press
http://www.snu.org.uk/news/pp1995-cvl01.htm

ASSET REALISATIONS:

The Spiritual Truth Foundation (STF) and the Spiritualists’ National Union (SNU) have agreed to discuss the identity and the ownership of the disputed assets with the Joint Liquidators and further updates will be provided in due course.
(Added: November 15th 2010)
________________________________________
APPOINTMENT OF JOINT LIQUIDATORS:
Patricia Marsh (Office Holder Number: 9592) and Clive Hammond (Office Holder Number: 2112) of Marsh Hammond & Partners LLP, Peek House, 20 Eastcheap, London EC3M 1EB were appointed joint liquidators of Psychic Press (1995) Limited on 15th November 2010 by resolutions of the members and creditors.
Copies of the post appointment notices and notifications will be posted on these pages over the next few days.

In the meantime, all enquiries concerning this liquidation should be directed to Andrew Morris or the joint liquidators at Marsh Hammond & Partners LLP:
Tel: 020 7220 7892
(Added: November 15th 2010)
________________________________________

This confirms their agreement with the facts given in Roy Stemman’s Paranormal Review and is probably one of the most positive steps that have been achieved. We can only await the outcome with interest.

We also know that at last the new Liquidators are moving to try and get some relief, from the Government Scheme, for the staff before Christmas. We must all hope this will alleviate some of their problems.

Any other outcomes will obviously be discussed between the Liquidator and the Creditors Committee, before we come to know them, as they are released to the public.

I give my best wishes to all parties concerned in achieving a final outcome to this very sad and distressing saga.

Clearly many are very sad at the demise of Psychic news as an Independent Spiritualist Newspaper. Many believe that the NEC should have accepted either the offers of financial help to keep the paper running or the opportunity to sell the company with all of its debts and assets (including the Masthead and Archives) to the JV Trust. For whatever reason this has not happened and the SNU have continuously intimated they will keep these assets, which they believe they own. Therefore we must rely on this final attempt to resolve the disagreement over the rights to that ownership.

If the STF are right then clearly the Liquidator will put these up for sale to the highest bidder. If the SNU are right they will keep them and have to go on to resolve the issue of trademarks with Sandra McFadden before they can bring the name back into use.

The issue of Sandra McFadden’s registration is a complication in either situation. However, with no trade mark registered by anyone, prior to that registered by her company in September 2010, I would believe any existing intellectual property rights would rely upon 78 continuous years of existence as a publication. I really believe that, if this is all Psychic News can rely upon, then the right lives and dies with Psychic Press (1995) Ltd. Possibly even dying with the publication of the last issue because of the impending liquidation.

Superficially it seems there was nothing for the SNU to take into its own ownership. To claim the right to a formal asset, that never existed as a legal entity, does seem rather strange. It may appear that it would require binding agreements between the SNU and Psychic Press (1995) to allow the NEC to claim that they inherited the right to the masthead through its continuous existence because they had in some way licensed its use to Psychic News

To a great extent the final referee, the liquidator, is now in play, trying to resolve the ownership and hopefully consider the complicating trade mark issues. I would imagine that before a final resolution is reached some legal expertise may need calling in.

To a great extent, although the creditors committee can have some influence, the same may be said of the rest of the liquidation, it is in the hands of the liquidator. With negligible assets there is little to realise or share with creditors. It appears that any creditors who may have been specifically disadvantaged by the liquidation, ticket holders and possibly subscribers are being paid out by the owners.

It may seem to many that the reason for this is plain to see, if you look at the law concerning directors liabilities with regard to monies paid for goods they knew (or could reasonably expected to know) would not be delivered. Monies collected like this should not be used to finance a company’s activities or existing debts.

Although many will disagree with the way this whole matter has nbeen conducted the Directors acted when the company was discovered to be effectively insolvent. They made the choice to consult a liquidator and pass a resolution to liquidate the company on a date to be decided by the Executive Director, a decision that we are told was ratified by the NEC on June 12th. We then hear that the intended immediate liquidation was cancelled because of the arrival of more funds.

Looking at the UK Law, from the directors’ point of view on personal liability for debts incurred, we enter the “twilight zone” from this date. However this is only for the increase in debts from that date onwards. Directors are not penalised for the debts prior to the date they became aware they may be insolvent or when they moved to take action. The problem for a liquidator to establish is the date from which the increase in debts can be measured.

