Blog

Nearly 660 Employers Named and Shamed for Minimum Wage Breaches

B&Q, Five Guys and Serco among firms exposed for underpaying staff

The government has published its latest list of employers who failed to pay the National Minimum Wage — and it is a long, uncomfortable read. Nearly 660 employers appear on the roll‑call of shame, ranging from household names to care providers, NHS trusts, hospitality chains and contractors. Wage theft isn’t confined to the margins of the economy; it’s woven through the mainstream.

Ministers say they are determined to prevent employers short‑changing their staff. They’ve returned around £4 million to more than 27,000 workers who were denied pay they were legally owed, and issued penalties totalling £7 million to the organisations responsible. This naming round is also the first since the Fair Work Agency was set up in April, part of a push to publish these lists more regularly so employers are held to account sooner.

Major employers among the worst offenders

The headline case is B&Q, which failed to pay £456,934 to 4,530 workers — a figure that should make any large employer wince. But they’re far from alone. The list includes:

  • Elysium Healthcare Holdings Ltd – £330,048 to 1,095 workers
  • St George’s, Epsom and St Helier Hospital Group – £123,331 to 75 workers
  • Support Staff Services Ltd – £119,715 to 323 workers
  • Five Guys JV Ltd – £54,642.47 to 3,699 workers
  • Forest Holidays Ltd – £100,308 to 598 workers
  • St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – £77,498 to 55 workers
  • Lanes Group Ltd – £67,893 to 297 workers
  • Serco Ltd – £36,303.02 to 374 workers
  • UK Care Team Ltd – £67,082 to 99 workers

These aren’t fringe operators. They are major employers, public‑facing brands, NHS bodies, care providers and national chains. When organisations of this size fail to meet even the legal minimum, it raises questions about culture, priorities and the systems that allow such breaches to occur.

Government response: firm words, familiar tone

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said that looking after workers isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do — stronger businesses, stronger growth, stronger communities. He added that short‑changing staff isn’t a shortcut to success and must be stamped out.

Minister for the Future of Work Kate Dearden was more direct: underpaying staff is illegal, workers will not be left footing the bill, and employers who fall short will be held to account. She urged employers to check their payroll and reach out to Acas if they need support.

Union reaction: no excuses

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said employers who fail to pay the minimum wage deserve to be named and shamed. There is no excuse for cheating workers out of the legal minimum, and such behaviour harms workers, families and the wider economy.

Solidarity union response: Pat Harrington speaks out

Solidarity’s General Secretary Pat Harrington offered a blunt assessment:

“When nearly 660 employers are caught underpaying staff, it’s not an accident — it’s a culture. Too many organisations treat legal minimums as optional until they’re forced to comply. Workers shouldn’t have to rely on enforcement bodies to get the pay they’re already entitled to. Solidarity welcomes the naming round, but we want to see real consequences and real change, not just headlines.”

His comments reflect a wider frustration within the labour movement: naming and shaming is useful, but it is not enough on its own. Enforcement must be consistent, penalties must bite, and employers must feel genuine pressure to change their practices.

A systemic problem

What stands out in this naming round is the sheer diversity of employers involved. Wage underpayment is not confined to any one industry — it is systemic. Retail, hospitality, healthcare, social care, public sector bodies and private contractors all appear on the list. That breadth suggests that enforcement, while improving, still has a long way to go.

The creation of the Fair Work Agency may help, but enforcement only works if employers fear consequences. With nearly 660 firms named, it is clear that many still do not.

The bottom line

Workers have recovered millions in unpaid wages. Employers have been fined millions more. And the government has published a list that should make uncomfortable reading for any organisation that claims to value fairness.

But naming and shaming is only one part of the picture. The real test is whether employers change their behaviour — and whether enforcement bodies have the authority and resources to ensure they do.

For now, the message is simple: if you underpay your staff, you will be named. Increasingly, you will be fined. Whether that’s enough to shift behaviour across the economy remains to be seen.

We’re publishing the full list because working people deserve complete transparency. When hundreds of employers are caught underpaying staff, it’s not enough to highlight a few big names and move on — the scale of the problem matters. By making the entire list public, Solidarity is giving workers, communities and journalists the ability to see exactly who has fallen short, how often, and by how much. It also sends a clear message to employers: wage breaches won’t be quietly buried in government spreadsheets. If you underpay your staff, your name goes on the record, and we will make sure people see it.

By Maria Camara

The full list of employers who failed to pay minimum wage:

1. B&Q LIMITED, Eastleigh, SO53, failed to pay £456,934.72 to 4,530 workers.

2. Elysium Healthcare Holdings 3 Limited, Borehamwood, WD6, failed to pay £330,048.81 to 1,095 workers.

3. St George’s, Epsom and St Helier Hospital Group, Epsom, KT18, failed to pay £123,331.97 to 75 workers.

4. Support Staff Services Limited, Slough, SL1, failed to pay £119,715.13 to 323 workers.

5. FOREST HOLIDAYS LIMITED, Moira, DE12, failed to pay £100,308.68 to 598 workers.

6. St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Wandsworth, SW17, failed to pay £77,498.91 to 55 workers.

7. Lanes Group Limited, Leeds, LS12, failed to pay £67,893.34 to 297 workers.

8. UK Care Team Ltd, Leicester, LE19, failed to pay £67,082.76 to 99 workers.

9. Five Guys JV Limited, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, W10, failed to pay £54,642.47 to 3,699 workers.

10. Merlin Cinemas Limited, Redruth, TR15, failed to pay £50,198.75 to 181 workers.

11. Peninsula Care Services (NI) Ltd, Newtownards, BT23, failed to pay £42,013.29 to 125 workers.

12. Prime Recruitment Limited, Eastbourne, BN21, failed to pay £40,625.80 to 185 workers.

13. High Adventure Outdoor Education Centre Limited, Keighley, BD22, failed to pay £38,641.76 to 14 workers.

14. Serco Limited, Thetford, IP25, failed to pay £36,303.02 to 374 workers.

15. K Transport Services (Midlands) Limited, Wolverhampton, WV10, failed to pay £36,100.70 to 31 workers.

16. Kidstreet Limited, trading as Kidstreet Nursery, Chatham, ME4, failed to pay £33,167.91 to 42 workers.

17. Gravity Fitness Limited, Castleford, WF10, failed to pay £32,141.72 to 708 workers.

18. Jigsaw Homecare Ltd, Mansfield Woodhouse, NG19, failed to pay £32,069.77 to 80 workers.

19. G4S Facilities Management (UK) Limited, City of Westminster, SW1H, failed to pay £31,158.47 to 479 workers.

20. Invicta Care And Training Ltd, London Borough of Hillingdon, UB10, failed to pay £30,158.44 to 104 workers.

21. Collin Care Limited, Glasgow, G52, failed to pay £28,149.20 to 77 workers.

22. Butterfly Pre-School Limited, Slough, SL3, failed to pay £25,791.92 to 10 workers.

23. Brayborne Facilities Services Limited, Wokingham, RG41, failed to pay £25,184.79 to 72 workers.

24. The Sussex Food Co Limited, trading as Purchases Chichester, Chichester, PO19, failed to pay £24,412.38 to 35 workers.

25. Claremont Hospital Holdings Limited, Sheffield, S10, failed to pay £24,165.04 to 102 workers.

26. Murdoch Allan & Son Limited, Peterhead, AB42, failed to pay £24,150.71 to 7 workers.

27. Whiteline Manufacturing Limited, Eastbourne, BN23, failed to pay £23,870.59 to 1 worker.

28. Dr Renuka Arun, trading as Bletchley Dental Practice, Milton Keynes, MK3, failed to pay £23,758.19 to 17 workers.

29. Westgate Healthcare (Aylesbury) Limited, Borehamwood, WD6, failed to pay £23,511.01 to 8 workers.

30. Franchise Accounting Services Limited, Redhill, RH1, failed to pay £23,161.06 to 3 workers.

31. Mrs Fiona Burgoyne, trading as Horsechoice, Edinburgh, EH10, failed to pay £22,422.75 to 4 workers.

32. Streets Ahead Estate Agents LLP, trading as Streets Ahead Estate Agents, London Borough of Islington, EC1M, failed to pay £20,781.72 to 15 workers.

33. Spring Healthcare Limited, Bolton, BL1, failed to pay £20,305.38 to 17 workers.

34. Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust, Norwich, NR2, failed to pay £19,948.21 to 105 workers.

35. Perfectpays Ltd, trading as TapGo, Nottingham, NG15, failed to pay £19,663.44 to 8 workers.

36. Alan King Racing Limited, Swindon, SN4, failed to pay £19,050.72 to 24 workers.

37. Loven Care Homes Limited, Manchester, M3, failed to pay £18,922.79 to 82 workers.

38. Sihara Care Limited, Wembley, HA9, failed to pay £18,896.94 to 58 workers.

39. Amah Nurseries Limited, trading as Banana Moon Day Nursery, Walsall, WS2, failed to pay £18,492.46 to 10 workers.

40. McLean Restaurants Limited, trading as McDonalds Restaurant, Nuneaton, CV11, failed to pay £18,307.02 to 515 workers.

41. Comforting Hands Recruitment Ltd, Harrogate, HG1, failed to pay £17,980.98 to 29 workers.

42. Future Champions Day Nursery Limited, Bolton, BL6, failed to pay £17,843.19 to 68 workers.

43. Damira Dental Studios Limited, London Borough of Harrow, HA5, failed to pay £17,611.20 to 46 workers.

44. Danish Crown UK Limited, Whitefield, M45, failed to pay £17,075.87 to 152 workers.

45. Ms Media Muhialdeen Abdulla, trading as Redhill Car Wash, Nottingham, NG5, failed to pay £17,018.27 to 9 workers.

46. Patterson & Rocks Solicitors Limited, Newry, BT34, failed to pay £16,622.92 to 3 workers.

47. Mrs Hilary F & Miss Hannah R McPherson, trading as Butterflies Day Nursery, Tredegar, NP22, failed to pay £16,423.61 to 4 workers.

48. Avery Homes (Nelson) Limited, Northampton, NN4, failed to pay £16,191.95 to 803 workers.

49. Victa DP Ltd, trading as Dominos, Wynyard, TS22, failed to pay £16,031.07 to 312 workers.

50. Bright Screw Company Limited (The), Leeds, LS13, failed to pay £15,999.48 to 17 workers.

51. Anavo Care (Brampton) Limited, Leatherhead, KT22, failed to pay £15,356.23 to 132 workers.

52. UNIVERSAL CARE SERVICES (UK) LIMITED, London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, W6, failed to pay £15,121.39 to 77 workers.

53. Glamorgan Quality Meats Ltd, Rhoose, CF62, failed to pay £14,988.46 to 1 worker.

54. Suntechgadget Limited, trading as Suntechgadget, London Borough of Ealing, W5, failed to pay £14,872.20 to 3 workers.

55. Dynamic Retail Ltd, trading as Scotfresh, Dundee, DD4, failed to pay £14,452.91 to 215 workers.

56. Dementia Care & Support At Home Limited, trading as Dementia Care NW, Manchester, M27, failed to pay £14,242.68 to 27 workers.

57. Oakville Care Limited, trading as Romilly Nursing Home, Cardiff, CF5, failed to pay £13,679.18 to 144 workers.

58. Dongard Scaffolding Limited, Whitley Bay, NE25, failed to pay £13,652.98 to 8 workers.

59. Heath Farm Day Nursery Limited, Lincoln, LN2, failed to pay £13,648.61 to 142 workers.

60. Enablement Care Services Ltd, London Borough of Harrow, HA1, failed to pay £13,618.76 to 38 workers.

61. Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, L7, failed to pay £13,037.89 to 19 workers.

62. Red Firs Carehome Limited, trading as Strawberry Field Care Home, Derby, DE65, failed to pay £12,738.55 to 111 workers.

63. Hand 2 Hold Limited, Middlesbrough, TS4, failed to pay £12,607.23 to 119 workers.

64. Powred Heating Components Limited, trading as PHC Parts, Cardiff, CF14, failed to pay £11,864.80 to 5 workers.

65. Silchester Manor Day Nursery Limited, Maidenhead, SL6, failed to pay £11,805.94 to 19 workers.

66. Modus Agency Ltd, Worcester, WR1, failed to pay £11,778.49 to 4 workers.

67. Cain’s Amusements Limited, Herne Bay, CT6, failed to pay £11,276.41 to 3 workers.

68. Y7 Hotels Limited, trading as Tiffany’s Hotel, Blackpool, FY1, failed to pay £11,131.99 to 228 workers.

69. Loizou Restaurants Limited, trading as McDonalds Restaurant, Waltham Abbey, EN9, failed to pay £11,074.88 to 282 workers.

70. The Retreat Pub Co Limited, trading as The Retreat, Reading, RG1, failed to pay £10,960.48 to 2 workers.

71. Moss Properties (Doncaster) Ltd, Doncaster, DN4, failed to pay £10,700.90 to 4 workers.

72. McGinley Support Services (Infrastructure) Limited, Watford, WD17, failed to pay £10,633.66 to 14 workers.

73. Kensington Student Services Limited, trading as KSS, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, SW7, failed to pay £10,358.87 to 4 workers.

74. Jason Consulting Limited, trading as Fresh Tree Care Services, Basildon, SS15, failed to pay £10,305.73 to 27 workers.

75. Neil Barr Decorating Services Limited, Irvine, KA11, failed to pay £10,279.31 to 4 workers.

76. Leeds United Football Club Limited, Leeds, LS11, failed to pay £10,253.06 to 345 workers.

77. Mr Ian B Grayston, trading as Northorpe Joinery, Beverley, HU17, failed to pay £10,174.22 to 1 worker.

78. E.A. Foulds Limited, Colne, BB8, failed to pay £9,864.50 to 3 workers.

79. Clean 4 U (NE) Limited, Jarrow, NE32, failed to pay £9,765.60 to 33 workers.

80. Andrew Care Ltd, trading as Argyle Residential Home, Buxton, SK17, failed to pay £9,711.88 to 72 workers.

81. Special Care Services Limited, Derby, DE23, failed to pay £9,678.35 to 4 workers.

82. Kanexy Ltd, trading as Rainbowsky, Hatfield, AL10, failed to pay £9,556.09 to 3 workers.

83. Aulds Delicious Desserts Limited, Renfrew, PA4, failed to pay £9,435.87 to 89 workers.

84. Localvalu Limited, trading as OIYAA, Uxbridge, UB8, failed to pay £9,260.50 to 1 worker.

85. C.F.C. Interiors Ltd, trading as CFC Interiors, Cookstown, BT80, failed to pay £9,157.36 to 23 workers.

86. Mr Peter B Morgan, trading as Peter Morgan Contractors, Northwich, CW8, failed to pay £9,061.49 to 3 workers.

87. Chislehurst Care Limited, London Borough of Bromley, SE9, failed to pay £8,994.06 to 21 workers.

88. Ms Rosemary Gawn, trading as Rosemary Gawn Solicitors, Ballymena, BT43, failed to pay £8,944.60 to 1 worker.

89. Taylor Rose Limited, City of London, EC4V, failed to pay £8,879.24 to 63 workers.

90. SLA IT Solutions Limited, trading as Bristol Castlemead, Bristol, BS1, failed to pay £8,788.17 to 2 workers.

91. Aston Management International Ltd, trading as Hustyns Hotel & Spa, Wadebridge, PL27, failed to pay £8,760.51 to 7 workers.

92. Bethell & Shepherd Plumbing & Heating Limited, Nottingham, NG4, failed to pay £8,715.86 to 5 workers.

93. Mr Amir Liman, trading as Shkupi Car Wash, Blackpool, FY4, failed to pay £8,715.74 to 3 workers.

94. Shahzads Law Ltd, London Borough of Waltham Forest, E17, failed to pay £8,316.03 to 2 workers.

95. The Maden Early Years and Childcare Centre, Bacup, OL13, failed to pay £8,266.83 to 5 workers.

96. Durn House Ltd, Banff, AB45, failed to pay £8,230.33 to 7 workers.

97. Mr Ramkumar Krishnaswamy, trading as Manorbier Store, Tenby, SA70, failed to pay £8,213.69 to 2 workers.

98. C.G. Cleaning Limited, Bolton, BL3, failed to pay £8,105.47 to 11 workers.

99. Amazon Cleaning Ltd, London Borough of Bexley, DA18, failed to pay £8,056.35 to 9 workers.

100. Mrs Nicola Anna Gould, trading as Diamond Events Management, Woking, GU22, failed to pay £8,012.33 to 1 worker.

101. Northgate Fast Food Limited, trading as Taco Bell, Nottingham, NG1, failed to pay £7,976.25 to 115 workers.

102. F.M.S Freezer Management Services Limited, Redcar and Cleveland, TS11, failed to pay £7,906.73 to 1 worker.

103. A3 Gas Limited, Ashtead, KT21, failed to pay £7,899.96 to 1 worker.

104. Miss Susan Berry & Mr George Brian Johnson, trading as Masquerade Hair & Beauty, Bolton, BL6, failed to pay £7,830.68 to 14 workers.

