Joe Adams

Directions

Joe Adams Daily Actions, Compound To Real Results.

If you work somewhere that takes tips, like a restaurant, bar, hotel or salon, this is for you. And if you tip, it's wor...
17/10/2026

If you work somewhere that takes tips, like a restaurant, bar, hotel or salon, this is for you. And if you tip, it's worth knowing where it goes. Until October 2024, some businesses kept tips left on cards, or took a cut to cover card processing fees. That's now against the law.

The Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 came into force on 1 October 2024. It says employers must pass on all qualifying tips, gratuities and service charges to workers in full, and share them out fairly and transparently. Employers can't deduct an admin or processing fee. The only deduction law firms mention is tax. Tips have to be paid out by the end of the month after the one in which they were left. Agency workers are covered too, but genuinely self-employed people aren't.

There's more. If tips come in more than occasionally, the employer must have a written tipping policy and make it available to workers. They've got to keep records of tips and how they were shared out, for three years. And you've got the right to ask to see the record, limited to one request in any three months, covering up to three years if you worked there for that whole time. One law firm says employers have four weeks to respond.

If your employer isn't following the rules, you can bring a claim in an employment tribunal. A tribunal has to consider the statutory Code of Practice, and can make a declaration and order compliance. Sources disagree on the time limit for these claims, with one saying 12 months and another saying three, so don't wait. Speak to Acas as soon as you can.

The Code doesn't cover tipping apps that pay workers directly, so it's worth checking how any tipping app at your workplace works.

Ask your manager for the written tipping policy. If there isn't one, that's a red flag. And look at how your tips are split, and when they're paid.

Social care in England currently operates on a means-tested basis. People with assets above £23,250, including the value...
17/10/2026

Social care in England currently operates on a means-tested basis. People with assets above £23,250, including the value of their home in most residential care scenarios, are expected to fund their own care until those assets are depleted. The consequence is that a significant number of people spend down their savings and in some cases sell their homes to meet care costs, something Burnham has described as a broken system and explicitly said he wants to end.

As Health Secretary in 2010, Burnham proposed a compulsory 10% levy on all estates after death to fund a National Care Service providing free social care. The policy was dubbed a death tax by the Conservatives and played a significant role in that year's general election. The plan was shelved.

As Prime Minister in 2026, Burnham has brought the same ambition back. He has described wanting social care to operate on the NHS principle, free at the point of need, and has confirmed he does not step back from his earlier view that a care levy linked to estates is the right mechanism to fund it. He commissioned the Casey Review into social care funding, with publication brought forward to 2027.

Reports have speculated that options under consideration include a 1.8% levy on earnings above £6,240, which would function like a new National Insurance contribution, or a 10% charge on all estates above a threshold on death, which would either sit alongside or replace the existing 40% inheritance tax.

The government has specifically denied plans for a death tax, meaning a charge framed as inheritance tax. It has not denied a care levy framed differently.

Whether the Budget on 28 October provides any detail on the funding model, or whether Burnham waits for the Casey Review before committing to a mechanism, is one of the most significant unanswered questions heading into the fiscal event.

Wessex Water supplies water and sewage services to around 2.9 million customers across the South West of England. Since ...
16/10/2026

Wessex Water supplies water and sewage services to around 2.9 million customers across the South West of England. Since 2002, it has been wholly owned by YTL Power International, part of the Malaysian conglomerate YTL Corporation, founded by billionaire Yeoh Tiong Lay. Four members of the Yeoh family currently serve as non-executive directors, including Sir Francis Yeoh, knighted in 2019.

Research by campaign group We Own It calculated that in 2023, Wessex Water paid shareholders dividends equivalent to £188 for every hour it spent dumping sewage that year, 372,341 hours in total, the fourth highest such rate of any water company in England. Across the full period since privatisation in 1989, Wessex Water has paid out approximately £4.25 billion in dividends, while its debt has grown to £2.6 billion, with around 19% of every customer's bill going toward servicing that debt.