Looking at this I believe the date should be based upon the NEC’s resolution, on June 12th, to accept the Directors’ decision to liquidate. There was an immediate flurry of activity to liquidate the company with effect from June 13th.

The decision to hold off was only because some extra cash was received, however, there is a strong case that this should have been banked to help pay for the liquidation. Both the directors and NEC were then aware the company was not covering its expenses by trading. They had a reasonable expectation of an increase in the debts that would remain unpaid.

So we could use this as a start date to measure how much more debt was incurred up to the appointment of this liquidator.

Or we could if the liquidator was likely to act upon this for a wrongful trading action. Interestingly, although this is far less difficult than a charge of insolvent trading, carrying none of the stigma of an illegal act, apparently it is rarely used in the UK. So we may assume it is unlikely, in the circumstances of this liquidation, that it will be done in this case. Clearly the NEC should be grateful this was not occurring in the Australian system.

Looking at the debt we can establish a few things about any possible increase from June 13th. Well since then the ticket holders have been repaid and now it appears that subscribers may also be paid out. It would be interesting to know where these debts will finally reside.

I would expect there may be a few suppliers of goods (i.e. books) that may fall into the category of increasing the debt and this would be of interest.

My guess is the biggest build up of debt would be to the owners in ongoing costs. The delays in liquidation were also, to some extent, legally justifiable i.e. negotiating with the JV Trust. I also doubt that, apart from paying Berleys, much extra debt was incurred after the staff left the company. Indeed if it did increase it is most likely that this was debt to the SNU itself.

To a liquidator, looking at these facts, given the owners freely incurred these extra costs to put matters right, there would be little on which to take an action against the directors. This is especially true given the normal practice in UK Liquidations, to not seek to deliberately penalise Directors unless there is substantial proof of wrongdoing.

It may appear that the sole hope of other creditors, to receive any money from this liquidation, is a resolution of the ownership issue in favour of Psychic Press (1995) allowing them to be sold. With the strong feelings of both sides on this matter that will be an interesting argument.

It would still be interesting to see what comprised the increase in debt. Of the 130,000 pounds, 33,500 pounds was for the staff, a figure that is unlikely to have changed by much, 10,700 is to subscribers. That leaves 40,000 to the SNU and about 45,800 to other creditors. Probably much larger numbers than one would expect.

I am sure the creditors committee will seek some form of breakup of the date the debts were incurred to review this. Clearly if some of the books or paid orders for advertising were received very late in the proceedings they should have been returned and not taken into the Company to generate revenue now expended while the debt is left.

It would also be interesting to see what raised the debt owed to the SNU. Clearly they would be a debtor for the rent due on the offices but I cannot believe that is all this amount is for.

If they made payments on behalf of Psychic Press, to staff, or for goods and services then they have already done something they said was not allowed. From the first they said that as a Charitable Organisation they could not support Psychic Press (1995). This is reinforced by the statement that they have to seek permission before paying out subscibers.

I am sure many of us would like to know what is made up in that debt owed to the SNU on teh basis of this information.

Whichever way it goes, in the final outcome it appears that, although we may disagree with the strategy chosen by the SNU, the way it was executed and their need for prompting to put some matters right, the NEC may have ensured that the legalities were observed.

So we may comment on the things that we feel they should have done instead of liquidation but essentially, it may appear, not on the legality of their actions (unless something comes out of this liquidation to change that view).

I have looked long and hard at this once again and believe that, notwithstanding the way that the UK law seems to operate in favourable terms for the Company Directors, it is well worth re visiting the way the law is written.

However, once a company has entered the “twilight zone” ( that is the period when they are our should be aware they are insolvent), directors are under a legal duty to concentrate on protecting the interests of the creditors rather than those of the shareholders. Section 172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 states that the duty to “promote the success of the company” is subordinated to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company. By way of illustration, directors should avoid allowing the company to incur further losses or greater liabilities (such as loans), even though shareholders might wish to try and trade out of the financial difficulties. Similarly, directors should also take care to avoid disposing of company property at less than its market value or preferring one creditor unfairly over another.

Very critical rules to follow and the real issue is, did the directors and the “shadow directors” the NEC, fulfil their obligations.

Did the Directors truly act in the interests of the Creditors? Surely this is an issue the Liquidator and their Creditors Committee must look at.
This should be dependent upon what other options these Directors had to prevent losses to the creditors.

When I look at the way the UK rules function the Directors would never have been punished for their attempts to resurrect the company by trying to work with other ideas to keep Psychic Press (1995) Ltd going. Even now this legal approach is made clear by the gentle way the liquidators wish to treat the Directors at this point in time.