105. Housing Units Limited, Oldham, OL9, failed to pay £7,724.83 to 2 workers.

106. Tick Tock Day Nursery Ltd., Cradley Heath, B64, failed to pay £7,662.10 to 25 workers.

107. Central Electrical & Lighting Limited, Birmingham, B24, failed to pay £7,651.55 to 5 workers.

108. Steps Community Nursery (High Green), Sheffield, S35, failed to pay £7,588.62 to 10 workers.

109. Daniella Draper Limited, Grimsby, DN31, failed to pay £7,445.96 to 37 workers.

110. Coatbridge Auto Spa Ltd, Coatbridge, ML5, failed to pay £7,439.64 to 3 workers.

111. Activity World Ltd., Peterborough, PE1, failed to pay £7,417.91 to 2 workers.

112. Montessori & Me Nursery Ltd, Chadwell Heath, RM6, failed to pay £7,310.77 to 7 workers.

113. Mr Sawat Kakabash, trading as Bubble Hand Car Wash, Birkenhead, CH41, failed to pay £7,209.43 to 9 workers.

114. The Hunny Pot Day Nursery (Huddersfield) Limited, trading as The Hunny Pot Day Nursery, Huddersfield, HD5, failed to pay £7,174.87 to 15 workers.

115. Zinnia Care Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, HP1, failed to pay £7,115.87 to 26 workers.

116. Flightcare Limited, trading as Broadway Residential Home, Liverpool, L4, failed to pay £7,072.38 to 42 workers.

117. Mrs Monaza Malik, trading as Marsh Bears Nursery, Luton, LU3, failed to pay £7,025.40 to 7 workers.

118. Advance Motors Limited, trading as Advance Vauxhall, Slough, SL1, failed to pay £7,014.98 to 35 workers.

119. Monkton Elm Garden Centre Limited, Taunton, TA2, failed to pay £6,980.05 to 1 worker.

120. SPI Accountancy LLP, Knowsley, L34, failed to pay £6,932.11 to 1 worker.

121. Bushmills Hotels Limited, trading as The Bushmills Inn Hotel, Bushmills, BT57, failed to pay £6,914.54 to 100 workers.

122. Miss Shaminder Kaur Kang, trading as Shamins Hair & Beauty Salon, Stirling, FK8, failed to pay £6,817.24 to 1 worker.

123. Mr Kiran Bajracharya, trading as Newari Handicraft, Windsor, SL4, failed to pay £6,813.86 to 1 worker.

124. The Mill Risca Ltd, Newport, NP11, failed to pay £6,757.00 to 2 workers.

125. THE TYRE STORE LIMITED, trading as Just Tyres, Milton Keynes, MK13, failed to pay £6,717.02 to 173 workers.

126. Food Bazar (LDN) Ltd, London Borough of Newham, E6, failed to pay £6,627.47 to 44 workers.

127. Pengfei Education Consultancy Ltd, Nottingham, NG1, failed to pay £6,554.29 to 1 worker.

128. Lacons Brewery Limited, Great Yarmouth, NR30, failed to pay £6,431.02 to 15 workers.

129. Audenshaws (Oldbury) Limited, Dudley, DY2, failed to pay £6,430.58 to 3 workers.

130. eXPD8 Limited, Bristol, BS1, failed to pay £6,374.37 to 294 workers.

131. Spellbrook Car Wash Ltd, Bishop’s Stortford, CM22, failed to pay £6,358.46 to 1 worker.

132. The Little Sparkles Preschool Limited, Watford, WD17, failed to pay £6,353.79 to 9 workers.

133. William Moutray & Sons Ltd, trading as Costcutter Moutray’s, Carigavon, BT66, failed to pay £6,334.89 to 116 workers.

134. Go-Wright Ltd, Clydebank, G81, failed to pay £6,302.01 to 9 workers.

135. Berkeley Surfacing Contractors Limited, Waterlooville, PO7, failed to pay £6,295.73 to 1 worker.

136. Reynolds Motor Group Service Centre Ltd, Southend-On-Sea, SS3, failed to pay £6,272.64 to 1 worker.

137. North West Tea Service Limited, Huyton, L36, failed to pay £6,238.11 to 1 worker.

138. Little Angels Daycare Nursery Limited, Liverpool, L10, failed to pay £6,205.62 to 13 workers.

139. Little Leaders Day Nursery Limited, Birmingham, B8, failed to pay £6,131.99 to 6 workers.

140. Sorrento Support Ltd, Birmingham, B15, failed to pay £5,980.20 to 3 workers.

141. Alves iCare Ltd, Peterborough, PE1, failed to pay £5,972.47 to 4 workers.

142. The Beehive Childcare Group, Norwich, NR4, failed to pay £5,964.30 to 25 workers.

143. Ashton Gate Limited, Bristol, BS3, failed to pay £5,895.05 to 142 workers.

144. Cleone Foods Limited, Birmingham, B18, failed to pay £5,765.19 to 2 workers.

145. Flow Healthcare. Ltd, Epsom, KT17, failed to pay £5,761.10 to 10 workers.

146. The Priory Day Nursery Limited, Middlesborough, TS6, failed to pay £5,738.59 to 1 worker.

147. Hillcrest Catering Co. Limited, trading as KFC Brentford, London Borough of Hounslow, TW8, failed to pay £5,722.46 to 147 workers.

148. Waterjet Profilers Ltd, Basildon, SS13, failed to pay £5,650.71 to 4 workers.

149. MMS Mirabella Ltd , trading as Mirabella, Canterbury, CT1, failed to pay £5,563.49 to 3 workers.

150. D & T Motors Limited, Penryn, TR10, failed to pay £5,528.65 to 2 workers.

151. Safe Hands Support Scotland Ltd, Stirling, FK7, failed to pay £5,519.89 to 9 workers.

152. Stars Day Nurseries Limited, Peterborough, PE1, failed to pay £5,516.80 to 6 workers.

153. McDonald Reality Ltd, trading as The Butchershop Bar & Grill, Glasgow, G3, failed to pay £5,440.19 to 66 workers.

154. Goldens (Nottingham) Limited, trading as Sherif & Sons Superstore, Nottingham, NG7, failed to pay £5,395.46 to 13 workers.

155. Anio Hairdressing Limited, trading as Millionhairs London Enfield, London Borough of Enfield, EN2, failed to pay £5,332.10 to 1 worker.

156. MyLahore Leeds Limited, Leeds, LS3, failed to pay £5,256.18 to 44 workers.

157. Carlisle Window Systems Limited, Carlisle, CA1, failed to pay £5,242.23 to 23 workers.

158. Topwest Limited, trading as Domino’s Pizza, Milton Keynes, MK6, failed to pay £5,226.39 to 80 workers.

159. Birkin Cleaning Services Limited, Grays, RM20, failed to pay £5,179.86 to 368 workers.

160. St Albans District Council, St Albans, AL1, failed to pay £5,029.26 to 230 workers.

161. Mraya International Supermarkets Ltd, Nottingham, NG7, failed to pay £5,001.14 to 1 worker.

162. Bents Garden Centre Limited, Warrington, WA3, failed to pay £4,997.58 to 272 workers.

163. Dr Maria Rogers and Dr Arooran Kogulanathan, trading as Preston Road Surgery, Wembley, HA9, failed to pay £4,913.87 to 5 workers.

164. M. T. James Limited, Bromsgrove, B60, failed to pay £4,852.51 to 4 workers.

165. G-Tech Electrical Contractors Limited, Grimsby, DN36, failed to pay £4,837.96 to 3 workers.

166. P Smith Farriers Ltd, Mold, CH7, failed to pay £4,822.83 to 5 workers.

167. Pacific Nurseries Limited, Aldridge, WS9, failed to pay £4,818.21 to 51 workers.

168. Mr Jonathan Horsman, trading as Designer Crates and Cages, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18, failed to pay £4,784.94 to 1 worker.

169. Living Home Tech Limited, Poole, BH12, failed to pay £4,719.37 to 1 worker.

170. Mr Andrew S Gibbs & Mrs Susan Gibbs, trading as Howard’s, Taunton, TA1, failed to pay £4,658.99 to 1 worker.

171. Davidson of Darras Hall Ltd, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE20, failed to pay £4,602.59 to 38 workers.

172. Ms Misbah Khalil, trading as Elite Hand Car Wash, Rochdale, OL16, failed to pay £4,590.40 to 1 worker.

173. Daisychain Homecare Services (Bakewell) Limited, Matlock, DE4, failed to pay £4,571.01 to 42 workers.

174. PL Gill Ltd, trading as Gills Fish & Chips, South Shields, NE34, failed to pay £4,548.10 to 2 workers.

175. Cleantec Services Limited, Watford, WD25, failed to pay £4,539.00 to 422 workers.

176. Bethmar Limited, Welwyn Garden City, AL8, failed to pay £4,523.15 to 3 workers.

177. Tamba Day Nursery Ltd., trading as Tamba Day Nursery Olympic Park, Newham, E20, failed to pay £4,469.14 to 9 workers.

178. Farmers Barns Limited, trading as Acorn Camping and Caravan Site, Llantwit Major, CF61, failed to pay £4,430.57 to 1 worker.

179. NCF Furnishings Limited, trading as NCF Living, Birmingham, B46, failed to pay £4,414.95 to 38 workers.

180. Urban Laundry Limited, trading as Doorstep Laundry, London Borough of Hackney, E8, failed to pay £4,410.51 to 2 workers.

181. A&M Retail Limited, trading as McAtamney’s Traditional Butchers, Garvagh, BT51, failed to pay £4,400.09 to 8 workers.

182. Mr James W Benson, trading as Mr J W Benson, Keswick, CA12, failed to pay £4,365.00 to 1 worker.

183. Aldridge Education, London Borough of Haringey, N17, failed to pay £4,324.84 to 7 workers.

184. Ranaissance Care Ltd, Southend-On-Sea, SS1, failed to pay £4,314.72 to 65 workers.

185. WH Investments Limited, trading as Victoria House, Warrington, WA4, failed to pay £4,305.89 to 57 workers.

186. Beamish Park Golf Club Limited, Stanley, DH9, failed to pay £4,298.64 to 1 worker.

187. Coventry Education and Welfare Trust (CEWT), Coventry, CV6, failed to pay £4,273.44 to 1 worker.

188. Blackland Lakes Limited, Calne, SN11, failed to pay £4,273.37 to 1 worker.

189. Dunbar Pet Food Limited, Dunbar, EH42, failed to pay £4,254.09 to 1 worker.

190. Mrs Tajinder Kaur, trading as Bargain Beers, Hull, HU6, failed to pay £4,242.10 to 1 worker.

191. Mrs Carol Gormley, trading as Children’s World Pre-School, Coventry, CV2, failed to pay £4,195.12 to 1 worker.

192. Whitbread Group PLC, Dunstable, LU5, failed to pay £4,193.39 to 342 workers.

193. R.M.S. Construction and Developments Limited, Nottingham, NG7, failed to pay £4,184.18 to 1 worker.

194. Miss Rebecca Jane Cowderoy, trading as Rebecca Cowderoy Dressage, Wantage, OX12, failed to pay £4,179.44 to 1 worker.

195. Cardiff Property Corporation Limited, trading as Martin & Co Merthyr Tydif, Merthyr Tydfil, CF47, failed to pay £4,101.34 to 2 workers.

196. HK & Z Ltd, trading as Subway, Salford, M7, failed to pay £4,072.69 to 38 workers.

197. Desi Dera Restaurant Limited, Birmingham, B8, failed to pay £4,064.36 to 1 worker.

198. S.O.E. Brickwork Ltd, Mold, CH7, failed to pay £4,047.67 to 1 worker.

199. Maxideals Group Ltd, Darlington, DL3, failed to pay £4,033.33 to 51 workers.

200. Rothay Manor Limited, trading as Rothay Manor Hotel, Ambleside, LA22, failed to pay £4,016.75 to 8 workers.

201. Astoria Bingo Club Limited, Hull, HU8, failed to pay £3,957.30 to 21 workers.

202. TCMC Crowded Space Ltd, Belfast, BT4, failed to pay £3,906.64 to 139 workers.

203. Tiny Toez Childrens Day Nurseries Limited, Wolverhampton, WV6, failed to pay £3,885.12 to 93 workers.

204. Mr Gaspard R Maksud, trading as Mr G R Maksud, Pulborough, RH20, failed to pay £3,842.87 to 2 workers.

205. Sweet Aroma Ltd, Nottingham, NG9, failed to pay £3,757.54 to 45 workers.

206. Community Care Direct Limited, Southport, PR8, failed to pay £3,735.76 to 18 workers.

207. Mr Jeremy Cale and Mrs Pamela Cale, trading as Vale Game Pest Control Services, Faringdon, SN7, failed to pay £3,683.95 to 1 worker.

208. Belfast Cleaning Co-Operative Limited, trading as Belfast Cleaning Society Ltd, Belfast, BT13, failed to pay £3,663.88 to 13 workers.

209. Aristo-Tots Private Nursery School Limited, Bedford, MK40, failed to pay £3,642.53 to 11 workers.

210. Interni Deco Ltd, City of Westminster, SW17, failed to pay £3,635.98 to 1 worker.

211. Rite IT Solutions Limited, Essendine, Stamford, PE9, failed to pay £3,618.64 to 1 worker.

212. Aegis Residential Care Homes Limited, trading as Ladydale Care Home, Leek, ST13, failed to pay £3,609.25 to 30 workers.

213. Adam & Eve Hair 2014 Limited, trading as Adam and Eve Salon Tilehurst, Reading, RG31, failed to pay £3,601.13 to 1 worker.

214. Rayment Recruitment Limited, Chelmsford, CM1, failed to pay £3,596.58 to 159 workers.

215. Streamlined Forensic Reporting Limited, London Borough of Islington, EC1V, failed to pay £3,588.87 to 4 workers.

216. Gleeson Developments Limited, trading as Gleeson Homes, Sheffield, S9, failed to pay £3,562.39 to 8 workers.

217. CSS Recycling Ltd, Newbury, RG14, failed to pay £3,531.10 to 4 workers.

218. Victoria Court Residential Home Limited, Southend on Sea, SS1, failed to pay £3,520.73 to 34 workers.

219. Parkdean Resorts UK Limited, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE12, failed to pay £3,518.73 to 1 worker.

220. Iron Brook Limited, trading as Dilshad Indian & Takeaway, Birmingham, B29, failed to pay £3,441.70 to 7 workers.

221. Inspired Desserts Limited, trading as Rocco’s Desserts, Stockport, SK2, failed to pay £3,435.60 to 1 worker.

222. Care2Home Ltd, Birmingham, B28, failed to pay £3,426.75 to 34 workers.

223. Blacks Road Service Station Ltd, Belfast, BT10, failed to pay £3,368.87 to 4 workers.

224. In For A Penny Bookkeeping Services Limited, Clacton-On-Sea, CO16, failed to pay £3,358.77 to 2 workers.

225. Mr Gordon Philips, trading as Heathvale House, Thornton Heath, CR7, failed to pay £3,350.15 to 2 workers.

226. Red Balloon Day Nursery Limited, trading as Red Balen Nursery, Caerdydd, CF23, failed to pay £3,318.74 to 1 worker.

227. Bapon IT Services Ltd, Northampton, NN4, failed to pay £3,317.69 to 3 workers.

228. E.C.B. Farming Limited, Bourton On The Water, GL54, failed to pay £3,301.47 to 1 worker.

229. Ranfern Limited, trading as Centra Holywood, Holywood, BT18, failed to pay £3,282.09 to 138 workers.

230. UK Curriculum and Accreditation Body (UKCAB), Birmingham, B5, failed to pay £3,281.65 to 10 workers.

231. Heavenly Desserts Blackburn Ltd, Blackburn, BB2, failed to pay £3,271.45 to 77 workers.

232. Kaya Brothers Limited, trading as International Food Centre, Cardiff, CF24, failed to pay £3,234.98 to 1 worker.

233. Zwanenberg Food Group UK Limited, trading as Taste Original, and Rea Valley Speciality Foods, Corby, NN17, failed to pay £3,206.18 to 101 workers.

234. Manuella Care Limited, London Borough of Barnet, EN5, failed to pay £3,139.22 to 2 workers.

235. GE Aviation Systems Limited (linked to CFS­1679511), Cheltenham, GL52, failed to pay £3,126.08 to 13 workers.

236. The Crown Hotel (Wetheral) limited, trading as Crown Hotel Wetheral, Carlisle, CA4, failed to pay £3,122.08 to 4 workers.

237. Electric Technics Ltd, Wilnecote, B77, failed to pay £3,115.84 to 18 workers.

238. Victoria Park Kindergarten Ltd, Glasgow, G14, failed to pay £3,110.29 to 4 workers.

239. Nourish Contract Catering Limited, London Borough of Bromley, SE26, failed to pay £3,090.70 to 8 workers.

240. Blue Sakura Ltd, Leeds, LS2, failed to pay £3,041.48 to 63 workers.

241. Portstewart Golf Club, Portstewart, BT55, failed to pay £3,029.66 to 11 workers.

242. Farr Brew Ltd, St. Albans, AL4, failed to pay £3,024.38 to 2 workers.

243. Ramesses Enterprise Limited, trading as Martin & Co Balham, London Borough of Wandsworth, SW12, failed to pay £3,021.43 to 1 worker.