The ownership structure itself has drawn scrutiny. GMB, the union representing water industry workers, found Wessex Water's 100% overseas ownership was the highest proportion of any water company in England, compared to a national sector average of 71%. The company sits beneath a chain of eight holding companies, based in the UK, the Cayman Islands, and Malaysia, before ultimately reaching the Yeoh family's holding entity registered in Jersey.

In November 2024, Wessex Water pleaded guilty to polluting two rivers with untreated sewage that killed thousands of fish, receiving a £500,000 fine. Separately, Malaysia's own Anti-Corruption Commission opened an investigation into a subsidiary of parent company YTL Power, which remains ongoing. Facing a 17% funding reduction from Ofwat and significant pollution scrutiny, Wessex Water's leadership told a parliamentary committee in March 2025 that the company would suspend all shareholder dividends for five years, approximately £500 million, to fund required improvements and maintain financial resilience.

The High Value Council Tax Surcharge, widely referred to as the mansion tax, was confirmed in the November 2025 Budget. ...
16/10/2026

The High Value Council Tax Surcharge, widely referred to as the mansion tax, was confirmed in the November 2025 Budget. From April 2028 it applies a tiered annual surcharge to residential properties in England valued at £2 million or more, ranging from £2,500 a year for properties between £2 million and £2.5 million up to £7,500 for those valued at £5 million or above. The valuations are based on the 2026 revaluation exercise and will be updated periodically.

The government estimated fewer than 1% of English properties would be affected at the £2 million threshold. Most of those properties are concentrated in London and the South East.

Speculation ahead of the Budget on 28 October centres on whether the threshold will be lowered to £1.5 million, which would bring a considerably larger number of properties into scope, particularly in London and parts of the South East where house prices have risen significantly. Lowering the threshold by £500,000 would not require an entirely new policy, simply an amendment to the threshold set at the previous Budget, and the revenue it would raise has reportedly been modelled by the Treasury.

It is important to be clear that this is speculation based on unattributed Budget briefing, which is routine in the weeks before a fiscal event and is frequently inaccurate. Nothing has been confirmed and no announcement has been made.

What is confirmed is that the surcharge at the existing £2 million threshold is coming from April 2028, on top of a council tax bill that is itself expected to rise by around 4.3% to 4.4% every year between now and 2031.

For homeowners in the £1.5 million to £2 million range, the Budget on 28 October is worth watching closely.

The Army's Watchkeeper drone programme was budgeted at about £700 million. By 2023 reports put the cost at around £1.35 ...
16/10/2026

The Army's Watchkeeper drone programme was budgeted at about £700 million. By 2023 reports put the cost at around £1.35 billion for a fleet of 54 drones, and they entered service eight years late. Eight have been lost in crashes, and the government is paying another £95.7 million to keep them flying until 2027.

Here's the story in plain English.

What is Watchkeeper? A British Army drone for surveillance and reconnaissance, designed to fly over battlefields and send back imagery. It entered service in 2014 and was operated by the Army's 47th Regiment Royal Artillery.

What did it cost? A statement to MPs put spending at £1.31 billion by September 2022. Defence press reports say the total reached about £1.35 billion in 2023, up from an original £700 million. Each drone cost roughly £5.2 million.

What went wrong? Years of delays and technical problems, including reliability in poor weather. Eight of the 54 aircraft were lost in crashes and other accidents, mostly in Wales. In Ukraine, much smaller and cheaper drones have shown they can do similar jobs for a fraction of the cost.

What did the government decide? In November 2024 the Defence Secretary announced it would be retired, saying technology had overtaken it. A senior officer told MPs it was no longer fit for operational purpose.

What happened next? The planned retirement in March 2025 was pushed back. In February 2025 the government said keeping Watchkeeper in service for two more years was expected to cost £95,659,000.

The other side: the drone was advanced when it was designed, and the MoD says it is protecting funding for a replacement.

Why it matters: it's your tax, and the project that cost about twice its original budget is still costing money after being declared out of date.

Was it value for money?