We know that, after June 13th, with their original determination to liquidate Psychic Press (1995) the Directors received offers of funds to clear the outstanding debts and to promote Psychic News.

Was that not in the better interests of the creditors? This was an opportunity to restructure Psychic Press with the good will of everyone involved. No Creditors would have lost their money in this restructure and if they had it would have been with their willing participation. It is clear that that would have galvanised Spiritualists to action

Then after rejecting that opportunity, was it not better for the creditors that the JV Trust offer be accepted. This would have ensured that all Creditors were paid out. We know that the SNU refused because they claimed ownership of the masthead and archives. However, it is clear that there is a reasonable dispute over this, surely in the interests of the creditors they should just have been sold to the JV Trust.

In what way has the behaviour of the Directors in the twilight zone been to the interest of the Creditors?

Oh well a few extra thoughts I hope the Creditors Committee will discuss these, in relation to the “twilight zone” with the liquidator.

Just Remember, if the SNU repays the subscribers and pays this liquidator they will have lost over 60,000 pounds, other creditors over 45,000 pounds and their staff over 33,000 about 140,000 pounds lost to compare to nothing lost its a big turnaround.

the answer to how owns it, is nither. As I had a statment that they made and a copy of the last paper, telling, that it would finnish, The last isuss stated that It was printed by psychic Press (1995) limited, the sme paper that said it was finnished,

A company can not hold on to goodwill if they are not traiding, I have post trade marked this name, and regiserd it as a company, I have been told that my trade mark will go through and that the only people who could have opposed my trade mark, is someone with an earyar trade mark. As no earlyer trade mark existed, then my mark will go through.
As for Passing off, you can only clame that if the company is up and running at thr time of my aplication. the SNU can not file Passing off as they do not own anything, because their was no owenership after the paper publicley anounced in to seperate media that it was finnished.
All my papers are put into safety for now,but maybe the both groups should be looking into other legal paper work, that a news paper needs.
why do you not both go and put out a Spiritual newspaper, and exept that the other one is there. I have no problems in putting mine out, with in the next month. Thanks for giving me a great story, I have got five thousand copys going out to many counters. The name: you will just have to wait till the week before. But if I can, then it will be lanched anouncing the name on this site;

Regarding the statement issued by these two organisations viz.

"The Spiritual Truth Foundation (STF) and the Spiritualists' National Union (SNU) have agreed to discuss the identity and the ownership of the disputed assets with the Joint Liquidators and further updates will be provided in due course."

Has there been any progress at all even to arranging a date for the meeting?

I was just wondering about that myself Z and thinking of posting about it too

Lis wrote:May I draw to everyone's attention the latest posting by Roy Stemman on

http://www.paranormalreview.com/articles/20101116

Of particular interest is the information that as "a result of discussions that took place at that meeting, the following statement has been issued, under the heading "Asset realisations":

"The Spiritual Truth Foundation (STF) and the Spiritualists" National Union (SNU) have agreed to discuss the identity and the ownership of the disputed assets with the Joint Liquidators and further updates will be provided in due course."

I am sure that many will follow with great interest the progress and outcome of such discussions.

Well that was a month ago and there has been silence. I wonder if anything is actually happening, will they soom announce an agreement on the subject or was this just a delaying factor from the liquidator to take the heat out of the creditors meeting. Is it happening, did it happen with no result, or is it something the SNU/Liquidator never really intended to follow through?

Anyone got any ideas?

What a bloody shambles!

zerdini wrote:Regarding the statement issued by these two organisations viz.

"The Spiritual Truth Foundation (STF) and the Spiritualists' National Union (SNU) have agreed to discuss the identity and the ownership of the disputed assets with the Joint Liquidators and further updates will be provided in due course."

Has there been any progress at all even to arranging a date for the meeting?

Does anyone know anyone from STF who could be asked if discussions are happening?

I have been asked to a meeting, to discuss the disputed assest, but it will not be set up until January, I will keep you posted of the outcome.
This only came about after the letter from Intelectual property telling me that I can clam cost, on the SNU, and that They had no registers trade mark to raise the oposistion agains.
Ps anyone out thier Intrested in Spiritualims, and helping people uplifting them and supporting other at thier time of need, goveing hard proof that life is eternal and that we do go on to the next level, (where we face what we have done to other ). it would be nice to talk with anyone on that level.

