| | | CAG Announcements | |
Welcome Guest
Please register
Registration is free
There are no charges for using any of the facilities of this website.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ.
You will have to register before you can post.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
You will also have to register to access our template letters and claims forms
registration is free
Are you being threatened over debts more than 6 years old? This may be unfair
See our new Unfair Trading Guide eBay buyer? Buy more cheaply
Win more often
ConsumerSniper.com Have you been defaulted?
Would you like to clean up your credit file? Check it out | Ebay buyer? ConsumerSniper Free unlimited bids and eBay tools Have you been defaulted?
Would you like to clean up your credit file? Check it out | | | | | | | | Notices | PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING Every pound donated to this site helps us to keep on helping others. Click Here to Donate | Debt Collection Industry Advice on how to deal with debt collectors. Are you receiving distressing phone calls? Are you recording them? Why not? |
16th February 2007, 14:46
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder
Your bank owes you an awful lot more money than you realise See here Cagger since
: Feb 2007
Posts: 286
| Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances The defence and counterclaim has to be in by next Tuesday (20th Feb 2007).
This is my draft Defence:-
The Claimant alleges there was an overpayment of monies to the Defendant. The Defendant avers that there was actually an underpayment.
All monies the Claimant paid to the Defendant were received in good faith, with every expectation the dispute would be resolved through the usual Industrial Relations procedures and the underpayment rectified.
In May 2005 the Claimant awarded the Defendant a penalty under the Royal Mail Conduct Code of "A Serious Warning to stay on record for a period of two years with the associated penalty of a transfer to delivery duties". The description of that penalty does not provide for "loss of earnings and pension entitlement", which is reserved to penalties available with the award of a "Major Offence".
In July 2005 the Claimant reduced the weekly allowances paid to the Defendant and alleged there had been an overpayment for eight weeks. The Defendant has always refuted this allegation and made an initial, unsuccessful challenge via his line manager. Subsequently the Defendant has referred all approaches regarding the matter to the Communication Workers Union for resolution by discussion/negotiation.
The Defendant avers that the payment of reduced allowances amounted to a deduction from the Defendant's wages, contrary to Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
This deduction was ongoing from 25th July 2005 until the Defendant was forced to leave the Claimant's employ on 31st January 2006, a period of 27 weeks and two days.
____
And "reasons for making the counterclaim":
Having repeatedly ignored the Defendant's requests to settle an industrial relations matter by discussion/negotiation with the recognised trade union, the Claimant has chosen to pursue through the Courts a debt that is not owed.
This has left the Defendant with few options other than to claim through the Courts the monies owed by the Claimant.
____
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
At moment I am photocopying evidence to accompany form EX160 as I cannot afford the counterclaim fee. |
| |
6th March 2007, 15:24
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Classic Account Holder
Your bank owes you an awful lot more money than you realise See here Cagger since
: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,072
| Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances Have you sent them an Subject Access Request yet? |
| |
6th March 2007, 23:04
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder | Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyparkroad no-one commenting on this,
really interesting thread, unfortunately, i dont know if i could offer any advice!
Does someone out there know how to help this man? (although i must say your doing a crackin job yourself mate) | Thanks for your interest, kennyparkroad. I had begun to wonder if anyone had read my thread. Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyparkroad Have you sent them an Subject Access Request yet? | There was no need for an Subject Access Request as Royal Mail and Spratt Endicott have both provided more info than I need, several times. |
| |
6th March 2007, 23:07
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder | Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances Received the message below from Spratt Endicott today.
===8<==============Origin al message text=============== Royal Mail Plc -v- Yourself Claim No: XXXXXXXX Without Prejudice
We have received our client's further instructions in the above
matter.
Whilst our client has no doubt that its claim will succeed at trial,
it is mindful of the commercial realities of pursuing the matter and in
particular the costs that have already been incurred and will continue
to accrue should the matter proceed any further. In view of the size
of the claim, the Court will allocate the matter to the "Small Claims
track" for hearing which will mean that neither party is likely to
recover its costs.
In the circumstances, our client is prepared to take a pragmatic view
in an attempt to resolve this dispute and is agreeable to settlement on a
"drop hands" basis, whereby each party agrees to discontinue its
respective claim and to bear its own costs.
Please confirm by return whether you are agreeable to settlement on
the above basis.
===8<===========End of original message text===========
In the first instance, I shall reply that I need to consider my
position.
Firstly, my acceptance would depend on the conditions attached.
Secondly, to "split the difference" is also a pragmatic approach -
and their claim is under £500 whereas my counterclaim is nearly
£1300...
Perhaps try to negotiate, in view of the distress they have caused
me?
Any thoughts?
In the meantime, I continue with my Allocation Questionnaire. |
| |
7th March 2007, 01:18
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder
Your bank owes you an awful lot more money than you realise See here Cagger since
: Feb 2007
Posts: 286
| Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances This is one option for my second reply (after "have to think about it"). Perhaps a bit extreme? Should I go for somewhere between? [Edit] In the end I did choose this line and the wording I went with is here in post number 14 of this thread.[/Edit] Without Prejudice
I note your client's opening position in this negotiation.
Whilst I am confident of success at trial, I recognise that your
client's costs would likely dwarf my claim. In contrast, my own
costs are limited to stationery, postage, phonecalls and
electricity - I have not charged for my time and my present
parlous financial situation forced me to submit a form EX160
"application for a fee exemption or remission" in lieu of the £120
counterclaim fee.