For years, if your employer required you to work from home, you could claim a flat £6 a week from HMRC to cover extra he...
16/10/2026

For years, if your employer required you to work from home, you could claim a flat £6 a week from HMRC to cover extra heating, electricity and phone costs, no receipts needed. That's £312 a year. From 6 April 2026, that claim's gone. The Autumn Budget 2025 confirmed employees can no longer claim tax relief from HMRC on homeworking costs their employer doesn't reimburse.

Here's what people miss. £6 a week was never £312 in your pocket. It was a tax deduction, so the saving was your tax rate on it. For a basic rate taxpayer, that's 20% of £312, or £62.40 a year. For a higher rate taxpayer, £124.80. Those are my sums. So the claim was never huge, but it was something.

Now the part employers aren't shouting about. The change only affects claims you make to HMRC. Your employer can still pay you up to £6 a week, or £26 a month, tax-free for homeworking costs, with no receipts, and more if there's evidence of actual extra costs. It's exempt from income tax and National Insurance. Some employers do this already. Many don't, and nothing forces them to.

One guide also says a new exemption from 6 April 2026 lets employers reimburse homeworking equipment like a desk, monitor or chair, plus eye tests and flu jabs, tax-free. I'd check that detail with your employer, since it's from one source.

If you're self-employed, or a director claiming through your company, different rules apply, and this change doesn't hit you in the same way.

Two things to do. Ask your employer whether they pay a homeworking allowance. And if you worked from home in earlier years and never claimed, you may still be able to backdate a claim if you were eligible. 2025/26 was the last year employees could claim directly.

Council tax bands in England were set in 1991 based on property valuations carried out that year. They have never been u...
16/10/2026

Council tax bands in England were set in 1991 based on property valuations carried out that year. They have never been updated. The band your home sits in was determined over three decades ago, and while the process was largely accurate, a significant number of properties ended up in the wrong band from the start, and nothing has corrected that since.

The Valuation Office Agency, which is responsible for council tax bands in England, estimates that around 400,000 properties may currently be banded too high. Because the VOA will not review your band proactively, the only way to find out whether yours is wrong and correct it is to challenge it yourself.

The process starts by checking what band similar properties on your street are in. If neighbouring properties of the same size and type are in a lower band, that is a reasonable indication that yours may have been wrongly assessed. You can check bands for any property in England and Wales for free on the GOV.UK website using the postcode search tool.

If you believe your band is too high, you can submit a challenge to the VOA. If the challenge is successful, your band is reduced going forward and you receive a full refund of the overpaid council tax going back to the date the band was originally set, which in most cases is 1993. That can be a very significant sum for a property that has been overbanded for three decades.

There is one important caveat. A successful challenge can only lower a band. But an unsuccessful challenge can sometimes prompt the VOA to review neighbouring properties, and if they find those have been underbanded, their bills can rise. Checking comparable properties carefully before submitting a challenge is sensible.

The process costs nothing and can be done entirely online. Most people have never done it because most people do not know it is possible.

GOV.UK Verify was meant to let 25 million people prove who they are online by 2020. By February 2019 only 3.6 million ha...
16/10/2026

GOV.UK Verify was meant to let 25 million people prove who they are online by 2020. By February 2019 only 3.6 million had signed up, and the National Audit Office says it and its predecessor cost the taxpayer at least £154 million.

Here's the story in plain English.

What was it? A government identity service. Instead of every department building its own login, you'd pick a private "identity provider", prove who you are once, and then use that to access services such as claiming Universal Credit or dealing with the tax office.

What was the plan? In 2016 the Government Digital Service forecast that 25 million people would use Verify by 2020 and that 46 government services would be available through it by March 2018. Its business case expected the programme to cost £212 million and generate £873 million of benefits over four years.

What actually happened? By February 2019 only 3.6 million people had signed up, and 19 services used it, 11 of which could also be reached another way. The NAO found it missed its usage and savings targets by around 75%. For Universal Credit, only 38% of the claimants who signed up could successfully verify their identity online.