Thanks publiceye. I would still like to hear if the SNU-STF talks have happened because they were the subject of a public statement

I have been told that is what this meeting is about, because, they can't agree to owne something if they nither of them own it. I have ofered to go to london to save everyone coming to Scotland, to save time with is, I also know of several people who have regiserd an intrest in the assests of the company, one of them a very welthy business man who ownes several companys. So I would emagin that the assets will go at a very heafty sum.

publiceye wrote:I have been told that is what this meeting is about, because, they can't agree to owne something if they nither of them own it. I have ofered to go to london to save everyone coming to Scotland, to save time with is, I also know of several people who have regiserd an intrest in the assests of the company, one of them a very welthy business man who ownes several companys. So I would emagin that the assets will go at a very heafty sum.

Publiceye, I'm confused. Have you been told that your meeting is about ownership of the disputed assets? If so, that's worrying because I understood your issue with the SNU concerned the trademark only. The central party in the assets dispute is the STF, former owner of Psychic News, and I don't see how any progress can be made without those pre-publicised discussions taking place between SNU and STF. But perhaps I have misunderstood and you are a potential bidder for the assets?

No my issues with the SNU go much more than that, they have sent me a leagal format document, acusing me of passing off a company that I do not own, which incidenaly I do own. I also have a dispute on my trade mark, without the gounds as I was the first person to regiser that trade mark and I have several documents to prove that The company Psychic Press 1995 where no longer trading with that name, and that they only used it as the mame of a newspaper and not a company trade mark.
As I have only ever discused this on the telephone and it seams to me that it has been disused else where and I know that I have never discused it then I will not coment any more untill a take legal advice, because I feel there is a change that I am being mislead.

A wise idea publiceye, I would take care at that meeting too. Maybe the SNU know that they cannot use the title Psychic News now because they never ensured it was safeguarded. While Psychic Press was publishing they had a prior usage right going back 82 years.

However the SNU ceased that publication and the prior use will have died with Psychic Press and be liquidated with it unless it is resurrected and resumes publication of Psychic News relying upon that history. Now we know that would be too expensive to do so they may see a cheaper option to buy your Company and Trade Marks.

Interesting to see how your meeting goes provided the trains can get through the snow.

publiceye wrote:Ps anyone out thier Intrested in Spiritualims, and helping people uplifting them and supporting other at thier time of need, goveing hard proof that life is eternal and that we do go on to the next level, (where we face what we have done to other ). it would be nice to talk with anyone on that level.

Yes it would be nice to get back to doing just that publiceye wouldn't it not having to keep this fight going on. From what I can see it is going to cost the SNU an awful lot to get what they thought they could obtain for virtually nothing with the original Liquidation idea. I do hope the SNU members insist that the full costs are seperated out and identified for them to see at the next AGM.

Hmm Time slips by, I notice we still have no news about the meeting that was meant to occur, in which the liquidator, STF and SNU were going to discuss the ownership of the assets. The delay seems extraordinarily long.

I notice also that there is no news on whether the poor staff have received any money yet. All the creditors will realise their debt has long gone but this ongoing treatment of the staff is shocking.

To cap it off the SNU are paying out what must be large sums of money in the liquidation costs. Then, posting a comment to an article on Spirit of PN, I notice that someone is reporting that they have heard the SNU are paying a half a million pounds for a new centre. If this is true then why did they feel unable to help their staff financially.

Then we have to ask some questions - how did they find the money, where is the centre and what is the purpose? I would not have thought the SNU would have the money for this purpose so one may assume, if it has occured, then it might be the AFC. If that is the case what is it for, are they planning a new training centre, in a place more easily accesible to everyone in the country, which would suggest a more central location.

How does this fit into the new 10 year plan, which I understand from the Spirit of PN that the NEC are about to start. Surely such a large purchase would imply that they have already decided upon a strategy before this is even commenced. One assumes that this is planned and thought through. Whatever we may think of the actions they took it is now quite clear the NEC had a plan with Psychic Press that they remain dedicated to force through. I would not believe that this is a different case now, so clearly at least a few on the Committee know exactly what is intended.

I suppose it also begs the question what about the existing premises, Stansted Hall. Do they stay there or do the AFC/SNU capitalise on the property values around Stansted. I note from other reports that one new NEC member is a wealthy property specialist so has this been having any impact at all.

So many questions so few answers. It is also a classic example of the ruthless business world, a preference for the bright shine of assets over the need to care for the staff they have so brutally (or maybe dare we suggest brutonly) mistreated.

