Think tank

Anomalies in the salaries of those doing the same job or equal work will need to be justifiable for demonstrable reasons.

The Equal Opportunities Commission has recently developed an equal pay review framework. This may be adopted in the public and not-for-profit sector as a regulatory requirement in the next few years. In the event of an equal pay claim, the employment tribunal will ask the employer whether an equal pay review has been carried out. If a review has been done, the claim is likely to fail.

An equal pay review involves comparing the pay of women and men doing equal work, investigating the causes of gender pay gaps and closing any gaps that cannot be explained on grounds other than sex.

Inequalities due to market forces and difficulties in recruiting skilled staff, such as the ones you face, may not be justifiable unless there is a clear salary policy that sets out reasonable and transparent criteria for salary levels. This should include criteria directly attributable to qualifications and experience.

Perhaps you should consider a performance-related pay scheme – something which can work very well where there is a recognised skills shortage in the market. Such a scheme needs to be transparent and easily understood by everyone in the organisation. It may not address the problem of new staff receiving higher pay than their immediate colleagues, it does give everyone the chance to earn more money if they can demonstrate outstanding performance over and above the competency level required of the job. The scheme should be linked to a budgeted "pot" of money to make sure you can afford it.

Sandy Staff, Human resources management consultant at the Conway Staff Partnership

when tenants exchange, who cleans up?
As a public-sector housing authority, our tenants undertake exchanges of tenancy. After a recent exchange, the new occupant discovered discarded hypodermic syringes in the garden. Who is liable for the costs of their removal and disposal? We have a disclaimer in our exchange documentation that places costs or works arising from the exchange to fall on the parties to the exchange, not the landlord.

The question of who should foot the costs for removing syringes from the property should be resolved once the danger has been removed, and not be subject to the outcome of a protracted legal debate.

Undoubtedly, the landlord in this case has a duty of care towards the new tenant of the premises and would be at risk of a claim for damages in the event of an accident involving the discarded syringes. In this particular instance, my advice would have been to remove the danger and, if the culprits responsible for dumping the syringes could be identified, costs or suitable action could be initiated.

Richard Kemp, vice chair, Local Government Association housing executive

I do not think the landlord is responsible.

If there had been no exchange, removing rubbish of whatever kind from the garden is likely to be the tenant's responsibility under the tenancy agreement.

All the exchange creates is the possibility of argument between the tenants as to who should do it. As there will have been no contract before the assignment from one tenant to another, I think the incoming tenant is stuck with the problem.

As a responsible landlord, you might want to help the tenant find a firm to dispose of the waste safely.

Catherine Hand, Partner at solicitor Jenkins & Hand