Loading
Where the calculated figure exceeds the cap you entered, the cap is what is payable. Both are shown rather than one silently applied.
Eligibility, the qualifying period, which salary components count, how part-years are treated and any cap are all questions of law that this tool does not answer. It applies the factors you supply to the service and salary you supply. Treat the result as a figure to verify with your advisers, not one to pay from.
Applies the service, salary and statutory factors you supply, and shows a cap separately.
Every figure it produces is arithmetic on what you enter, and the working is shown line by line rather than summarised into a single number.
Replace the defaults with your own figures. They are examples chosen to make the shape obvious, not benchmarks — using them unchanged tells you about a company that is not yours.
The lines beneath the headline are the useful part: they show which input is driving the result, which is what makes the answer arguable in a good way.
Eligibility, the qualifying period, which salary components count, how part-years are treated and any cap are all questions of law that this tool does not answer. It applies the factors you supply to the service and salary you supply. Treat the result as a figure to verify with your advisers, not one to pay from.
Where two readings of the same question exist, both are shown rather than one being chosen for you. That is deliberate — the difference between them is usually the thing worth discussing.
If a figure looks wrong, change the input you least believe and watch what moves. That is faster than checking the arithmetic.
No. The tool runs in the page, nothing is sent anywhere, and there is no follow-up.
No. They are examples chosen to make the shape clear. Use your own figures.
It is stated in the working shown beneath the result, so you can check it rather than trust it.
Half an hour on your own figures, and an honest answer about the parts Treepie does not improve.