244. Castle Leisure Limited, trading as Castle Bingo, Cardiff, CF24, failed to pay £3,009.50 to 204 workers.

245. Hamilton’s Foodhalls Ltd, trading as Spar Dergvalley Castlederg, Castlederg, BT81, failed to pay £2,994.41 to 98 workers.

246. Glen Community Parent/Youth Group, Belfast, BT11, failed to pay £2,958.94 to 1 worker.

247. Miss Laura A Taylor, trading as Taylor Wildlife, Ballindalloch, AB37, failed to pay £2,953.89 to 3 workers.

248. PVR & Co. Ltd, trading as Premier – Tantobie Stores, Stanley, DH9, failed to pay £2,938.96 to 2 workers.

249. Oak House Care Limited, Cardiff, CF5, failed to pay £2,899.37 to 17 workers.

250. Soulka Ltd, City of London, EC4A, failed to pay £2,882.88 to 1 worker.

251. First Steps Private Nursery (Lowton) Limited, Warrington, WA3, failed to pay £2,882.73 to 3 workers.

252. Clarence Nursery Ltd., trading as Clarence House Nursery, Glasgow, G20, failed to pay £2,873.48 to 2 workers.

253. Kelvin Control Engineers Ltd., Glasgow, G13, failed to pay £2,817.00 to 2 workers.

254. Mere Green Healtcare Limited, Birmingham, B24, failed to pay £2,779.60 to 99 workers.

255. AMK Chauffeur Drive Limited, Liphook, GU30, failed to pay £2,776.33 to 1 worker.

256. Fast Food Birkenhead Ltd, trading as Ranchers Birkenhead, Birkenhead, CH42, failed to pay £2,775.27 to 2 workers.

257. Forward Security Limited, Towcaster, NN12, failed to pay £2,760.75 to 75 workers.

258. GRC Solar Ltd, Runcorn, WA7, failed to pay £2,745.06 to 1 worker.

259. Mangreen Country House Retreats Ltd, Norwich, NR14, failed to pay £2,743.65 to 8 workers.

260. W.J.Daniel & Company Limited, trading as Daniel Department Stores, Windsor, SL4, failed to pay £2,740.83 to 51 workers.

261. Automobile Repair Services Ltd, Rotherham, S63, failed to pay £2,733.78 to 1 worker.

262. Goodenough (St Austell) Limited, trading as The Clarks Shop, Truro, TR1, failed to pay £2,732.42 to 37 workers.

263. HAO BAO LIMITED, trading as T Rex Supermarket & Bubble Tea, Southampton, SO17, failed to pay £2,731.65 to 9 workers.

264. Lemur Leisure Limited, trading as Splashdowns, Poole, BH12, failed to pay £2,714.71 to 168 workers.

265. SEL (Midlands) Ltd, Warwickshire, CV9, failed to pay £2,714.00 to 1 worker.

266. Primrose Healthcare Services Limited, Redhill, RH1, failed to pay £2,699.84 to 1 worker.

267. Mr Naser Azhar, trading as The Vape Team, Nottingham, NG1, failed to pay £2,694.66 to 1 worker.

268. Ave Maria Care Ltd, Sutton Coldfield, B74, failed to pay £2,681.57 to 116 workers.

269. Gaming Technology Solutions Limited, London Borough of Camden, WC1V, failed to pay £2,664.43 to 2 workers.

270. Dr Gilbert Greenall, trading as Bromesberrow Estate & Farm, Ledbury, HR8, failed to pay £2,664.23 to 1 worker.

271. Sunshine Healthcare Services Limited, Surbiton, KT6, failed to pay £2,660.23 to 1 worker.

272. Khartoum Supermarket Services Ltd, trading as Khartoum Market, London Borough of Lambeth, SW16, failed to pay £2,656.94 to 1 worker.

273. Action For Children Developments Limited, Watford, WD18, failed to pay £2,631.04 to 1 worker.

274. Staffordshire Wildlife Trading Limited, trading as Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, Stafford, ST17, failed to pay £2,628.32 to 45 workers.

275. Mother’s Kitchen Ltd, Basildon, SS13, failed to pay £2,589.02 to 1 worker.

276. Saash Foods Limited, trading as Pepe’s, Motherwell, ML1, failed to pay £2,587.49 to 2 workers.

277. Auto-Mech Cheddar Ltd, Cheddar, BS27, failed to pay £2,583.75 to 1 worker.

278. Chevin Retail Limited, trading as Toyland Toyshop, Otley, LS21, failed to pay £2,581.70 to 43 workers.

279. Fort De Leau Limited, trading as Bagel Delight Bakery, London Borough of Brent, NW2, failed to pay £2,575.11 to 7 workers.

280. Sasa Foods Limited, Ilkley, LS29, failed to pay £2,573.50 to 112 workers.

281. Mr Paul Williams, trading as C&P Panelcraft, Croydon, CR0, failed to pay £2,546.03 to 3 workers.

282. Aspirations Care Limited, Gloucester, GL4, failed to pay £2,520.75 to 22 workers.

283. Ewe and Lamb (Bromsgrove) Limited, Bromsgrove, B60, failed to pay £2,506.62 to 1 worker.

284. Boomerang Healthcare Ltd, Gateshead, NE10, failed to pay £2,505.93 to 74 workers.

285. City Glass Works Limited, Bradford, BD4, failed to pay £2,500.80 to 1 worker.

286. Manchester Abattoir Ltd, Stockport, SK4, failed to pay £2,498.00 to 1 worker.

287. Care Givers Limited, Colchester, CO1, failed to pay £2,474.64 to 8 workers.

288. Mr Adam M Greenwood, trading as AMG Tiling Services, Houghton, PR5, failed to pay £2,473.60 to 1 worker.

289. Heritage Day Nursery Ltd, Dagenham, RM10, failed to pay £2,472.06 to 2 workers.

290. C&A INNS LTD, trading as The Shakespeare, Derby, DE1, failed to pay £2,441.85 to 3 workers.

291. Tuskan Thai Limited, Sheringham, NR26, failed to pay £2,430.03 to 2 workers.

292. JSS Bar Grill and Cookery School Limited, Belfast, BT2, failed to pay £2,424.52 to 71 workers.

293. Westcliffe Pharma Ltd, trading as Westcliffe Pharmacy, Shipley, BD18, failed to pay £2,424.45 to 2 workers.

294. Mrs Anita F Skinner, trading as Eden Hair & Beauty, Watford, WD24, failed to pay £2,419.42 to 2 workers.

295. Z I Catering Limited, trading as Lahore Karahi, London Borough of Wandsworth, SW17, failed to pay £2,408.78 to 21 workers.

296. South Stars Entertainment Ltd, Canvey Island, SS8, failed to pay £2,406.51 to 12 workers.

297. Arrow Tools (UK) Limited, Waltham Abbey, EN9, failed to pay £2,370.81 to 4 workers.

298. UK Hairdressers 2019 Limited, trading as Regis Hair Salon, Telford, TF3, failed to pay £2,363.36 to 3 workers.

299. Scotia Solutions (Scotland) Limited, Dundee, DD4, failed to pay £2,362.99 to 2 workers.

300. JJB Hotels Limited, trading as Balmoral Hotel, Belfast, BT10, failed to pay £2,356.42 to 66 workers.

301. Dosa Kingdom Ltd, Hove, BN3, failed to pay £2,341.92 to 5 workers.

302. Rapha Haven Ltd, Maidstone, ME14, failed to pay £2,338.65 to 6 workers.

303. DWPS (UK) Limited, trading as DWPS Chartered Surveyors, Retford, DN22, failed to pay £2,315.13 to 8 workers.

304. Trust in Care Limited, West Bromwich, B70, failed to pay £2,313.59 to 70 workers.

305. Feast With Friends Limited, Stoke on Trent, ST4, failed to pay £2,289.36 to 5 workers.

306. Mobile Eyez Limited, trading as Forest Gate Eye Clinic, London Borough of Newham, E7, failed to pay £2,285.92 to 1 worker.

307. LJ Care Limited, trading as Deansfield Residential Home, Telford, TF6, failed to pay £2,276.77 to 44 workers.

308. DW Homecare (Derby) Ltd, Derby, DE1, failed to pay £2,275.40 to 37 workers.

309. Stanfield Nursing Home Limited, Worcester, WR2, failed to pay £2,260.23 to 3 workers.

310. Kentklean Limited, Maidstone, ME15, failed to pay £2,245.06 to 19 workers.

311. Sirtec Limited, trading as Othellos, Liverpool, L25, failed to pay £2,244.48 to 8 workers.

312. OAS&CO Accounting Ltd, London Borough of Haringey, N15, failed to pay £2,233.46 to 2 workers.

313. Autoplus (UK) Limited, Stockton On Tees, TS20, failed to pay £2,231.06 to 3 workers.

314. Fine Tutors Limited, London Borough of Camden, WC1H, failed to pay £2,223.28 to 33 workers.

315. Phoenix BB Limited, Erdington, B23, failed to pay £2,211.24 to 1 worker.

316. Retrack Personnel Ltd, City of Westminster, W1U, failed to pay £2,193.00 to 1 worker.

317. F&S G Catering Limited, trading as Café Parmigiana, Bracknell, RG12, failed to pay £2,192.82 to 1 worker.

318. Moss Properties (Doncaster) Ltd, Doncaster, DN4, failed to pay £2,185.80 to 1 worker.

319. Tradedoubler Limited, London Borough of Camden, WC1V, failed to pay £2,173.43 to 1 worker.

320. Cura-Care Yorkshire Ltd, Doncaster, DN3, failed to pay £2,170.79 to 31 workers.

321. A & F Foods Ltd, trading as Pizza Hut, Reading, RG5, failed to pay £2,169.87 to 33 workers.

322. Mnara Health Ltd, Guildford, GU2, failed to pay £2,166.28 to 5 workers.

323. Miss Lucinda V Russell, trading as Arlary House Stables, Milnathort, KY13, failed to pay £2,158.39 to 2 workers.

324. The Ship@Lathom Ltd, trading as The Ship Lathom, Ormskirk, L40, failed to pay £2,151.67 to 36 workers.

325. Shining Pearls Nursery Ltd, Birmingham, B7, failed to pay £2,150.95 to 15 workers.

326. Mr Gurmet Singh, trading as TLC, Belfast, BT15, failed to pay £2,150.92 to 31 workers.

327. I Drive Automotive Ltd, Polegate, BN26, failed to pay £2,150.72 to 2 workers.

328. Wild Boar Inns Limited, trading as The Sitwell Arms Hotel, Sheffield, S21, failed to pay £2,142.83 to 47 workers.

329. The Unknown Agency Ltd, Hockley, SS5, failed to pay £2,135.39 to 1 worker.

330. Mr Edward Harris, Mr Ross Collins and Mr Andrew Body, trading as Messrs Lodge & Thomas, Truro, TR1, failed to pay £2,124.12 to 7 workers.

331. Neonify Limited, Brighton, BN2, failed to pay £2,116.36 to 1 worker.

332. Freshstores Limited, Yeovil, BA20, failed to pay £2,116.03 to 68 workers.

333. Mrs Emma Lincoln, trading as Hair De-Zign, St.Leonards-On-Sea, TN37, failed to pay £2,087.92 to 3 workers.

334. Mr Francis Mulligan, trading as GM Kitchens & Shop Fitting, Ennskillen, BT92, failed to pay £2,058.50 to 6 workers.

335. A1 Property Consultants Ltd, trading as Spire Property Group, Sunderland, SR1, failed to pay £2,054.40 to 1 worker.

336. Premier Support Services Limited, Birmingham, B9, failed to pay £2,045.98 to 10 workers.

337. Fatman’s Acton Limited, trading as Boss Pizza Acton, London Borough of Ealing, W3, failed to pay £2,041.58 to 5 workers.

338. HFK Shah Limited, trading as Papa John’s, Southampton, SO16, failed to pay £2,038.77 to 1 worker.

339. Darren Macdonald Funeral Directors Limited, Salisbury, SP1, failed to pay £2,010.66 to 1 worker.

340. N&S Developments Ltd, trading as The Old Sergeant, London Borough of Wandsworth, SW18, failed to pay £1,991.46 to 2 workers.

341. John Hargreaves (Collyhurst and Stalybridge) Limited, Stalybridge, SK15, failed to pay £1,990.09 to 27 workers.

342. Mrs Angela Draycott, trading as Anji Draycott Hair, Leicester, LE9, failed to pay £1,986.55 to 1 worker.

343. IBI Healthcare Ltd, trading as Lister Pharmacy, Bradford, BD8, failed to pay £1,971.59 to 1 worker.

344. Work Work Limited, London Borough of Barnet, N11, failed to pay £1,966.99 to 1 worker.

345. Elite Pro Sports Limited, Doncaster, DN4, failed to pay £1,956.94 to 1 worker.

346. S & L Joiners Limited, Clydebank, G81, failed to pay £1,956.26 to 3 workers.

347. Tudor Kitchen Factory Limited, Sutton Coldfield, B73, failed to pay £1,951.32 to 1 worker.

348. A Bright Star Nursery (Rumney) Limited, Cardiff, CF3, failed to pay £1,949.43 to 10 workers.

349. Mrs Caroline Bryant, trading as Aldermoor Farm Equestrian, Hook, RG27, failed to pay £1,930.16 to 1 worker.

350. Gemma Leanne Melling, trading as Cheeky Monkeys Day Nursery, Nuneaton, CV11, failed to pay £1,918.52 to 1 worker.

351. Mr Benjamin Edward Albert Bethel, trading as Doggydude, Manchester, M26, failed to pay £1,917.71 to 1 worker.

352. Restaurateur Group Holdings Ltd, trading as Grizzly’s Canning Town, London Borough of Newham, E16, failed to pay £1,911.74 to 1 worker.

353. Saint James Tavern Ltd, Brighton, BN2, failed to pay £1,895.05 to 10 workers.

354. Mr Harry Casaru, trading as Walnut Tree Bistro, Crickhowell, NP8, failed to pay £1,881.31 to 1 worker.

355. D.Village Ltd, London Borough of Southwark, SE21, failed to pay £1,880.84 to 2 workers.

356. Functional Skills Education Centre Ltd, Wembley, HA0, failed to pay £1,876.16 to 2 workers.

357. Saturn Healthcare Ltd, trading as Bungay House, Bungay, NR35, failed to pay £1,873.10 to 23 workers.

358. Sheldon Inns Limited, trading as The Vine Inn, Stourbridge, DY7, failed to pay £1,830.70 to 1 worker.

359. Taverna Tasty Food Ltd, trading as Greek Taverna, Waterloo, L22, failed to pay £1,830.68 to 4 workers.

360. Davison Canners Limited, Craigavon, BT62, failed to pay £1,821.93 to 22 workers.

361. Mrs Catherine Clifford and Mr Edward Lewis, trading as The Lansdowne Hotel, Eastbourne, BN21, failed to pay £1,816.70 to 13 workers.

362. McCombe Inns Limited, trading as The Thatch Inn, Ballymena, BT42, failed to pay £1,796.81 to 24 workers.

363. Smith & Western (Chichester) Limited, Chichester, PO19, failed to pay £1,780.36 to 47 workers.

364. Ò Muirigh Solicitors Limited, Belfast, BT12, failed to pay £1,776.56 to 1 worker.

365. Dispensing Healthcare Ltd, trading as Swift Pharmacy, Rotherham, S60, failed to pay £1,772.97 to 2 workers.

366. The Khyber Restaurant (Epworth) Limited, Doncaster, DN9, failed to pay £1,765.75 to 9 workers.

367. Roseberry Care Centres GB Limited, Houghton-Le-Spring, DH4, failed to pay £1,757.71 to 25 workers.

368. Dustbusters Cleaning Limited, High Wycombe, HP13, failed to pay £1,740.28 to 5 workers.

369. Navith Brothers Limited, trading as Premier Stores, Deal, CT14, failed to pay £1,736.61 to 3 workers.

370. Goa Seaburn Ltd, trading as Goa Exemplary Indian Cuisine, Sunderland, SR6, failed to pay £1,732.00 to 8 workers.

371. Peter Rabbit Day Nursery Limited, trading as Peters Patch Day Nursery, Hillsborough, BT26, failed to pay £1,713.54 to 44 workers.

372. Busy Bee Montessori Nursery School Limited, Bury Saint Edmunds, IP28, failed to pay £1,693.37 to 32 workers.

373. Loon Fung Limited, London Borough of Harringey, N17, failed to pay £1,690.35 to 2 workers.

374. Fresh & Wild Limited, trading as Whole Foods Market, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, W8, failed to pay £1,683.31 to 11 workers.