Interesting I asked others whether they had heard of a new centre for the SNU. Then a good friend in USA tells me they have received the same questions in America; about the SNU's purchase of a new centre and whether they are leaving Stansted. It appears that in the USA the person raising the question seems to be fairly sure that a new centre is being bought, which of course raised in their minds the same issue about leaving Stansted Hall that I had.

Curioser and Curioser; but they still can't deal with their ex staff in an appropriate manner or let go of Psychic News. I remember a story about a monkey that was so greedy it was caught because it would not release the nuts it was holding in its hand. Is there anything to all of this and the core group of the NEC with its planning. Does anyone see any parallels?

I do understand that to post this in two places is boring but I realise some people are only connecting links to this particular subject.

On another site I asked whether anyone knew about the purchase of the new centre. I received the following answer which may be of help to our understanding.

There was some talk a year or so ago that the SNU were to invest in some centralised education centre, or some form of travelling resource to cover the UK and take Stansted courses to the churches.

I replied to this information with the following post

In honesty decentralising the training to the regional areas makes good sense. I understand that there are a fair number of tutors around so the rate of training could increase. The fact that you can be a Tutor and work from home may even attract more people to teaching. It may even be possible to put on evening events by placing them conveniently closer to major population centres. Additionally modern premises could be better suited and equipped to use an array of teaching methods.

I would also feel it would discourage the elitism that may form around one single “special” centre and may indeed help to re engage the District Councils as part of the effort to create excellence. However, if each Centre has a Tutor in charge, you may see the creation of separate Fiefdoms unless due care is taken. The one thing we must all be able to see clearly by now is that the organisations that run Spiritualism are as heavily influenced by the interplay of politics and power as any other organisation created by Mankind.

I suppose my basic problem is that the content and methodology of courses needs review now. Whilst the AFC appears, by the SNU accounts, to have become a spectacular commercial success worldwide the standards of speaking and demonstrating have declined alarmingly. I understand they have developed a new “quick” method of training but quick fixes do not deliver properly trained and able Mediums/Speakers with the depth of experience for Church Platforms. College training should be a finishing school for the work done in closed development groups either in a Church or at home. Instant 3 day courses may match the modern attention span but do not deliver Mediums from beginners. Indeed they give a bigger problem because after a couple of courses people expect to be mediums these days.

It begs the question about Stansted Hall, which is in a very valuable location, in addition it must be expensive to run and maintain. Clearly traditionalists would hate to see this go and I doubt anyone would be brave enough to announce its sale until it was a Fait Accompli. I am sure the current NEC would deny any such motives but their action with Psychic News shows tradition falls well behind ruthless commercial action in their planning. It’s a burning question, is Stansted Hall a sacred cow for the SNU, or a white elephant in the eyes of its executive committee (or even a cash cow to complete the animal comparisons).

Oh well it will be very interesting to see what transpires. Given the rigid way the NEC have stuck to their plans with PN, despite all the wheels falling off, I am sure they have similar plans in mind which they will deliver in an equally single minded way and ruthless way. Whoever helps them with the upcoming 10 year plan will just have to factor in these significant decisions, which it seems could well have been made already.

Jim

According to my sources within the SNU it seems that all the former PN staff have now received their long overdue redundancy payments.

Better late than never I suppose!

Hmm Z

How would the SNU pay the Psychic Press staff. We are in the midst of a Liquidation and they pay up not the SNu. Anyway the full cost is, I expect, over 50,000 pounds where is it coming from?

Recheck this please I have other sources that say this has not happnned. Are you sure the SNUtipus have not made the HM Government pay out on their behalf for their ill deeds. Or are the SNU up to something new to try and rescue themselves.

If its true just how much money are the NEC spending at the moment ..with their new centres as well. Amazing are they accountable to the Membership?

Admin wrote:Hmm Z

How would the SNU pay the Psychic Press staff. We are in the midst of a Liquidation and they pay up not the SNu. Anyway the full cost is, I expect, over 50,000 pounds where is it coming from?

Recheck this please I have other sources that say this has not happnned. Are you sure the SNUtipus have not made the HM Government pay out on their behalf for their ill deeds. Or are the SNU up to something new to try and rescue themselves.

If its true just how much money are the NEC spending at the moment ..with their new centres as well. Amazing are they accountable to the Membership?

I never said the SNU paid it. It was statutory redundancy pay viz.

Statutory redundancy pay basics

You have the right to a statutory redundancy payment if you are an employee who has worked continuously for your employer for at least two years and you are being made redundant.

