AN AWARD-winning nursery said it has been unfairly named and shamed by the Government after under- paying an employee £6,700.

Young Friends Nursery in Holland Road, Hove, was the fourth-highest in a list of companies which had paid staff below the minimum wage.

However, the owners insisted it was an “innocent mistake” and said they had been hung out to dry after a day of being at the centre of a low-paid controversy.

Owner Richard Lloyd-Evans said he and his wife Louise had been “unfairly painted as some sort of 18th century mill bosses”.

He added that they had repaid all of the money owed to the former apprentice and had paid a fine to the Government – which was later returned because they had complied.

Mr Lloyd-Evans also said he was worried what the reaction would be from the parents whose children attended the £50-a-day nursery.

Tax authority HM Revenue and Customs stuck by its decision to publicise the list – the first time it has done so – to crack down on employees being paid wages below the threshold.

Mr Lloyd-Evans claimed the employee had been hired as an apprentice at the nursery last March and paid an apprentice’s wage while she completed her childcare qualifications.

However, by the time Brighton and Hove City Council responded to her application to receive funding as an apprentice in October, she had changed her mind and decided she no longer wished to train for her NVQs.

Mr Lloyd-Evans agreed to pay her from the point she changed her mind.

But HMRC investigators said she needed to be paid back the full minimum wage to the point when she was first hired – even though she would not have been employed without her qualifications.

Mr Lloyd-Evans said: “We are, of course, very supportive of legislation to enforce the minimum wage and all our employees are paid above the minimum wage.

“We paid the Government a £1,600 fine and we paid the apprentice a full wage back to the point she was first employed with us – the Government has now returned our fine because we have complied.

“We have now changed our apprentice’s contracts so they are paid the normal minimum wage.

“They are lumping people who have made an innocent mistake with people who are gang bosses.”

HMRC refused to comment further and said it was bound by legislation not to reveal any further details other than the name of the company and the amount underpaid.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, which is responsible for making the decisions to name and shame employers, said it only published the names of employers once their cases were resolved and money had been repaid.

She added: “We are looking at encouraging compliance and part of that is making sure people who have been underpaid get their money back.

“The second part is dissuading employers from underpaying in the first place and the final part is naming and shaming so there is a reputational consequence.”

The nursery was rated ‘outstanding’ when last inspected by Ofsted in 2013.

In 2010, the nursery scooped two prizes at the national Nursery World Awards.

Director Louise Lloyd-Evans was named early years professional of the year, while the nursery itself received an award for its business development.

No exemption from name and shame list if money paid up by employer

THE Department for Business Innovation and Skills introduced the scheme to name and shame employers who break minimum wage laws in January 2011.

The scheme was revised in 2013, allowing the Government to name any employers issued with a Notice of Underpayment.

Employers can only appeal the decision to be named if they meet one of a very limited list of exceptional criteria – including causing the risk of personal harm to them or their family or endangering national security.

Having already repaid the outstanding amount is not listed as an exemption.

Employers are told they are going to be named and given the opportunity to appeal.

Mr Lloyd-Evans said he had asked not to be named as he had paid the worker the full minimum wage backdated to the start of her employment and a fine to the Government.

He received no response from HMRC until he realised the nursery had been included on the “named and shamed” list.