375. J.J. Furness Limited, Matlock, DE4, failed to pay £1,682.51 to 1 worker.

376. BARKLEY PLASTICS LIMITED, Birmingham, B12, failed to pay £1,677.73 to 9 workers.

377. Cristal Care Limited, trading as Voyage Care, Lichfield, WS14, failed to pay £1,672.75 to 9 workers.

378. Heritage Taverns Limited, trading as Elite Pubs, Maidstone, ME17, failed to pay £1,672.07 to 11 workers.

379. Tenpin Limited, Bedford, MK43, failed to pay £1,660.07 to 67 workers.

380. T. Leisure Limited, trading as Neptune Fish Restaurant, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE68, failed to pay £1,644.03 to 2 workers.

381. La Bella Manchester Ltd, Salford, M6, failed to pay £1,641.41 to 2 workers.

382. Smith & Western (Box Hill) Limited, Tadworth, KT20, failed to pay £1,631.10 to 40 workers.

383. La Vita West End Limited, Glasgow, G12, failed to pay £1,628.75 to 35 workers.

384. Ebutemetta Joint Ltd, Royal Borough of Greenwich, SE18, failed to pay £1,628.56 to 1 worker.

385. NJ Yarn Distributors Limited, trading as RKM Wools, Rhyl, LL18, failed to pay £1,626.43 to 3 workers.

386. Lasan Restaurant Limited, Birmingham, B3, failed to pay £1,622.23 to 3 workers.

387. Smith & Western Lingfield Ltd, Lingfield, RH7, failed to pay £1,613.58 to 27 workers.

388. Ullesthorpe Court Hotel and Golf Club Limited, Lutterworth, LE17, failed to pay £1,604.26 to 26 workers.

389. Thomas Dudley Foundry Limited, Dudley, DY1, failed to pay £1,592.27 to 1 worker.

390. Mr Edris Babrakar and Mrs Hasina Babrakar, trading as Arundel News, Benfleet, SS7, failed to pay £1,590.42 to 2 workers.

391. Universally Speaking Limited, Wyboston, MK44, failed to pay £1,588.36 to 10 workers.

392. Little Dessert Shop (Wolverhampton) Ltd, trading as Little Dessert Shop Bilston, Bilston, WV2, failed to pay £1,588.18 to 21 workers.

393. Medlock Day Nursery Ltd, Oldham, OL8, failed to pay £1,584.09 to 2 workers.

394. Sycamore House Day Nursery Limited, Bishop’s Stortford, CM23, failed to pay £1,567.69 to 9 workers.

395. Above & Beyond Group Ltd, Bishop’s Stortford, CM22, failed to pay £1,567.27 to 14 workers.

396. R & J (Builders Hardware) Limited, Blackburn, BB1, failed to pay £1,566.96 to 2 workers.

397. Absolute 20 Limited, trading as Body Street, Birmingham, B72, failed to pay £1,559.89 to 3 workers.

398. Vietnam Restaurant Ltd, trading as Good Morning Vietnam, Swansea, SA2, failed to pay £1,558.33 to 5 workers.

399. K9 Design Dog Grooming & Training 2020 Ltd, Glasgow, G31, failed to pay £1,540.53 to 2 workers.

400. Alkota Group Limited, Chesterfield, S41, failed to pay £1,510.08 to 1 worker.

401. Airlie Arms Hotel Limited, trading as Airlie Arms Hotel, Kirriemuir, DD8, failed to pay £1,507.11 to 29 workers.

402. Blackbox Voice and Data Solutions Ltd, Westminster, SW1Y, failed to pay £1,504.29 to 1 worker.

403. La Vie Café Ltd, Manchester, M3, failed to pay £1,501.83 to 2 workers.

404. Arutun Ltd, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, SW10, failed to pay £1,496.00 to 1 worker.

405. Crown Foods (Bradford) Ltd, Bradford, BD8, failed to pay £1,495.82 to 17 workers.

406. Smith & Western (Tilgate) Limited, Crawley, RH10, failed to pay £1,479.71 to 54 workers.

407. Stone Eden Nursery School Limited, Carlisle, CA4, failed to pay £1,469.94 to 14 workers.

408. Heybrook Bay Pub Ltd, trading as Eddystone Inn, Plymouth, PL9, failed to pay £1,462.90 to 6 workers.

409. BNB Property Services Limited, Edinburgh, EH7, failed to pay £1,460.51 to 2 workers.

410. Hoghton Street Dental Care Limited, Southport, PR9, failed to pay £1,449.52 to 7 workers.

411. Mr R H Blunt, Mrs Jane Drysdale, Mrs V Bourne and Mr T A Blunt, trading as Blunts Shoes, Stourport-on-Severn, DY13, failed to pay £1,448.72 to 40 workers.

412. E&A Distribution Limited, Birmingham, B23, failed to pay £1,447.61 to 1 worker.

413. Vanessa Susan Logan, trading as VSL Nail & Beauty Salon, Tadworth, KT20, failed to pay £1,447.17 to 1 worker.

414. Elite Security Personnel Limited, Nottingham, NG2, failed to pay £1,444.75 to 14 workers.

415. Clearing Agent Ltd, trading as Clearcut Maintenance, London Borough of Haringey, N17, failed to pay £1,444.26 to 1 worker.

416. P K W Foods Limited, trading as Subway, Denton, M34, failed to pay £1,430.03 to 43 workers.

417. Sundari Foods Limited, trading as Vel Brighton, Kemptown, BN2, failed to pay £1,430.03 to 2 workers.

418. ELLUC Projects Ltd, Warrington, WA1, failed to pay £1,409.69 to 2 workers.

419. Ebrington (NI) Ltd, Maydown, BT47, failed to pay £1,391.96 to 1 worker.

420. Beaches Hotel Limited, trading as The Beaches Hotel and Spa, Prestatyn, LL19, failed to pay £1,386.85 to 6 workers.

421. Hillcrest Fabrications Limited, Swadlincote, DE11, failed to pay £1,386.22 to 1 worker.

422. Milligans Durham Limited, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE16, failed to pay £1,385.05 to 15 workers.

423. Healthharmonie Limited, trading as HealthHarmonie, Birmingham, B15, failed to pay £1,384.41 to 19 workers.

424. Creative Child Ltd, trading as Bamboo Kids, Bradford, BD4, failed to pay £1,377.26 to 18 workers.

425. Mr Mohamed Omar Arif, trading as San Hand Car Wash, Wednesbury, WS10, failed to pay £1,376.39 to 11 workers.

426. Pho Vietnamese Limited, trading as Madame Pho, Belfast, BT7, failed to pay £1,374.42 to 17 workers.

427. Milestone (Rathfriland) Limited, Newry, BT34, failed to pay £1,369.47 to 53 workers.

428. Primacy Care Limited, Cardiff, CF11, failed to pay £1,367.12 to 1 worker.

429. Mr Robert D Glover, trading as The Mount Dental Practice, York, YO24, failed to pay £1,361.07 to 2 workers.

430. PMG Retail Limited, trading as PMG Schoolwear, Chessington, KT9, failed to pay £1,360.30 to 15 workers.

431. Global Heritage Healthcare Ltd, Liverpool, L36, failed to pay £1,353.00 to 17 workers.

432. Trendy Pooches SB Limited, Wirral, CH63, failed to pay £1,350.31 to 1 worker.

433. Pride of Bengal Highland Ltd, trading as Eurasia, Inverness, IV3, failed to pay £1,349.16 to 3 workers.

434. Sajn Limited, London Borough of Brent, NW10, failed to pay £1,347.49 to 7 workers.

435. Dundonald Nurseries Limited, Belfast, BT16, failed to pay £1,347.27 to 41 workers.

436. Majestic Wine Warehouses Limited, trading as Majestic Wine, Watford, WD24, failed to pay £1,347.17 to 2 workers.

437. ABC Day Nursery & Pre-School Ltd, Warley, B67, failed to pay £1,341.86 to 1 worker.

438. Williams Electrical Contracting (GB) Limited, Bournemouth, BH11, failed to pay £1,331.68 to 2 workers.

439. First Footsteps Limited, Anfield, L4, failed to pay £1,328.30 to 3 workers.

440. Alias Group Limited, Leicester, LE3, failed to pay £1,327.91 to 1 worker.

441. Frontline Healthcare Solutions Ltd, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5, failed to pay £1,327.10 to 78 workers.

442. D2D Saltcoats Limited, trading as Premier Saltcoats Convenience Store, Saltcoats, KA21, failed to pay £1,315.26 to 9 workers.

443. W&D Foods Ltd, trading as I-Chai Express, Anniesland, G13, failed to pay £1,287.90 to 2 workers.

444. Smith & Western (Addlestone) Limited, Addlestone, KT15, failed to pay £1,278.85 to 40 workers.

445. Laser Crystal Limited, Poole, BH15, failed to pay £1,266.04 to 1 worker.

446. Elnecot Limited, Manchester, M4, failed to pay £1,255.43 to 4 workers.

447. Harboro Hotel (East Midlands) Ltd, trading as Harboro Hotel, Melton Mowbray, LE13, failed to pay £1,250.21 to 1 worker.

448. FORK CATERING LTD, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1, failed to pay £1,234.72 to 6 workers.

449. Blossom Tree Nursery Rhiwbina Ltd, Cardiff, CF14, failed to pay £1,234.68 to 19 workers.

450. Temple Mead Care Ltd, trading as Elite Care 24/7, Birmingham, B18, failed to pay £1,232.04 to 10 workers.

451. Pineshield Management Limited, Cardiff, CF23, failed to pay £1,231.76 to 23 workers.

452. Complete Removals & Storage Ltd, Wimborne, BH21, failed to pay £1,228.87 to 7 workers.

453. K.W. Reader & Sons Limited, trading as The Dunes, South Shields, NE33, failed to pay £1,220.99 to 12 workers.

454. Megaplay (Bradford) Ltd, Bradford, BD8, failed to pay £1,218.66 to 14 workers.

455. P J Automotive Limited, Stoke on Trent, ST1, failed to pay £1,217.60 to 2 workers.

456. Alecta Technical Solutions Ltd, Ringwood, BH24, failed to pay £1,206.24 to 2 workers.

457. YYYKN LTD, trading as Creams Cafe Elephant and Castle, London Borough of Southwark, failed to pay £1,202.08 to 1 worker.

458. G.S. Kelsey Construction Ltd, Scunthorpe, DN16, failed to pay £1,200.72 to 2 workers.

459. Huhtamaki BCP Limited, Blackburn, BB1, failed to pay £1,195.21 to 32 workers.

460. Brunos Steak House Ltd, trading as Bruno’s Rodizio, St Helens, WA10, failed to pay £1,184.47 to 2 workers.

461. P&K Renovation Ltd, Liverpool, L4, failed to pay £1,175.31 to 21 workers.

462. Sammy Snail Ltd, trading as Sammy Snail Day Care, Birmingham, B33, failed to pay £1,174.58 to 6 workers.

463. Tinys Beauty Ltd, Royal Borough of Greenwich, SE9, failed to pay £1,162.33 to 2 workers.

464. Minds Limited, London Borough of Brent, NW6, failed to pay £1,160.00 to 9 workers.

465. RFG Brighton Limited, trading as Kaspa’s Desserts, Brighton, BN1, failed to pay £1,159.33 to 1 worker.

466. David Hayton Limited, Penrith, CA11, failed to pay £1,145.83 to 1 worker.

467. Prime Catering (Peterborough) Ltd, trading as Shanghai Garden, Peterborough, PE1, failed to pay £1,144.09 to 7 workers.

468. M. Farren Limited, Callander, FK17, failed to pay £1,142.82 to 1 worker.

469. Just Build (Yorkshire) Limited, Bridlington, YO16, failed to pay £1,140.93 to 1 worker.

470. The Enchanted Grove Limited, Porth, CF39, failed to pay £1,121.46 to 1 worker.

471. Topaz Limited, trading as Domino’s, London Borough of Merton, SW19, failed to pay £1,120.30 to 1 worker.

472. The Court Hotel Group Ltd, trading as Allerdale Court Hotel, Cockermouth, CA13, failed to pay £1,120.28 to 1 worker.

473. Clyde Company (Scotland) Ltd, trading as Babylon Supermarket, Glasgow, G5, failed to pay £1,116.57 to 13 workers.

474. Elpas Limited, trading as La Petite Auberge, London Borough of Barnet, EN4, failed to pay £1,111.39 to 1 worker.

475. Milligans Sunderland Limited, Sunderland, SR1, failed to pay £1,106.24 to 8 workers.

476. Joseph Furniture Ltd, Huddersfield, HD2, failed to pay £1,101.75 to 1 worker.

477. Seconds Out Ltd, Clacton-on-Sea, CO15, failed to pay £1,099.19 to 1 worker.

478. OPO Bakery Ltd, trading as Old Post Office Bakery, London Borough of Lambeth, SW9, failed to pay £1,098.90 to 1 worker.

479. Clifton Dental Care Limited, Cardiff, CF24, failed to pay £1,095.49 to 10 workers.

480. Ginger And Spice Limited, trading as The Falls of Feugh Restaurant, Banchory, AB31, failed to pay £1,094.03 to 1 worker.

481. Hope Inns LLP, trading as The Crabtree, Horsham, RH13, failed to pay £1,093.41 to 1 worker.

482. Wheelgame Limited, Basingstoke, RG26, failed to pay £1,091.57 to 1 worker.

483. Faith Globallinks Ventures Limited, Chelmsford, CM2, failed to pay £1,088.78 to 11 workers.

484. Mr Ngoc Tinh Chu, trading as Riverside Chinese Restaurant, Omagh, BT79, failed to pay £1,078.23 to 16 workers.

485. Bongo Master Restaurant and Bar Ltd, Huddersfield, HD1, failed to pay £1,060.65 to 2 workers.

486. Stone Products Scotland Ltd, Glasgow, G41, failed to pay £1,051.11 to 1 worker.

487. The Passmores Co-Operative Learning Community, Harlow, CM18, failed to pay £1,041.32 to 1 worker.

488. Al-Kamoosi Limited, trading as Crwys Pharmacy, Cardiff, CF24, failed to pay £1,026.95 to 6 workers.

489. Mr Paul C Hugill, trading as The Priory Hotel, Louth, LN11, failed to pay £1,022.44 to 6 workers.

490. Mr A Ekrayem, Mr M N Chaban, Mr E Shaban & Mr B Al’Saadi, trading as Damasgate Wholesale, Greenford, UB6, failed to pay £1,013.95 to 9 workers.

491. Wholesale Tropicals (UK) Limited, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, E2, failed to pay £1,010.64 to 1 worker.

492. Ravenwood Hall Hotel Limited, Bury St Edmunds, IP30, failed to pay £1,010.61 to 13 workers.

493. Al Pacinos Pizza House Ltd, Colne, BB8, failed to pay £1,008.77 to 1 worker.

494. Reehal Kitchen Bedrooms Limited, Birmingham, B21, failed to pay £1,006.82 to 9 workers.

495. Fashion Wize Ltd, trading as Lister Schoolwear, Bradford, BD9, failed to pay £1,003.55 to 28 workers.

496. Milligans Whickham Limited, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE16, failed to pay £998.23 to 8 workers.

497. Milligans Middlesbrough Limited, Middlesbrough, TS1, failed to pay £997.31 to 15 workers.

498. The Yew Tree Frieth Limited, Henley-On-Thames, RG9, failed to pay £996.50 to 1 worker.

499. In House Care Limited, Northampton, NN3, failed to pay £996.22 to 3 workers.

500. Wharfdale Leisure Ltd, trading as Silence UK, Solihull, B90, failed to pay £996.06 to 4 workers.

501. A Vita Limited, trading as A Vita, Cleveland, TS15, failed to pay £994.90 to 3 workers.

502. Premier Electrics NW Ltd, Stockport, SK8, failed to pay £990.70 to 1 worker.

503. Sweettoofzuk Ltd, trading as Sweet Toofz, Leicester, LE4, failed to pay £989.83 to 1 worker.

504. Pixaserv Ltd, Cardiff, CF24, failed to pay £986.00 to 1 worker.

505. Pili Palas Nature World Limited, Anglesey, LL59, failed to pay £984.62 to 31 workers.

506. Quik Foods Ltd, Liverpool, L11, failed to pay £981.00 to 1 worker.

507. Durum Ocakbasi Limited, trading as Durum Restaurant, London Borough of Barnet, N3, failed to pay £977.92 to 5 workers.

508. Complete Packaging Solutions Ltd, Leicester, LE8, failed to pay £961.06 to 8 workers.

509. G4S Security Services (UK) Limited, London Borough of Waltham Forest, E4, failed to pay £959.45 to 1 worker.

510. Compleat Care (UK) Limited, Sleaford, NG34, failed to pay £955.24 to 8 workers.

511. Make It Real LLC, Manchester, M4, failed to pay £954.55 to 1 worker.

512. Milligans Kenton Limited, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE3, failed to pay £954.13 to 15 workers.

513. Valicity Care Services Ltd, Cobham, KT11, failed to pay £952.79 to 3 workers.

514. Scotia Bathroom & Tile Centre (Kinghorn) Limited, Kinghorn, KY3, failed to pay £944.84 to 1 worker.

515. Calder & Hannam Limited, trading as The Outdoor Learning Company, Christchurch, BH23, failed to pay £944.32 to 1 worker.