Statutory redundancy pay is also due when a fixed-term contract of two years or more expires and is not renewed because of redundancy.

You do not have to claim statutory redundancy pay from your employer, they should automatically pay it to you. If your employer does not give you statutory redundancy pay when you are entitled to it you should write to them asking for payment. If your employer still refuses to pay you or cannot make the payment you could make an appeal to an Employment Tribunal.

How much statutory redundancy pay you will receive depends on:

•how long you have worked for your employer
•your age
•your pay

Statutory redundancy pay

The calculation for your statutory redundancy pay is based on:

•how long you have been continuously employed
•your age
•your weekly pay, up to a certain limit (£380 current maximum, this will increase to £400 on 1 February 2011)

You will get:

•0.5 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was under 22
•1 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was 22 or above, but under 41
•1.5 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was 41 or above

For example: If you are 45, your weekly pay is £380 per week (£400 per week from 1 February 2011) and you have completed 15 years’ full service, you will receive £6,460 statutory redundancy pay.

Step one: 1.5 weeks x 4 years full service when you were 41 or above = 6 weeks

Step two: 1 week x 11 years service when you were under 41 = 11 weeks

Step three: 6 weeks + 11 weeks = 17 weeks x £380 (max weekly wage) (£400 from 1 February 2011) = £6,460 statutory redundancy pay (£6,800 from 1 February 2011)

The online calculator can help work out how much statutory redundancy pay you might be entitled to
The number of weeks’ redundancy pay you should receive is worked out up until a set ‘relevant date’. It is important to know when this date is so you can work out how many full years of continuous service you have.

The 'relevant date' can be a number of dates. In most cases it will be the date when your employment ends (eg the last day of your notice period). In some situations it will be different:

•if your employer gave you a statutory notice period until a set date, then changed your notice period to finish earlier - the relevant date will be when your notice should have finished before it changed

•if you are on a trial period for another position within the company and your employer lets you go because the work is not suitable - the relevant date would be when your original contract ended before the trial period
•if you do not have a statutory notice period (eg because of a payment in lieu arrangement) the relevant date would be when your employment contract would have ended if you had a statutory notice period.

Redundancy pay under £30,000 is not taxable.

I was just pleased to hear that the PN staff received their statutory redundancy pay. As for the other matters..... I have not the slightest interest as I am not a member of the SNU.

Ok thanks for the definition Z so its the UK Government who has been forced to pay out. I thought for a moment the SNU had found a conscience.

It did make me wonder where they are finding teh cash if they were to pay this out plus open a Lincoln Pioneer Centre and these rumours of teaching centres

Gosh these threads have been left a long time. We are still here and ready to report anything we get to those who are following the thread by automatic updates. However, this thread had many non member watchers so if any of you know them just give them a nudge that there is a new post.
I just wonder if anyone has heard anything at all. Last known, from the creditors meeting, meetings were to take place about the asset ownership, the masthead and archives

Does anyone know the progress it’s about 3 months and nothing seems to be going on. Maybe after the Berley’s fiasco this liquidator is being ultra cautious but I would have expected something by now. Surely discussions and even the obtaining of any necessary legal advice should not take this long.

I suppose the fact that the NEC is not crowing about their claims being vindicated may at least be a positive sign. I also note that publiceye was supposedly involved in all of this but we have not heard from her either so things must be in limbo.

I still have not had confirmation of Z’s comment that the Government scheme has paid the staff the small proportion of their entitlements. Z’s sources are usually good so I presume they have.

What an absolute shambles, what a mess the NEC have made of this, the lives of their staff and the beloved Psychic news.

The creditors meeting indicated the NEC has substantial debts to write off from Psychic Press which would have escalated dramatically with all the bungled liquidation, non liquidation then liquidation again. The paper has now been close for nearly 8 months and restarting it will be harder for anyone. Of course had they accepted the funds offered way back before the closure no one needed to lose anything, especially the loyal staff. The losses faced by everyone must now be substantial, especially with the costs loaded on from liquidation attempts So from taking the money and losing nothing to losing a figure which a reasoned estimate would place to be well above 150,000 pounds with lost staff entitlements. On top of that the NEC would have been able to present a plan for the future not an attempt to liquidate and subsume the assets.

Instead of now looking about as bad as it could ever appear over these actions the NEC may have been heroes by doing the right thing last year

Roy Stemman and Sue Farrow are both trustees of the STF so they could say something.