What did it cost? From 2011-12 to September 2018, £154 million, including £58 million paid to commercial identity providers. The NAO said the total was likely to be underestimated, because it left out the cost to other departments of connecting to it.

How did it end? The government decided to stop funding it in 2018, and funding ended in March 2020, with private providers taking over and a cap of £21.5 million on remaining spend.

What did the NAO conclude? That it was difficult to say the successive decisions to carry on with Verify had been sufficiently justified.

The other side: the NAO said the programme had tried to tackle a genuinely hard problem, and had helped set standards and build a market of private identity providers.

Why it matters: it's your tax, and the project kept getting more money while missing its targets.

Who should have pulled the plug sooner?

Ofwat's enforcement cases against water companies don't always result in a straightforward fine. In a growing number of ...
16/10/2026

Ofwat's enforcement cases against water companies don't always result in a straightforward fine. In a growing number of cases, the regulator has instead required companies to fund additional infrastructure investment directly, on top of or instead of a financial penalty, with an explicit ruling that the cost cannot be recovered through customer bills.

Wessex Water, owned by Malaysia-based YTL, is a clear recent example. Found to have failed to adequately operate, maintain, and upgrade its network to cope with wastewater flows, Ofwat required the company to spend £11 million more on infrastructure upgrades, specifically ruling that Wessex could not fund this additional investment through customer bills, meaning the cost falls on the company and its shareholders directly. This was the sixth case completed in Ofwat's wider wastewater investigation, which has produced £250 million in fines and enforcement packages combined, with close to half of that total attributable to Thames Water alone.

The case for this approach is that it genuinely protects customers. Unlike a standard fine, which the regulator has no control over how a company funds, this mechanism explicitly blocks the cost being passed through to bills, something campaign groups including River Action have specifically pushed for, arguing taxpayers and billpayers should not fund the consequences of company underinvestment twice over.

The case for scepticism is that the "penalty" in these cases is simply the infrastructure spending the company was supposed to be doing anyway under its existing obligations, now enforced after the fact rather than genuinely punitive on top of it. River Action has separately pursued legal action against Ofwat, arguing the regulator lacks a workable mechanism to ensure extra investment funding actually delivers genuine improvements rather than simply helping companies catch up to the compliance they should already have met.

Becoming a dad used to come with a waiting game. To take paternity leave, you needed 26 weeks in the job. From 6 April 2...
16/10/2026

Becoming a dad used to come with a waiting game. To take paternity leave, you needed 26 weeks in the job. From 6 April 2026, that's gone. Paternity leave is a day-one right under the Employment Rights Act 2025, and so is unpaid parental leave, which used to need a year's service. Sounds great. Then you look at the pay.

Start with what changed. Paternity leave, up to two weeks, is available from your first day of employment, for children born or placed for adoption on or after 6 April 2026. Unpaid parental leave, up to 18 weeks per child under 18, with a maximum of four weeks a year in blocks of a week, is also day one now. The 21 days' notice for parental leave hasn't changed. A new right to up to 52 weeks of unpaid bereaved partner's paternity leave also started on 6 April 2026, if the mother or primary adopter dies.

Now the catch. Statutory paternity pay is separate. You still need 26 weeks' continuous service by the qualifying week, and earnings above the lower earnings limit. So you can have the leave and no statutory pay. And when you do qualify, the rate for 2026/27 is £194.32 a week, or 90% of your average weekly earnings if that's lower, for up to two weeks. That's £388.64 at most. By my sums, two weeks of full-time minimum wage pay at £12.71 an hour is £1,016.80, so statutory paternity pay is under 40% of that.

Maternity pay starts higher: 90% of average earnings for six weeks, then £194.32 or 90% if lower, up to 39 weeks. For partners it's two weeks at the flat rate, unless you share leave through shared parental leave.

Many employers pay more than the statutory minimum, so your contract or staff handbook matters. Check it before the baby's due, not after.

Address

Braintree

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Joe Adams posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share