516. MBS North East Ltd, Newtown, SY16, failed to pay £944.23 to 4 workers.

517. Gillis Foods Limited, trading as Crosskeys Meats, Ballymena, BT42, failed to pay £942.86 to 11 workers.

518. Acorn Park Nursery Limited, Glasgow, G3, failed to pay £938.40 to 1 worker.

519. Excell Cleaning Services Limited, Cranbrook, TN18, failed to pay £934.51 to 48 workers.

520. UIG Hotel Ltd, Isle of Skye, IV51, failed to pay £932.55 to 6 workers.

521. Quantum Coffee Roasters Ltd, Cardiff, CF10, failed to pay £932.51 to 1 worker.

522. Cactus Rainbow Limited, trading as The Cloche Hat, Woking, GU24, failed to pay £927.20 to 1 worker.

523. Devereux & Co. Limited, Cheltenham, GL52, failed to pay £919.70 to 1 worker.

524. Alphadigital Limited, Rayleigh, SS6, failed to pay £918.80 to 1 worker.

525. Curve Motion Limited, Bury St Edmunds, IP32, failed to pay £916.50 to 21 workers.

526. Golden Ambal Limited, Edinburgh, EH7, failed to pay £915.20 to 1 worker.

527. Power Lounge Ltd , Swindon, SN1, failed to pay £909.77 to 1 worker.

528. Imperial Hotel Garvagh Ltd, Coleraine, BT51, failed to pay £908.14 to 21 workers.

529. Mr Satpal Bains and Mrs Satvinder Kaur, trading as College Road Post Office, Birmingham, B20, failed to pay £907.47 to 1 worker.

530. Dr Jerome Kaine Ikwueke, trading as Grove Road Surgery, London Borough of Haringey, N15, failed to pay £906.54 to 3 workers.

531. Lawlor Decorating Company Limited, Alloa, FK10, failed to pay £900.47 to 1 worker.

532. Night Dental Ltd, Birmingham, B9, failed to pay £897.68 to 2 workers.

533. LCMA Hotels Ltd, trading as Bishop’s Gate Hotel Derry, Derry, BT48, failed to pay £896.31 to 13 workers.

534. Beti Reilly (Hairstylists) Limited, Glasgow, G2, failed to pay £891.08 to 1 worker.

535. Smith & Western (Horsham) Limited, Horsham, RH12, failed to pay £890.92 to 31 workers.

536. Whiterock Childrens Centre Ltd, trading as Whiterock Creche Association Ltd, Belfast, BT12, failed to pay £886.94 to 9 workers.

537. Kinneuchar Inn Pub Company Ltd, trading as The Kinneuchar Inn, Leven, KY9, failed to pay £881.40 to 1 worker.

538. Anthony Condon Show Jumping Limited, Whitchurch, SY13, failed to pay £878.57 to 1 worker.

539. West Lothian Artistic Gymnastic Club SCIO, Livingston, EH54, failed to pay £877.62 to 4 workers.

540. Araf Coleshill Limited, trading as Indian Lounge, Birmingham, B46, failed to pay £876.65 to 14 workers.

541. SVK Care Ltd, trading as Caremark (Leicester, Oadby & Wigston), Leicester, LE4, failed to pay £876.15 to 1 worker.

542. Green Tree Limited, trading as Green Tree Lifts, London Borough of Islington, N1, failed to pay £868.08 to 1 worker.

543. Egertons Fleet Services Limited, Milton Keynes, MK12, failed to pay £867.21 to 1 worker.

544. Bearfields of London Limited, London Borough of Waltham Forest, E11, failed to pay £864.43 to 1 worker.

545. Dr I Hussain, trading as Ward End Dental Practice, Birmingham, B8, failed to pay £853.37 to 8 workers.

546. James Campbell (Butchers) Limited, Glasgow, G3, failed to pay £852.52 to 1 worker.

547. Miss Lynsey Bingham, trading as Identity Hair, Belfast, BT9, failed to pay £849.24 to 1 worker.

548. Mr Lee William Petchy, trading as Liaison Hair, London Borough of Barnet, NW7, failed to pay £848.83 to 2 workers.

549. Fine Dine Management Limited, trading as Varanasi, Birmingham, B15, failed to pay £848.55 to 19 workers.

550. Family First Professionals Ltd, Cardiff, CF10, failed to pay £845.50 to 1 worker.

551. Zeux Ltd, City of Westminster, W1J, failed to pay £840.81 to 1 worker.

552. Maddisons Bakery Limited, Bexleyheath, DA7, failed to pay £840.26 to 1 worker.

553. Mr Jayendrakumar Jayantibhai Patel, Mrs Nalini Jayendrakumar Patel, Mr Pratik Patel and Mr Tilak Patel, trading as Jay’s Budgens, London Borough of Lewisham, SE4, failed to pay £838.29 to 1 worker.

554. Alba Landscapes Ltd., Glasgow, G76, failed to pay £837.42 to 1 worker.

555. Oakfield Pharma Limited, St Helens, WA9, failed to pay £834.56 to 34 workers.

556. HT Sweets (UK) Limited, trading as HT Sweets, Birmingham, B11, failed to pay £830.28 to 1 worker.

557. Il Cancello Italian Ltd, Stanley, DH9, failed to pay £818.89 to 9 workers.

558. Ferrymill Motors Ltd, Glasgow, G64, failed to pay £815.94 to 12 workers.

559. Halls Decorating and Painting Contractors Limited, Boothtown, HX3, failed to pay £815.35 to 1 worker.

560. Wheel Traders Limited, Thurrock, RM20, failed to pay £814.68 to 1 worker.

561. C & R Global Leisure Ltd, trading as The Turks Head, Darlington, DL3, failed to pay £797.77 to 8 workers.

562. The Family Gas Care Company Ltd, Accrington, BB5, failed to pay £793.42 to 3 workers.

563. Lyndhurst Private Pre-School Day Nursery Limited, Pocklington, YO42, failed to pay £792.93 to 12 workers.

564. Alpine Facilities Services Limited, Altrincham, WA15, failed to pay £787.84 to 15 workers.

565. Hawkey Office Cleaning Limited, Sidcup, DA14, failed to pay £786.68 to 3 workers.

566. Zium Limited, trading as Lime Restaurant, Nottingham, NG16, failed to pay £786.19 to 3 workers.

567. WFS (NI) Limited, trading as SPAR Mount Eagles, Belfast, BT17, failed to pay £783.42 to 1 worker.

568. N Eshal Limited, trading as Aroma Kebabs, Fallin, FK7, failed to pay £775.87 to 1 worker.

569. FFY Group Limited, Manchester, M1, failed to pay £774.40 to 4 workers.

570. Fife Wholesale Butchers LLP, trading as Fife Butchers, Glenrothes, KY7, failed to pay £767.68 to 13 workers.

571. Staffordshire & Cheshire Cleaning Services Limited, Stoke-On-Trent, ST7, failed to pay £767.15 to 16 workers.

572. Mymil Limited, Leicester, LE5, failed to pay £763.04 to 4 workers.

573. G.Parry Home Improvements Limited, Ruthin, LL15, failed to pay £749.41 to 4 workers.

574. PB2 LTD, Bradford, BD7, failed to pay £747.86 to 11 workers.

575. R. Sutton OPCO Limited, trading as Holiday Inn London – Sutton, London Borough of Sutton, SM1, failed to pay £738.33 to 11 workers.

576. Mr Chans Resturant Limited, St Helens, WA10, failed to pay £737.39 to 2 workers.

577. 4C Coffee House and Kitchen Ltd, Armagh, BT61, failed to pay £734.51 to 1 worker.

578. Heathrow OPCO Limited, trading as Radisson Blu Hotel, Hayes, UB3, failed to pay £731.86 to 3 workers.

579. Greenleaf Property Marketing Limited, Cheshunt, EN8, failed to pay £726.96 to 1 worker.

580. Star Plumbing, Heating & Renewables Ltd, Diss, IP22, failed to pay £726.90 to 1 worker.

581. Palm House (At the Packhouse) Ltd, Farnham, GU10, failed to pay £726.48 to 5 workers.

582. Fish ‘O’ Licious (Norfolk) Limited, trading as Fish ‘o’ Licious, Great Yarmouth, NR30, failed to pay £724.16 to 1 worker.

583. Pro-Help Limited, Leicester, LE1, failed to pay £718.09 to 1 worker.

584. Professor Phone Ltd, Colchester, CO1, failed to pay £714.71 to 1 worker.

585. Capstone Care Provider Limited, Nottingham, NG3, failed to pay £708.18 to 1 worker.

586. Great Cretan Inn Ltd, trading as The Anchor, Tilsworth, LU7, failed to pay £704.03 to 1 worker.

587. Heston Cars London Limited, Ashford, TW15, failed to pay £704.03 to 1 worker.

588. South Wales Transport (Neath) Ltd, Llansamlet, SA6, failed to pay £700.07 to 4 workers.

589. KA SCOTLAND LTD, trading as Pepe’s Gilmorton, Edinburgh, EH17, failed to pay £700.00 to 14 workers.

590. Green Star Restaurants Ltd, trading as Morley’s Finsbury Park, London Borough of Islington, N4, failed to pay £698.14 to 4 workers.

591. B – Sporting Limited, Shipley, BD18, failed to pay £697.24 to 62 workers.

592. Novah Limited, Runcorn, WA7, failed to pay £695.92 to 5 workers.

593. Miekha Limited, trading as Staple Hill Dental Practice, Bristol, BS16, failed to pay £694.14 to 2 workers.

594. Grace Care Service Limited, trading as Burford Nursing Home, Burford, OX18, failed to pay £681.85 to 2 workers.

595. Wealden Community Care Limited, Horam, TN21, failed to pay £675.93 to 9 workers.

596. Smith & Western (Tunbridge Wells) Limited, Royal Tunbridge Wells, TN2, failed to pay £675.92 to 33 workers.

597. Alliance Care (Dales Homes) Limited, Wilmslow, SK9, failed to pay £675.45 to 1 worker.

598. Boro Protect Security Ltd, Middlesbrough, TS1, failed to pay £670.88 to 1 worker.

599. The Windmill Failsworth Limited, Manchester, M35, failed to pay £660.06 to 1 worker.

600. Stage 2 Service & Supply Limited, Portsmouth, PO3, failed to pay £658.02 to 1 worker.

601. Joanna M Walsh, trading as Twinkle Tots Childcare, Gloucester, GL4, failed to pay £657.32 to 2 workers.

602. Rossendale Restaurant Ltd, trading as Anarkali Indian Restaurant, Haslingden, BB4, failed to pay £657.03 to 11 workers.

603. THE BARNYARD (KENT) LIMITED, Sittingbourne, ME9, failed to pay £654.29 to 16 workers.

604. Ecoserv FM Group Limited, Oxford, OX10, failed to pay £654.14 to 1 worker.

605. Williamsons Family Butchers Limited, Liverpool, L22, failed to pay £653.82 to 2 workers.

606. Just Gourmet Ltd, London Borough of Brent, NW10, failed to pay £652.57 to 5 workers.

607. Crown Service Station (Outwell) Limited, trading as The Crown Lodge Hotel, Wisbech, PE14, failed to pay £651.88 to 1 worker.

608. Atina Hotel Limited, trading as The Cairn Lodge, Auchterarder, PH3, failed to pay £643.23 to 10 workers.

609. Waggon & Horses (Matley) Ltd, Staleybridge, SK15, failed to pay £632.19 to 28 workers.

610. Solid Rock Care Ltd, Bedford, MK45, failed to pay £630.94 to 4 workers.

611. Platinum Windows (NW) Ltd, Liverpool, L33, failed to pay £627.32 to 8 workers.

612. Bel Viso Limited, Cleveland, TS18, failed to pay £619.69 to 1 worker.

613. Prime Electrical Services Ltd, Nuneaton, CV10, failed to pay £618.12 to 1 worker.

614. Kieser Consultancy Limited, Carlisle, CA6, failed to pay £617.20 to 1 worker.

615. Keep it Cheap – Car Rentals Limited, trading as KIC Garage Services, Wirral, CH62, failed to pay £616.55 to 1 worker.

616. Roots York Restaurant Ltd, York, YO30, failed to pay £614.36 to 18 workers.

617. The Liverpool Art School Ltd, trading as The Art School Restaurant, Liverpool, L7, failed to pay £613.62 to 10 workers.

618. G&S Auto Centre Ltd, Cannock, WS12, failed to pay £612.18 to 1 worker.

619. Tempex Global Limited, Barking, IG11, failed to pay £612.04 to 1 worker.

620. Mr John Bailey & Sharon Bailey, trading as J&S Bailey, Belfast, BT14, failed to pay £609.55 to 9 workers.

621. Mila’s Home Foods Ltd, trading as Namma Ooru Dosa, Liverpool, L13, failed to pay £601.16 to 5 workers.

622. Mr Scott Baines and Mr Kieran Heames, trading as Football Development Schools, Market Harborough, LE16, failed to pay £597.02 to 1 worker.

623. Blossoms Trading Limited, trading as Clarity Homecare, Ashford, TN23, failed to pay £595.89 to 3 workers.

624. D&D Contract Cleaning Ltd, Middlesbrough, TS8, failed to pay £594.88 to 1 worker.

625. Carsmetix Limited, trading as Fix Auto Pershore, Pershore, WR10, failed to pay £592.26 to 4 workers.

626. Sequoia CH Group Ltd, trading as Belle Green Court Care Home, Barnsley, S72, failed to pay £589.16 to 1 worker.

627. APJ Services (London) Ltd, Erith, DA18, failed to pay £589.00 to 1 worker.

628. Pentagon Security Force (TM) Ltd, Stoke on Trent, ST6, failed to pay £584.85 to 8 workers.

629. UK Caring Services Limited, Coventry, CV6, failed to pay £582.69 to 1 worker.

630. Neasden Fish & Chips Ltd, London Borough of Brent, NW10, failed to pay £580.23 to 1 worker.

631. CWCIO Limited, trading as Kings Arms, Cardiff, CF15, failed to pay £577.84 to 70 workers.

632. Black Night Trading Ltd, trading as Black Horse Otley, Otley, LS21, failed to pay £577.52 to 6 workers.

633. Thames Valley Cleaning Limited, Reading, RG30, failed to pay £574.48 to 48 workers.

634. FENDEL LIMITED, trading as Creams Café, Enfield, EN1, failed to pay £574.21 to 9 workers.

635. Worcester Theatres Charitable Trust Ltd, Worcester, WR1, failed to pay £572.37 to 1 worker.

636. Chappell MOT & Service Centre Ltd, Cardiff, CF14, failed to pay £570.40 to 1 worker.

637. Eggesford Country Hotel Limited, trading as Fox And Hounds Country Hotel, Chulmleigh, EX18, failed to pay £568.59 to 10 workers.

638. Dean & Smedley Limited, trading as Dean & Smedley Family Pharmacy, Burton On Trent, DE14, failed to pay £566.43 to 3 workers.

639. Old Rope Walks Ltd, Liverpool, L17, failed to pay £561.92 to 1 worker.

640. The Marine Society And Sea Cadets, London Borough of Lambeth, SE1, failed to pay £561.59 to 4 workers.

641. Westcott Factory Meats Limited, Liverpool, L15, failed to pay £560.42 to 5 workers.

642. Southcrest Hotel (Redditch) Limited, trading as Southcrest Manor Hotel, Redditch, B97, failed to pay £554.40 to 2 workers.

643. AASK (SCOTLAND) LTD, trading as Shish Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8, failed to pay £537.97 to 6 workers.

644. Mr F Arbabi/ Dental Care Centre Limited, London Borough of Lewisham, SE14, failed to pay £531.96 to 1 worker.

645. ARISAIG HOTEL LIMITED, Arisaig, PH39, failed to pay £531.72 to 3 workers.

646. Club Kaede Limited, trading as Bar Kaz, City of Westminster, W1F, failed to pay £530.56 to 6 workers.

647. S & D Property Maintenance Ltd, Belfast, BT17, failed to pay £529.51 to 2 workers.

648. House Management Services Limited, Padstow, PL28, failed to pay £518.81 to 3 workers.

649. THE FINNEY PHARMA LTD, trading as Finney Pharmacy, Sunderland, SR2, failed to pay £515.50 to 2 workers.

650. Park Lane Kids Ltd, trading as Park Lane Pre School & Nursery, Nottingham, NG5, failed to pay £512.62 to 17 workers.

651. Sumatra Ltd, trading as Longrain Theatre, Brighton, BN1, failed to pay £508.01 to 4 workers.

652. Care Springside Limited, trading as Care Pharmacy, Irvine, KA11, failed to pay £505.06 to 1 worker.

653. Mr Gary Keen & Ms Shuxing Li Yeug, trading as Orchid Café, Nottingham, NG5, failed to pay £503.15 to 5 workers.

654. Baa Bar Limited, trading as Baa Bar, Liverpool, L1, failed to pay £406.31 to 24 workers.

655. MB Cafes Limited, Leicester, LE9, failed to pay £395.89 to 1 worker.

656. The Fernlea Hotel Limited, trading as The Inn on the Prom, Lytham St Annes, FY8, failed to pay £271.14 to 3 workers.

657. Tesco Stores Limited, Welwyn Garden City, AL7, failed to pay £227.84 to 1 worker.

658. Kids Planet Day Nurseries Limited, Lymm, WA13, failed to pay £117.72 to 11 workers.

Early release scheme piles further pressure on probation service

Probation is being asked to carry a great deal of weight.

From 1 October 2026, the Government’s new progression model begins to change when eligible prisoners serving standard determinate sentences can be released. The Ministry of Justice estimates that around 4,500 prisoners will be released earlier on the first day of ten phased tranches running from October 2026 to June 2027. The first-day figures are estimates rather than a lifetime total: once each tranche has begun, eligible releases continue as part of the permanent system.

That distinction matters. This is not simply a one-off exercise in which 4,500 people walk out of prison and the problem disappears. It is a structural change to sentencing and release arrangements, introduced partly in response to serious pressure on prison capacity. And much of what happens next lands on probation.

There is the rub.

The service expected to supervise those leaving custody is already struggling with workload and staffing pressures. The Government acknowledges the strain. Napo, the probation union, goes considerably further and argues that the service is approaching the point where excessive workloads threaten both the quality of supervision and public protection.

The figures explain why the argument has become so heated.

Channel 4 News FactCheck obtained workload data showing that in December 2025 the Probation Service as a whole was operating at 110% of workload capacity. That national average concealed much sharper local pressures. Mid Kent was recorded at 171%, while Oxfordshire stood at 161%. Earlier data showed several other units exceeding 150%.

Put more simply, 110% capacity means there is more assessed work than there are contracted staff hours available to perform it. At 160% or 170%, the arithmetic becomes considerably uglier.

There is also a shortage of qualified probation officers.

Official HMPPS workforce figures for June 2026 show 5,445 full-time-equivalent probation officers in post against a target staffing level of 7,380. That is a shortfall of 1,935 FTE officers. The wider Probation Service workforce has grown, including a substantial increase in probation services officers, but the number of band-4 probation officers fell by 109 FTE between March and June 2026 and was 54 lower than a year earlier.

Those are not union estimates. They are the Government’s own workforce statistics.

Appointments already being lost

The consequences of workload pressure can also be measured in something more tangible than percentages.

In March, the Government told Parliament that 31% of target probation appointments between 2023 and 2025 had not taken place because of unmanageable workloads. There has been some improvement: the proportion fell from 35% in 2023 to 31% in 2024 and 27% in 2025. Ministers nevertheless acknowledged that the system remained under significant strain.

That should give pause.

Probation is not chiefly a paperwork operation. Its purpose includes assessing risk, monitoring compliance with licence conditions, supporting rehabilitation and deciding when deteriorating behaviour requires intervention or recall.

None of those tasks becomes easier when an officer is attempting to squeeze twelve hours of assessed work into ten, never mind the equivalent of sixteen or seventeen.

Napo told Channel 4 that members were already “firefighting every day” and warned that excessive pressure could mean details being missed. The union linked that directly to its concerns about public protection as the new sentencing arrangements increase the number of people being managed in the community.

That is the union’s assessment, rather than proof that particular offences will occur because of the changes. But it is difficult to dismiss the underlying workload figures.

A ballot that should not be misdescribed

The strength of feeling among Napo members is unusually clear.

In August, 90.76% of members who participated in an indicative ballot backed potential industrial action over workloads. Thousands took part, according to the union. Napo described chronic staff shortages, excessive workloads, burnout and reliance on overtime as factors behind the result.

There is an important qualification. This was not a statutory strike ballot, and 90.76% refers to those who voted, not 90.76% of the entire union membership.

Indeed, as recently as 9 September the Ministry of Justice told Parliament that although a formal trade dispute over probation workloads existed, no statutory industrial-action ballot had been called.

Even with that caveat, more than nine in ten participants supporting the possibility of industrial action is not a result easily brushed aside.

Napo national chair Ben Cockburn summed up the union’s case in blunt terms:

“If you overload probation, you increase risk.”

Napo general secretary Ian Lawrence made a similar point when the release changes were announced, arguing that public attention had concentrated overwhelmingly on prisons while probation was being overlooked.

“Without probation none of this can happen.”

That is more than a trade-union slogan. Release from prison transfers responsibility rather than abolishing it.

Someone leaving custody under licence has not simply vanished from the criminal justice system. Risk has to be assessed. Conditions have to be monitored. Breaches have to be investigated. Victims may have to be contacted. Housing and other practical arrangements can influence whether resettlement succeeds. Where necessary, recall decisions have to be made.

Every additional case therefore carries work with it.

The Government says resources are coming

Ministers do not accept that probation is simply being abandoned to cope with the consequences.

The Government says funding for probation and community services will increase by up to £700 million by the final year of the Spending Review period, compared with 2025-26. That investment is intended to support increased staffing, accommodation provision, technology and a substantial expansion of electronic monitoring.

It has also committed to onboarding at least 1,300 trainee probation officers during 2026-27. The Ministry of Justice says 1,057 trainees were onboarded in 2024-25 and 1,389 in 2025-26.

There are other measures. Electronic-monitoring information is being made more readily available to probation practitioners, and the Government says technology and process changes should reduce administrative work. Ministers have set an ambition through the Our Future Probation Service programme to reduce workload by 25% by April 2027.

Those are substantial commitments.

But they do not alter the immediate staffing position. A trainee is not an experienced probation officer on the day they arrive. Recruitment requires training, supervision and retention, and the official figures show that the number of fully qualified band-4 officers was still moving in the wrong direction in the latest quarter.

Napo’s argument is therefore that recruitment by itself cannot solve the problem if experienced staff continue to leave or if workloads remain excessive. It wants the new money to translate into additional frontline capacity, improved retention and manageable caseloads rather than being absorbed predominantly by technology and monitoring programmes.

There is a genuine dispute here, but at least it can be stated accurately.

The Government says it is rebuilding probation while simultaneously changing sentencing. The union says the rebuilding is not happening quickly enough to carry the additional burden safely.

October will begin to test those competing claims.

Early release is more complicated than opening a prison gate

The new progression model itself is also more nuanced than the phrase “early release scheme” sometimes suggests.

Eligible prisoners on standard determinate sentences can reach an earlier release point, but the arrangements contain exclusions. Following a government review, rape, specified child sexual offences, offences connected with organised child sexual exploitation, unlawful killing and indecent assault were among those excluded. Indeterminate sentences and Extended Determinate Sentences for serious violent and sexual offenders are also outside the scheme.

The Government also stresses that prisoners who behave badly can spend longer in custody rather than automatically receiving release at the earliest point.

That provides essential context.

But exclusions do not remove the operational challenge for probation. Thousands of cases are still affected, and the Government’s own modelling anticipates 700 additional first-day releases in the first tranche, followed by 650 in the second and further tranches continuing into June. The model then becomes permanent.

For prisons, bringing forward eligible releases creates space.

For probation, those people become work.

Technology is useful. It is not an officer

Electronic monitoring will form a much larger part of the new system.

The Government has committed £100 million over the Spending Review period to expanding electronic monitoring and is introducing tools intended to give probation officers faster access to location and behavioural information. Ministers argue that better data can help staff identify licence breaches and emerging risks earlier.

There is a perfectly respectable case for using that technology.

But a tag cannot conduct a difficult conversation. It cannot judge from someone’s demeanour that something has changed. It cannot arrange accommodation, challenge behaviour, build the professional relationship on which effective supervision sometimes depends or bring together different agencies around a difficult case.

Technology may help probation officers do their jobs. It does not eliminate the need for probation officers.

The Government’s own admission that nearly a third of target appointments across 2023-25 were lost because workloads were unmanageable makes that distinction particularly important.

One crisis cannot simply be transferred to another service

Nobody seriously disputes the prison-capacity problem that prompted the sentencing reforms.

The Ministry of Justice describes the progression model as part of its response to a prison system in which demand was threatening to exceed available places. Ministers argue that maintaining sufficient capacity is itself a public-safety requirement.

That case deserves to be taken seriously.

But it leads to an equally serious question. If more of a sentence is going to be managed in the community, is the community supervision system ready to carry it?

At present, the evidence is mixed at best.

There is additional funding. There is recruitment. Overall Probation Service employment has risen. New technology is being introduced and workloads have improved from the particularly severe levels recorded in 2023. Those are real developments and should not be ignored.

Set against them are a national workload figure still above capacity, extreme pressure in some individual units, almost 2,000 fewer qualified probation officers than the target staffing requirement and an indicative union ballot in which 90.76% of participants backed potential industrial action.

That is the situation into which the October reforms arrive.

Probation staff will ultimately be judged on whether people released into the community are supervised properly, whether risks are recognised and whether intervention comes before something goes badly wrong.

They cannot control how many prison places exist. They do not write sentencing legislation. They cannot manufacture housing or treatment services.

But when someone leaves prison, much of the practical responsibility arrives at their door.

That makes probation much more than an administrative afterthought to sentencing reform. It is one of the mechanisms upon which the reform depends.

The debate over the progression model will inevitably continue: over prison capacity, sentence lengths, public protection and the balance between custody and community supervision. There are legitimate arguments on each side.

One conclusion requires rather less ideology.

If government policy places more responsibility on probation, the capacity of probation to carry that responsibility has to be measured against the work actually arriving through the door.

On the latest figures, that is precisely where the uncomfortable questions remain.

By Maria Camarra

Reform in power: when the slogans meet the balance sheet

Campaigning is the easy bit. You can promise to slash waste, freeze taxes, fix the potholes, sweep away bureaucracy and generally make the whole creaking machine work by applying a little common sense. It fits nicely on a leaflet.

Governing is rather less obliging. Social care still has to be provided on Monday morning. Children with special educational needs still need support. Roads still deteriorate. Staff still need paying. And council finance, annoyingly, does not disappear because somebody has denounced it as “waste”.

That is what makes Reform UK’s record in local government worth examining. The party’s breakthrough in the May 2025 elections gave it real power over substantial public services. A year later, it expanded again: Reform itself says it took another 14 English councils in May 2026, while UNISON noted that it also won seats in both the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd.

For a party that has sold itself as the great disruptor, local government has provided something unusually useful: evidence.

And the evidence is considerably messier than the sales pitch.

HOPE not hate’s Reform in Power investigation put the charge starkly. It said residents in Reform-run areas were experiencing “rising council tax, cuts to vital services, and a stream of scandals and resignations”, while the allegedly vast reservoir of waste waiting to be eliminated had proved rather harder to locate.

That is the central problem. Reform’s politics is built around the suggestion that Britain’s difficulties persist because nobody has been ruthless enough. Send in the auditors. Root out the woke spending. Find the diversity officers. Apply a DOGE-style efficiency drive and watch the savings tumble out.

Then came the awkward encounter with arithmetic.

The great council-tax revolt — followed by higher council tax

Take Worcestershire.

Reform had campaigned against high council tax and critics, including UNISON, highlighted the contradiction when its administration ended up pursuing an increase approaching 9%. The final budget set the rise at 8.98%, lifting the Band D county precept to £1,760.80.

There was, to be fair, a serious inherited financial crisis. Worcestershire’s own documents describe intense pressures in adult and children’s social care and a huge SEND deficit. Its chief financial officer advised councillors that the maximum increase permitted by government was required to avoid the risk of a Section 114 notice — local-government language for a council effectively admitting that it cannot balance its books.

That context matters. But it also rather destroys the fantasy politics.

It turns out you cannot simply march into County Hall, shout “waste” three times and produce a balanced budget. The bills are real. The legal duties are real. The elderly person requiring residential care is not a line of woke expenditure that can be deleted from a spreadsheet.

The Reform administration argued that it had inherited the mess from its Conservative predecessors. There is force in that defence. But there is also an obvious lesson: promising tax freezes before examining the books is a great deal easier than delivering them afterwards.

Campaign rhetoric met municipal finance. Municipal finance won.

Durham: cuts, charges and 88 posts

County Durham provides another useful case study.

By late 2025 the Reform-led council was facing a projected funding gap which had grown from £71 million to £82 million in two months. The council cited inflation, children’s social-care costs and school transport among the pressures. Its response included a package of roughly £10 million in savings proposals, involving 88 full-time-equivalent posts, about a third then vacant.

There were proposed reductions in grass cutting and litter picking, changes to bus provision and higher parking charges. Residents’ parking permits were subsequently increased by 40%. The administration defended that particular increase by pointing out that permit prices had not risen since 2015 and saying that the additional cost amounted to about four pence a day per permit.

Again, there are explanations. There always are when you actually govern.

But compare the dull reality — higher charges, fewer posts, reduced services — with the swagger of the original proposition that supposedly unnecessary spending could simply be hunted down and eliminated.

That contrast is precisely why public-service unions are paying such close attention.

UNISON general secretary Andrea Egan said in April that “the millionaires calling the shots in Reform don’t think those putting in a hard day’s graft deserve basic rights or fair pay.” Its report argued that Reform’s first eleven months running councils had produced broken promises over tax, internal turmoil and efficiency exercises that ran into the reality that local authority services had already endured years of cuts.

Whether one accepts every part of UNISON’s political analysis or not, the local-government numbers cannot simply be wished away.

SEND: an experiment that parents stopped

Perhaps the most telling cases are where proposed savings collided directly with public resistance.

In Leicestershire, the Reform administration proposed changing early-years SEND provision so that the council would no longer commission places at four specialist nurseries. Instead, it intended to direct additional money and specialist support towards mainstream nursery provision, with the existing arrangements potentially phased out by April 2027.

Parents were not impressed.

More than 2,500 consultation responses were received and a petition attracted about 2,000 signatures. In February the council abandoned the proposal.

There is nothing dishonourable about changing course after consultation. Indeed, that is what consultation is supposed to be for.

But it is worth remembering how this episode began. Reform was not rescuing a service from faceless bureaucrats. Its own administration was proposing a change affecting specialist provision for some of the county’s most vulnerable children, and organised public opposition persuaded it to retreat.

UNISON later cited Leicestershire alongside care-home controversies elsewhere, saying local campaigns had helped save the nurseries.

The neat story in which Reform arrives to protect ordinary people from an uncaring state becomes rather less neat when ordinary people find themselves campaigning to protect services from Reform.

Lancashire and the care-home row

Something similar happened in Lancashire.

The council launched a strategic review examining five residential care homes and five day centres. Its case was that several buildings were old, expensive to maintain and potentially unsuitable for future care needs. That was not an invented problem: the council published detailed reasons for the review, including maintenance backlogs, outdated layouts and changing patterns of demand.

But the proposals generated fierce resistance. The consultation drew 1,622 responses, with about 76% disagreeing with the reprovision proposals. By February, council leader Stephen Atkinson announced that there was no intention to close the five residential homes, and later council material confirmed that the day centres would also remain open while a new care model was developed.

Again, the reversal deserves to be recorded alongside the proposal.

Yet it also demonstrates something rather important. When political rhetoric about efficiency reaches the front door of a care home, things become complicated remarkably quickly.

There are residents. Families. Staff. Buildings. Transport arrangements. Medical needs. Human attachments accumulated over years.

Not everything in public expenditure is an inefficiency simply because it costs money.

And then there are the flags

While some Reform councils wrestled with social care and SEND, considerable political energy was also being expended on symbols. Their interest in Pride flags borders on the obsessive.

In Lancashire, the council formally revised its flag policy to remove a number of campaign flags, including the Pride, White Ribbon and NHS flags. Interestingly, the council’s own equality assessment acknowledged that removing the Pride flag could be perceived as reducing visibility for people sharing protected characteristics, though it characterised the impact as symbolic rather than a direct change in services.

In Durham, council support for Pride was withdrawn. Trade unions then stepped in. The Durham Miners’ Association, TUC, Aslef, CWU and others helped assemble more than £25,000, and the 2026 event went ahead with what organisers described as its largest turnout. Reform defended the decision on financial grounds, arguing that the success of private and union fundraising demonstrated that council funding was unnecessary.

Then there is Nottinghamshire.

The Reform-led county council allocated £75,000 to a programme of Union flag banners. Council documentation says the expenditure came from corporate contingencies and that the authority regarded the scheme as promoting civic identity. It also insisted the money had not been taken from a frontline service budget.

The original expectation was that sponsorship would help cover the cost. An FOI response in March said that although some organisations had expressed interest, no sponsorship agreements had yet been entered into. By July, reporting indicated that no sponsors had been secured.

There is something wonderfully circular about a movement promising to interrogate every penny of public expenditure and then finding itself explaining why £75,000 on flags represents good value.

The National Education Union’s Daniel Kebede gave the union movement’s view rather neatly, describing Reform as “adept at stoking culture wars and performative actions about flags, Pride marches and the like.”

Harsh? Certainly.

But not conjured from thin air.

The revolving door of councillors

There has also been the problem of personnel.

HOPE not hate tracked a remarkable churn among the councillors elected in Reform’s 2025 breakthrough. By spring 2026, roughly one in ten of that cohort had resigned, defected, been removed or otherwise left the party. Other reporting put the figure at between 65 and 74 of the approximately 677 councillors elected in 2025, depending on the date and definition used.

Some departures were mundane political defections. Others followed allegations or controversies involving offensive remarks or conduct.

HOPE not hate’s broader conclusion was that the gap between outsider rhetoric and the disciplines of office had become increasingly visible. Its own summary said that “the simple answers offered on the campaign trail have quickly unravelled in office.”

That is probably the most significant criticism because Reform has always benefited from not being responsible for very much.

Once responsibility arrives, protest politics loses one of its great advantages: somebody can check what you actually did.

Workers’ rights: the national argument behind the council fights

For trade unions, the argument does not stop at County Hall.

The TUC has launched its Stop the Steal campaign in response to Reform’s proposed “Great Repeal Bill”. According to the TUC, the proposal would remove provisions contained in the Employment Rights Act, potentially affecting day-one sick pay, fire-and-rehire protections, regulation of exploitative zero-hours arrangements and other employment rights. The TUC also says Reform has proposed repealing the Equality Act.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak says Reform wants to “strip working people of essentials like day-one sick pay and a fairer minimum wage.”

Reform disputes the unions’ wider characterisation of its politics. Nigel Farage has argued that his party is the real defender of working people, pointing to proposals to cut taxes on employment and overtime and insisting that Reform-controlled councils have delivered savings. In May he claimed nine Reform councils had saved more than £300 million and had kept council-tax increases below those of comparable authorities. Those are Reform’s own figures and claims.

That competing account should be heard.

But so should the evidence from the councils themselves.

Higher tax in Worcestershire. Job reductions and service cuts in Durham. Specialist SEND nursery proposals in Leicestershire, abandoned after mass opposition. Care-home proposals in Lancashire, also pulled back following consultation. Pride funding withdrawn in Durham. £75,000 found for Union flag banners in Nottinghamshire.

These are not theoretical objections dreamed up by Westminster opponents. They are decisions, budgets and consultations.

Governing is harder than raging

There is a wider point here.

Britain’s councils are in genuine trouble. Years of austerity, rising demand for adult and children’s social care, SEND pressures, inflation and an ageing population have produced structural problems that no political party can honestly pretend are painless to solve. Worcestershire’s official figures make that painfully clear.

Reform did not create all those problems. In many places it inherited them.

What it did do was suggest that the answers were much easier than they really are.

That is where the acid should bite.

Because once the slogans have been printed, the flags raised and the offending bits of “woke” bureaucracy identified, somebody still has to decide what happens to the care home, the nursery, the bus route, the pothole budget and the council-tax bill.

Local government has a brutal way of separating rhetoric from administration.

For years Reform could tell voters that somebody else was failing.

Now, increasingly, it has its own budgets, its own councillors and its own decisions to explain.

And that makes the record much more interesting than the rhetoric.

By Pat Harrington

Understanding Pay Gaps: Lessons from Next v Thandi

Equal pay cases rarely arrive with fireworks. They tend to come wrapped in spreadsheets, job descriptions and long arguments about “material factors”. But every so often, a judgment cuts through the technicalities and shows us something important about how employers justify pay gaps — and how the law responds.

The Next Retail Ltd & Next Distribution Ltd v Thandi & Others appeal is one of those cases. It centres on a familiar divide: retail staff on one side, warehouse staff on the other, and a pay gap running straight down the middle. The workers argued the gap was discriminatory. The employer said it was simply the labour market at work.

The Employment Tribunal initially sided with the workers on key points. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) then stepped in and corrected parts of that reasoning. The result is a judgment that matters not just for the claimants, but for anyone fighting pay inequality in sectors where employers lean heavily on “market forces” to explain why some jobs are valued more than others.

Retail vs warehouse: the pay gap at the heart of the case

The claimants were retail workers. Their comparators were warehouse workers. Warehouse staff were paid more — not just in basic pay, but in some additional benefits too.

The tribunal accepted that the retail workers had shown particular disadvantage, based on statistical differences between the two groups and other factual findings. That’s significant. Equal pay claims often fall at the first hurdle because tribunals decide the disadvantage isn’t proven. Here, the tribunal said it was.

But when it came to the employer’s defence — the “material factor” argument — the tribunal rejected Next’s justification. It said the employer hadn’t shown a legitimate aim for the pay difference.

That’s where the EAT disagreed.

The EAT’s intervention: legitimate aims and proportionality

Mr Justice Bourne upheld the tribunal’s finding on disadvantage, but overturned its conclusion on justification. He said the tribunal had misunderstood the employer’s aim.

Next’s aim, taken as a whole, was to pay higher rates to warehouse staff because those roles faced recruitment and retention pressures that retail roles did not. That, the EAT said, is a legitimate aim. And crucially, the employer did not need to justify why it didn’t raise retail pay to match warehouse pay. The only question was whether the higher warehouse pay was justified.

Because the tribunal had approached the question the wrong way round, its alternative finding — that the employer’s justification wasn’t proportionate — also collapsed. The tribunal had focused too much on why retail pay was lower, and not enough on why warehouse pay was higher. That’s a legal misstep, and the EAT corrected it.

On other pay benefits, the tribunal’s reasoning was sound. No error there.

The cross‑appeal: direct discrimination

The workers also argued direct discrimination. The tribunal rejected that claim, and the EAT agreed.

Two points stand out:

  • Market forces don’t automatically amount to discrimination. Employers don’t have to prove that market pressures affect men and women equally every time they rely on them.
  • You don’t need a Board member to give evidence for the employer’s reasoning to stand. The tribunal had enough evidence to understand why Next made its decisions, even without senior executives giving live testimony.

That’s a tough outcome for claimants. It shows how high the bar remains for proving direct discrimination in pay cases.

What this means for workers and unions

Market‑forces arguments are here to stay

Employers will continue to rely on recruitment and retention pressures to justify pay gaps. This judgment strengthens that defence. It doesn’t make equal pay claims impossible, but it does make them harder when employers can point to external labour‑market conditions.

Tribunals must ask the right question

The tribunal focused on the retail workers’ lower pay. The EAT says the real question is: Was the higher warehouse pay justified? That framing matters. It shifts the burden and can change the outcome.

Statistical disadvantage still matters

The EAT upheld the tribunal’s finding that the claimants had shown disadvantage. That’s important. Workers can still use statistical evidence to demonstrate inequality — and tribunals must take it seriously.

Direct discrimination remains a steep climb

Unless there’s clear evidence of sex‑based decision‑making, tribunals will usually accept business‑related explanations.

The wider lesson

This case shows the limits of equal‑pay law when employers can point to market conditions. It also shows how easily tribunals can misapply the legal tests — and how important it is for workers to have strong representation capable of challenging those errors.

For unions, the message is clear: You need robust evidence, clear statistical analysis and a strong alternative narrative if you want to challenge market‑forces defences.

For workers, it’s another reminder that fairness and legality are not always the same thing. A pay gap can feel unjust, and still be legally justified.

The fight for equal pay continues — but cases like Thandi show exactly where the pressure points are, and why collective action remains essential.

By Pat Harrington

This article is intended as a general explanation of the decision in Next v. Thandi. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. The summary is based on publicly available information, including the judgment and reporting from reputable news sources, and is provided for information and comment only. Individual cases turn on their own facts, and anyone affected by issues raised here should seek advice from a qualified legal professional. Solidarity Trade Union accepts no liability for any loss arising from reliance on this material.

Duffy v House of Gods: Key Insights on Interim Relief for Workers

In late 2025, a hotel worker at Edinburgh’s boutique “House of Gods” found himself out of a job after a chaotic evening shift that ended with the police being called. That much is common ground. What came next is the sort of dispute that goes right to the heart of workplace safety, whistleblowing protection, and the power imbalance workers face when employers move fast and loose.

According to Mr Duffy, the worker at the centre of the case, he had raised a serious safety concern that night: fire escape doors left open, creating a risk to guests, staff, and the building’s security . He said this disclosure – a classic health and safety warning – was the real reason he was dismissed.

The employer told a very different story. They claimed no disclosure was ever made, and that the decision to dismiss had already been taken three days earlier, supposedly for performance reasons while he was still in probation .

When the case first reached the Employment Tribunal, Duffy applied for interim relief – a powerful but rarely granted remedy that can keep a worker on payroll until the full whistleblowing case is heard. The tribunal refused his application . So he appealed.

And that’s where things get interesting.

What the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided

Recorder Fraser Butlin KC allowed the appeal. His reasoning was simple but important: the tribunal had not carried out the required summary assessment of the evidence to decide whether Duffy had a “pretty good chance” of succeeding in his whistleblowing claim .

That phrase – pretty good chance – is the legal test for interim relief. It doesn’t require a full trial. It doesn’t require witnesses to be cross‑examined. It’s a quick, urgent look at the evidence to see whether the worker’s case is strong enough to justify temporary protection.

The tribunal hadn’t done that. It had simply refused the application without engaging properly with the evidence.

Butlin KC stopped short of substituting his own decision. Doing so, he said, would amount to an improper judicial fact‑finding exercise at appeal level. Instead, he sent the case back to the same tribunal to reconsider the interim relief application afresh .

Why this case matters for workers and trade unionists

1. Interim relief is one of the strongest protections workers have – but tribunals often shy away from it

Interim relief is a lifeline. If granted, it forces the employer to keep paying the worker until the final hearing. For someone suddenly dismissed, often without warning, that can be the difference between stability and crisis.

But tribunals rarely grant it. Some judges treat it as an exceptional remedy. Others apply the test too strictly. This case is a reminder that tribunals must actually do the job: look at the evidence, weigh it quickly but properly, and decide whether the worker has a “pretty good chance” of winning.

If they don’t, workers lose one of the few tools that can stop employers from sacking whistleblowers and then dragging out litigation for months or years.

2. Whistleblowing isn’t just about dramatic scandals – it’s often about everyday safety

Fire doors left open. Security risks. Guest and staff safety. These aren’t abstract concerns. They’re the sort of issues workers raise every day, often informally, often under pressure, and often without any protection when employers react badly.

This case shows how quickly a safety disclosure can become entangled with disciplinary action, probation reviews, and employer narratives about “performance”. It’s a familiar pattern to anyone in a union.

3. Employers frequently claim the dismissal decision was made earlier – tribunals must scrutinise that

The employer’s argument that the dismissal was already decided three days before the alleged disclosure is a classic defence. Sometimes it’s true. Sometimes it’s convenient. Interim relief hearings are precisely where tribunals should interrogate that claim.

The EAT’s message is clear: don’t just accept the employer’s timeline – test it.

4. Workers need unions because whistleblowing law is technical, fast‑moving, and stacked against individuals

Interim relief applications must be made within seven days of dismissal. Evidence must be marshalled quickly. The legal test is demanding. And employers often have HR teams and solicitors ready to respond.

Without union support, most workers never even attempt interim relief. Cases like Duffy’s show why unions must be ready to act fast when members raise safety concerns or face sudden dismissal.

The bigger picture

This appeal doesn’t decide whether Duffy was right or wrong. It doesn’t say whether he made a protected disclosure. It doesn’t say whether the employer acted lawfully. What it does say is that workers deserve a fair shot at interim relief when they claim they were sacked for raising safety concerns.

The EAT’s intervention is a quiet but important reminder that whistleblowing protections only work if tribunals apply them properly. For Solidarity members, it’s another example of why collective strength matters. When workers speak up about safety, they should not be punished – and when they are, the law should give them real tools to fight back.

This case reinforces that message. And it sends the tribunal back to do what it should have done the first time: look at the evidence, weigh it fairly, and decide whether a worker raising fire‑safety concerns deserves protection while the truth is sorted out.

By Patrick Harrington

Read the full Judgment in Duffy v BXTR 3 LTD t/a House of Gods: [2026] EAT 119.

This article is intended as a general explanation of the EAT decision in Duffy v. House of Gods. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. The summary is based on publicly available information, including the judgment and reporting from reputable news sources, and is provided for information and comment only. Individual cases turn on their own facts, and anyone affected by issues raised here should seek advice from a qualified legal professional. Solidarity Trade Union accepts no liability for any loss arising from reliance on this material.

Workers Must Stand Against Reform UK’s Assault on Rights

There are moments in the political life of a country when a proposal is so sweeping, so casually destructive, that it forces every serious organisation to pause and ask: What kind of society do we intend to be? Reform UK’s proposed Great Repeal Bill is one such moment. It is not a technical adjustment to the statute book. It is not a pruning of outdated regulations. It is a deliberate unravelling of the legal protections that millions of working people rely on every single day.

The joke will be on you if you vote for Farage and Reform UK

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has been clear about the stakes. Paul Nowak, its General Secretary, has warned that Reform’s agenda would “rip up the rights that working people rely on”, describing the proposals as an attempt to “take us back to the 19th century.” That is not hyperbole. It is a sober assessment of a programme that explicitly targets the Employment Rights Act, the Equality Act, and the Renters (Reform) Act — the very architecture of modern workplace and tenant protection.

Solidarity, as an independent union, is not in the habit of echoing anyone’s line for the sake of it. But when the rights of workers are threatened, clarity matters. And on this issue, the TUC is right.

The Rights at Stake

To understand the scale of what Reform UK proposes, one must appreciate the nature of the rights they intend to sweep away. The Employment Rights Act is not an obscure technical document. It is the foundation of protections against unfair dismissal, redundancy abuse, and exploitative working practices. The Equality Act is the shield that protects workers from discrimination — on grounds of sex, race, disability, religion, and more. The Renters (Reform) Act is the legislation that finally began to address the insecurity of no‑fault evictions.

Reform UK’s Great Repeal Bill would dismantle these protections wholesale. The TUC has highlighted that this would mean the removal of pregnancy protections, bereavement leave, sick pay from day one, and safeguards against fire‑and‑rehire — a practice that Unite’s General Secretary Sharon Graham has rightly described as “a gift to bad bosses.” Graham has long argued that fire‑and‑rehire should be “outlawed, not encouraged,” and her warning lands with particular force in this context.

These are not luxuries. They are the minimum standards of a civilised labour market.

Workers Do Not Want Fewer Rights

One of the most striking elements of the TUC’s campaign is its grounding in public opinion. A 40,000‑person MRP poll commissioned by the TUC found overwhelming support for existing workplace protections — not just in Labour‑held constituencies, but in Reform‑held ones too. In Nigel Farage’s Clacton seat, for example, 77% of respondents supported banning exploitative zero‑hours contracts, 81% supported ending fire‑and‑rehire, and 66% supported sick pay from day one.

Paul Nowak summarised the findings bluntly: “Working people don’t want fewer rights — they want more.”

This is a crucial point. Reform UK’s agenda is not a response to public demand. It is a programme driven from above, not below. It is a vision of Britain shaped by those who have never had to worry about insecure work, sudden dismissal, or the fear of losing a home through a no‑fault eviction.

The Influence Behind the Agenda

The TUC has also drawn attention to the financial interests behind Reform UK. Their campaign highlights the role of Christopher Harborne, an offshore investor who has donated £15 million to Reform and £5 million to Nigel Farage personally. The TUC’s messaging is direct: “Billionaires might not want workers’ rights — but we do.”

This is not a claim that money alone determines policy. But it is a reminder that political agendas do not emerge in a vacuum. When a party funded by ultra‑wealthy donors proposes the wholesale removal of workplace protections, it is reasonable — indeed necessary — to ask who benefits.

Matt Wrack, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has warned that weakening rights is “a recipe for insecurity and fear at work.” For firefighters, whose safety depends on clear procedures, strong protections, and the ability to challenge unsafe practices, the implications are obvious. But the same logic applies across the labour market. When rights are weakened, insecurity spreads.

Why Solidarity Stands With the TUC

Solidarity is not affiliated to the TUC. Our independence and non-affiliation to any political party is central to our identity. But independence does not mean isolation. When the rights of workers are threatened, workers must stand together — not out of institutional loyalty, but out of necessity.

We support the TUC’s campaign because:

  • The Employment Rights Act is the backbone of workplace justice.
  • The Equality Act protects our members from discrimination.
  • Fire‑and‑rehire destroys livelihoods.
  • Zero‑hours exploitation traps workers in insecurity.
  • Pregnancy protections safeguard families.
  • Sick pay is a basic human necessity.

These are not abstract principles. They are the protections our members rely on when they face dismissal, harassment, discrimination, or sudden loss of income. They are the rights that allow workers to challenge unfairness without fear.

Mike Clancy, General Secretary of Prospect, has warned that Reform’s agenda would “undermine professional standards and weaken protections for skilled workers.” His point is well‑made. Rights do not only protect the vulnerable; they protect the integrity of professions, the safety of workplaces, and the dignity of labour.

The Broader Question: What Kind of Country Do We Want?

The debate over Reform UK’s Great Repeal Bill is not simply a dispute over legislation. It is a question about the kind of country Britain intends to be. Do we want a labour market where employers can dismiss workers at will? Where discrimination is easier to conceal? Where insecurity is normalised? Where tenants live in fear of sudden eviction?

Or do we want a society where rights are upheld, where dignity is protected, and where the law stands with the worker rather than the exploiter?

The TUC has framed its campaign with a simple message: “We won these rights together — and we’ll defend them together.” Solidarity agrees. Rights are not gifts from the powerful. They are the achievements of generations of workers who refused to accept exploitation as inevitable.

A Call to Every Worker

Solidarity urges every member — and every worker in Britain — to stay informed, stay organised, and stand firm. The Great Repeal Bill is not a distant threat. It is a clear and present danger to the rights that make work bearable, safe, and fair.

We say this plainly: If Reform UK gets its way, your rights at work will be weaker. Your protections will be fewer. Your security will be lower.

The TUC is right to call this out. Union leaders across the movement are right to warn against it. And Solidarity will not sit quietly while the rights of working people are lined up for repeal.

Workers built these protections. Workers rely on them. Workers must defend them.

By Pat Harrington, General Secretary of Solidarity union.

ABC v Huntercombe: when a failing hospital changes hands and the law looks the other way

Sometimes a case doesn’t just expose a bad institution—it exposes a hole in the law. ABC v Huntercombe (No.12) Ltd & Ors [2026]EWCACiv1161 is exactly that. It’s about a young woman, a failing psychiatric hospital in Maidenhead, a change of ownership, and a legal system that ultimately tells her: you may have been wronged, but you may never be compensated.

This is the Court of Appeal’s decision, in plain English, with the BBC’s reporting and the judgment woven together.

The hospital, the patient, and the transfer

Huntercombe Hospital in Maidenhead was a privately run psychiatric facility for young people. At the time relevant to this case, it was owned and operated by Huntercombe (No.12) Ltd, part of the Huntercombe Group.

The claimant—known only as ABC for legal reasons—was placed there for about four months in 2018–2019. She alleges that during that placement she was:

  • mentally and verbally abused by staff
  • restrained on more than 200 occasions

Every single one of those events happened before the hospital changed hands.

In around March 2021, the hospital undertaking was transferred under the TUPE 2006 Regulations to Active Young People Limited (AYPL). Two clinicians involved in her care—her consultant psychiatrist and responsible clinician—moved across with the transfer and continued working under AYPL.

By 2023, the hospital had closed. The BBC describes it bluntly as a “failing hospital for young people” that shut after years of problems.

Why she couldn’t just sue Huntercombe

ABC initially sued Huntercombe alone. That’s the obvious defendant: it owned and ran the hospital at the time of the alleged abuse.

But Huntercombe went into liquidation. The Court of Appeal explains the practical problem: Huntercombe’s insurance arrangements included a £250,000 per‑claim excess. If claims succeeded, that excess would have to be met by the insolvent company itself. The judges accepted that this could “wipe out most or all” of ABC’s damages.

So ABC did what any rational claimant would do: she looked for someone else who might be legally responsible.

She turned to AYPL, the company that took over the hospital in 2021.

The legal question: does vicarious liability travel with the staff?

The case turns on a narrow but high‑stakes question under Regulation 4(2)(a) of TUPE 2006:

When a business is transferred under TUPE, does the old employer’s vicarious liability to an injured third party (here, a patient) transfer to the new employer?

Regulation 4(2)(a) says that, on a relevant transfer, “all the transferor’s rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with” any employment contract move to the transferee.

It was already established in Bernadone v Pall Mall Services Group [2001] ICR 197 that tort liabilities owed to employees can transfer under TUPE, because they arise “in connection with” the employment contract.

ABC’s argument was to push that logic one step further. If an employer’s tort liability to an employee can transfer, why not its vicarious liability to a third party, where that liability arises from acts closely connected with the employee’s work?

Her case was simple in concept:

  • Huntercombe’s staff allegedly abused and restrained her before 2021.
  • Huntercombe is now insolvent and may not be able to meet the insurance excess.
  • AYPL took over the hospital and the staff under TUPE.
  • Therefore, AYPL should have inherited Huntercombe’s vicarious liability for those pre‑transfer acts.

His Honour Judge Bird, sitting in the High Court, rejected that argument at a preliminary trial in 2025. ABC appealed.

The Court of Appeal: TUPE doesn’t carry third‑party vicarious liability

The appeal was heard by Bean LJ, Coulson LJ (who gave the leading judgment), and Sir Launcelot Henderson on 22 July 2026, with judgment handed down on 8 September 2026.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Their reasoning can be boiled down into a few key points.

1. TUPE is about employees’ rights, not third‑party claimants

The court started from the Acquired Rights Directive, the EU instrument from which TUPE is derived. Its purpose is to safeguard employees’ rights when their employer changes—not to create new rights for customers, patients, or other third parties.

So when Regulation 4(2)(a) talks about liabilities “under or in connection with” employment contracts, that phrase has to be read in that context: it’s about liabilities that matter to employees.

2. Vicarious liability doesn’t give employees any rights

Counsel for ABC accepted that an employee has no relevant right against the employer in respect of its vicarious liability to a third party. The court agreed.

Vicarious liability is described as “secondary” and “parasitic” on the employee’s own liability to the third party. It’s a legal construct that helps injured third parties sue employers, but it doesn’t protect employees. In fact, under cases like Lister v Romford Ice and Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed, an employer can seek a full indemnity from the negligent employee for damages paid out.

So, from the employee’s perspective, the employer’s vicarious liability is not a benefit; it’s potentially a risk.

3. “In connection with” is wide, but not limitless

The court accepted that “in connection with” is language of very wide import. But it’s also a “protean” phrase whose meaning depends on the surrounding words and the legislative purpose.

Here, the purpose is to protect employees’ rights. Because vicarious liability to third parties does not give employees any rights under their contracts, it does not arise “in connection with” those contracts for TUPE purposes.

4. TUPE’s disclosure regime is about employee claims, not third‑party claims

Regulations 11 and 12 of TUPE require the transferor to give the transferee information about employees and their rights, including existing claims. That allows the transferee to understand what liabilities it is taking on.

There is nothing in TUPE that requires disclosure of third‑party tort claims. The Court of Appeal treated that silence as deliberate. If Parliament had intended transferees to inherit vicarious liability to third parties, it would have required disclosure of those claims too.

5. You don’t make a new owner liable for historic events without clear words

The court emphasised that allowing a third party to sue a transferee with no involvement in the events would be “at odds with ordinary legal principle” unless there were clear statutory wording to permit it. There isn’t.

So the court concluded:

Regulation 4(2)(a) does not transfer the transferor’s vicarious liability to third parties for pre‑transfer acts.

That applies both to common‑law tort claims and to the human‑rights allegations ABC had also raised.

The wider context: a failing hospital and dozens of claims

The BBC report adds the human context the judgment only hints at.

  • Around 50 similar claims by former Huntercombe patients are waiting to be managed by the court.
  • In February 2022, a 14‑year‑old girl, Ruth Szymankiewicz, was unlawfully killed at the hospital after being left unaccompanied by a staff member on his first shift. An inquest jury reached that conclusion in August 2025.

The Court of Appeal was clearly aware that this wasn’t an isolated complaint. Huntercombe was a troubled institution, and AYPL inherited a hospital with serious issues it “could not have known” about at the time of transfer.

What the judges said about the claimant herself

One of the most striking passages in the judgment is the court’s treatment of ABC personally. They went out of their way to say she was not being criticised for bringing the claim.

They accepted that she:

  • “has suffered loss and damage”
  • may not be able to recover damages
  • and that this is “through no fault of her own”

That’s as close as appellate judges get to saying: we think you may have been badly treated, but the law doesn’t give you a route to compensation from this defendant.

The result

The Court of Appeal upheld HHJ Bird’s decision. The key holding is stark:

  • TUPE Regulation 4(2)(a) does not transfer an employer’s vicarious liability to third parties for pre‑transfer acts.
  • That liability remains with the transferor—here, Huntercombe.

For ABC, that means AYPL is not liable for what allegedly happened to her in 2018–2019. Her only route is against Huntercombe, a company in liquidation with an insurance structure that may make meaningful recovery impossible.

For the law, it means a clear line has now been drawn: when a business changes hands under TUPE, employees’ rights travel; third‑party vicarious liability does not.

For the dozens of other former patients, it’s a warning. The courts may accept that they were harmed. They may even say so in judgment. But unless Parliament changes the rules, the legal system may still leave them with nothing.

By Pat Harrington

The judgment can be found here: 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2026/1161.html

Disclaimer

This article is intended as a general explanation of the Court of Appeal’s decision in ABC v Huntercombe (No.12) Ltd & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 1161. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. The summary is based on publicly available information, including the judgment and reporting from reputable news sources, and is provided for information and comment only. Individual cases turn on their own facts, and anyone affected by issues raised here should seek advice from a qualified legal professional. Solidarity Trade Union accepts no liability for any loss arising from reliance on this material.

Tipping Code Submission: What We Told the Government

Why We Got Involved

The Government is rewriting the rules on tipping. These rules decide who gets the money customers leave — and whether employers can interfere. Solidarity stepped in with its opinion because too many bosses still pocket, manipulate, or mis‑allocate tips, and workers deserve every penny intended for them. Simple as that.

What Solidarity Told Them

  1. Consultation must be real, not a tick‑box
    The draft Code says employers must “consult” workers. We told them: consultation means nothing if bosses can ignore the outcome. Workers need proper representation, time to respond, and protection from pushback.
  2. Too much employer power
    The Code gives employers huge discretion over how tips are shared. That’s how you end up with:
    managers taking big slices,
    kitchen staff excluded,
    part‑timers (often women) losing out,
    systems shaped by customer bias.

We demanded clearer rules and worker‑led oversight.

  1. Agency workers get a raw deal
    Agencies and hirers pass the buck between them. Result: agency workers miss out on tips they earned.
    We called for mandatory sharing of policies, equal access to consultation, and clear accountability.
  2. Transparency shouldn’t depend on “asking nicely”
    Under the draft Code, workers must request tipping records. We told them: publish tip distribution monthly — automatically. No fear, no favour, no hiding.
  3. Define “significant influence” properly
    Employers can still dodge responsibility by claiming they didn’t “control” tips. We demanded a clear definition so bosses can’t rebrand service charges or fiddle systems.
  4. Stop indirect discrimination
    Tip systems often disadvantage:
    younger workers,
    migrant workers,
    part‑timers,
    disabled workers.
    We pushed for stronger safeguards and real examples in the Code.

Our Bottom Line

Tips belong to workers — not managers, not agencies, not employers. The Government’s draft Code is a step forward, but still too weak. Solidarity has made it clear: workers need stronger rights, stronger transparency, and stronger enforcement.

We’ll keep fighting until tipping systems are genuinely fair.

By Maria Camara

Gender Pensions Gap Day: Britain’s Quietest Inequality Crisis

Britain marked an annual milestone yesterday that ought to shame any government which claims to value fairness: Gender Pensions Pay Gap Day. It is the point in the calendar when retired women, if their pensions matched men’s, would effectively stop being paid for the rest of the year. Four months without income. Four months erased. Four months that expose the gulf between political rhetoric and lived reality.The headline figure is stark. Women in retirement receive around a third less pension income than men — a shortfall of more than £7,000 a year. That is not a marginal discrepancy. It is a structural failure baked into the British labour market, the pensions system, and the economic assumptions that have shaped policy for decades.

But the deeper story is not simply about numbers. It is about how Britain values — or refuses to value — the work that women do.

The Hidden Architecture of Inequality

The gender pensions gap is not an accident. It is the predictable outcome of three interlocking forces:

1. Unpaid care work

Women still shoulder the majority of childcare, elder care, and domestic responsibilities. This is not “choice” in any meaningful sense; it is a product of social norms, workplace inflexibility, and the absence of affordable care infrastructure.

Every year spent caring is a year not spent accruing pension contributions. Britain’s system treats this labour — essential, exhausting, socially indispensable — as economically invisible.

2. The gender pay gap

Women earn less across their working lives. Lower pay means lower contributions. Lower contributions mean lower pensions. The inequality compounds over decades.

3. Historic state pension rules

The legacy system penalised women who took time out of paid employment. Even with reforms, gaps remain — particularly for part‑time workers and those with fragmented work histories.

The result is a retirement landscape where women are systematically disadvantaged, often after a lifetime of holding families and communities together.

A Commission That Cannot Look Away

The interim report of the Pensions Commission, published earlier this year, did something rare in British policymaking: it acknowledged the scale of the problem. It recognised that millions of women are at heightened risk of poverty in retirement, not because of personal failure but because the system was designed without them in mind.

The Commission’s challenge now is to propose reforms that are not cosmetic. Britain does not need another round of “awareness raising.” It needs structural change.

What a Serious Plan Would Look Like

A credible strategy to close the gender pensions gap must confront the roots of the problem, not merely its symptoms.

1. Recognise caring as contributory work

Women who take on caring responsibilities should accrue additional state pension credits. This is not charity; it is recognition of labour that the economy depends on.

2. Reform workplace pensions for low‑paid and part‑time workers

The current system excludes too many women because their earnings fall below contribution thresholds. That is indefensible. Pension access must be universal, not conditional on full‑time employment.

3. Address the gender pay gap with real enforcement

A pension system cannot be fair if the labour market feeding into it is not. Pay transparency, enforcement powers, and penalties for non‑compliance must be strengthened.

4. Build a care infrastructure that frees women to participate fully in paid work

Affordable childcare, elder care support, and flexible working rights are not “extras.” They are the foundation of any modern economy that claims to value equality.

The Human Cost Behind the Statistics

Behind every percentage point of the pensions gap is a woman who spent years raising children, caring for relatives, or working part‑time because the labour market offered no alternative. Many now face retirement with insufficient income, limited savings, and rising living costs.

This is not a niche issue. It is a national failure.

And it is one that successive governments have tolerated because the people affected — older women, carers, part‑time workers — are rarely treated as a political priority.

A Chance to Put It Right

The government now has an opportunity to act. The Commission’s final recommendations will arrive at a moment when Britain is already debating the future of its welfare state, the adequacy of the basic pension, and the sustainability of the triple lock.

Closing the gender pensions gap must be part of that conversation. Not as an add‑on. Not as a footnote. But as a central test of whether Britain is serious about fairness.

A society that relies on women’s labour for decades cannot abandon them in retirement. A pension system that penalises care work is a pension system that has lost sight of what work actually is. And a government that ignores this injustice is a government that has chosen inequality.

The gap will not close itself. It will close only when Britain decides that the contributions women make — paid and unpaid — are worth valuing

By Pat Harrington

Resident Doctors Vote on Government Pay Offer

Resident doctors began voting today on the government’s new pay and jobs offer — a moment that feels less like the end of a dispute and more like a pause in a long, exhausting struggle. The British Medical Association’s decision to call off this week’s strike was not a sign of retreat, but an act of responsibility: a willingness to let members judge the offer on its merits rather than escalate for escalation’s sake. It is, in other words, what professionalism looks like. The question now is whether the offer itself meets that same standard.

The headline numbers are familiar: the 2016 contract terms extended to all locally employed medics, an average 6.6 per cent uplift by April 2027, and a promise of 4,500 extra speciality training places over three years. On paper, it is a package that gestures towards stability — a government finally acknowledging that the NHS cannot run on goodwill and burnout indefinitely. But resident doctors know better than anyone that gestures are not guarantees. They have lived through a decade of attrition: real‑terms pay cuts, rota gaps, spiralling workloads, and a career structure that too often feels like a conveyor belt to exhaustion. Against that backdrop, “worth consideration” — the BMA’s careful phrase — is not the same as “enough.”

What gives this moment its weight is not the offer itself, but the context in which it arrives. This would have been the sixteenth round of strike action since 2023 — a statistic that should shame any government that claims to value the NHS. Doctors do not walk out lightly. They do so because the alternative is a system that continues to hollow out, year after year, until the only people left are those too exhausted to fight. The government calls its proposal “transformative.” Perhaps. But transformation is measured not in press releases, but in whether doctors can afford to stay in the profession, whether training bottlenecks are genuinely eased, and whether the NHS stops haemorrhaging talent to countries that treat their clinicians with respect.

Dr Jack Fletcher, the BMA’s chair, put it plainly: if members believe this is a real step towards pay restoration and a career structure they can trust, the strikes will end. If not, they will escalate. That is not a threat; it is a statement of reality. A workforce pushed to the brink will not be placated by rhetoric. They will vote with the clarity that comes from lived experience — from nights spent covering unsafe rotas, from years of pay erosion, from watching colleagues leave medicine entirely.

The government insists the offer “will not get any better.” History suggests otherwise. Offers improve when workers stand together, when unions refuse to be divided, and when the public sees through the narrative that doctors are asking for too much. They are not. They are asking for the bare minimum required to keep the NHS functioning: fair pay, safe staffing, and a future that does not demand personal sacrifice as the entry price for public service.

Whatever the outcome of the vote, one truth remains: resident doctors have shown extraordinary resolve, dignity and unity throughout this dispute. They have held the line not just for themselves, but for the health service as a whole. And if the government truly wants an NHS that can survive the next decade, it would do well to remember that progress is not achieved by insisting “this is as good as it gets,” but by listening to the people who keep the system alive.

The direction of travel is clear. The vote now rests with the doctors. The responsibility for what happens next rests squarely with the government.

By Maria Camara