In the circumstances, your client's interests would be better
served by settling for the full amount of my claim than by
proceeding to Court. Therefore, my opening position is that your
client pays me the full amount of my claim, in addition to each
party agreeing to discontinue its respective claim and to bear its
own costs. You will note I have indicated on form N150 "allocation
questionnaire" my wish for a one-month stay to attempt to settle
the claim.
Last edited by mfpa; 8th March 2007 at 20:48.
Reason: To supply link to wording I used in the end.
|
| |
7th March 2007, 01:46
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder
Posts: 135
| Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances mfpa
I think this probably revolves around the allowances and would depend on what they were for, maybe extra for performing specific additional duties and not part of salary, so move to delivery duties meant you were no longer doing the additional duties although basic salary remains the same and so could be (loosely) viewed as no financial penalty. I realise in actuality it means lower take home.
I suspect they could find some arguments if they have the will to do so. I would probably take the cop out approach and agree to put it to bed. However it is your choice and you know better than anyone else the specifics of your situation.
Good Luck with whichever approach you take. There is an argument that if you don't ask you don't get. |
| |
7th March 2007, 01:52
|
#11 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder | Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances Quote:
Originally Posted by mfpa In the meantime, I continue with my Allocation Questionnaire. | Any thoughts on whether I should include with the AQ any of the following? - a copy of the Royal Mail Conduct Code (either in full or just the section on "DISCIPLINE PENALTIES")?
- The Employment Rights Act 1996 (or just Section 13 of it)?
|
| |
7th March 2007, 03:18
|
#12 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder | Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances Quote:
Originally Posted by half ax I I think this probably revolves around the allowances and would depend on what they were for, maybe extra for performing specific additional duties and not part of salary, so move to delivery duties meant you were no longer doing the additional duties although basic salary remains the same and so could be (loosely) viewed as no financial penalty. I realise in actuality it means lower take home. |
The situation is pretty complicated. As a former union rep, I knew that national agreements covering "situations where an individual is displaced and loses a level of pay as a consequence of business driven change" protected various chunks of my allowances for specified periods. (But only because the bogus conduct case resulted in a penalty that did not include loss of earnings and pension entitlement.)
Without the protection afforded by these agreements it would be as you suggest. Quote:
Originally Posted by half ax I I suspect they could find some arguments if they have the will to do so. | Indeed but they don't normally have to bother. Quote:
Originally Posted by half ax I I would probably take the cop out approach and agree to put it to bed. However it is your choice and you know better than anyone else the specifics of your situation.
Good Luck with whichever approach you take. There is an argument that if you don't ask you don't get. | Tempted to tread with care as they can be vindictive beggars. OTOH, I do not want to settle too cheaply...
Last edited by mfpa; 7th March 2007 at 03:31.
|
| |
7th March 2007, 03:59
|
#13 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder
Your bank owes you an awful lot more money than you realise See here Cagger since
: Feb 2007
Posts: 286
| Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances Quote:
Originally Posted by mfpa Received the message below from Spratt Endicott today.
===8<==============Origin al message text=============== Royal Mail Plc -v- Yourself Claim No: XXXXXXXX Without Prejudice
We have received our client's further instructions in the above
matter.
Whilst our client has no doubt that its claim will succeed at trial,
it is mindful of the commercial realities of pursuing the matter and in
particular the costs that have already been incurred and will continue
to accrue should the matter proceed any further. In view of the size
of the claim, the Court will allocate the matter to the "Small Claims
track" for hearing which will mean that neither party is likely to
recover its costs.
In the circumstances, our client is prepared to take a pragmatic view
in an attempt to resolve this dispute and is agreeable to settlement on a
"drop hands" basis, whereby each party agrees to discontinue its
respective claim and to bear its own costs.
Please confirm by return whether you are agreeable to settlement on
the above basis.
===8<===========End of original message text===========
In the first instance, I shall reply that I need to consider my
position. |
I have sent this first reply to their email:- Without Prejudice
I note your client's opening position and will respond in the next
48 hours. Still sleeping on what to actually respond. |
| |
8th March 2007, 20:31
|
#14 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder
Your bank owes you an awful lot more money than you realise See here Cagger since
: Feb 2007
Posts: 286
| Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances Quote:
Originally Posted by mfpa
Still sleeping on what to actually respond. |
And my actual response:-
Without Prejudice
I note your client's opening position in this negotiation.
Whilst I am just as confident as your client claims to be of
success at trial, I embrace the opportunity for a swift conclusion
to this unnecessary dispute.
We both recognise that your client's costs would likely be far in
excess of the value of my claim. Taking a pragmatic view, your
client's financial interests are better served by paying my claim
than by proceeding to Court.
Therefore, my opening offer is a settlement whereby your client
pays me the full amount of my claim without admitting liability,
in addition to each party agreeing to discontinue its respective
claim and to bear its own costs.
Please confirm your client's acceptance or communicate their new
negotiating position in the early part of next week. |
| |
8th March 2007, 20:38
|
#15 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder | Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances Quote:
Originally Posted by mfpa Presumably they will want to defend the counterclaim, so I shall have to wait and see their defence - to be simple it will have to be very sneaky. |
I now have their defence to the counterclaim:- The Claimant denies that there has been an underpayment of monies to the Defendant and puts the Defendant to Strict proof of the alleged underpayment. They have also sent me their Allocation Questionnaire. I am surprised that they estimate three hours for a hearing, as I think one hour is realistic. They list as their witness the manager responsible for harassing me out of the company. Odd, I would have expected somebody from Human Resources to talk about allowances and national agreements... |
| |
8th March 2007, 21:03
|
#16 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder | Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances Submitted my Allocation Questionnaire today.
Last edited by mfpa; 28th March 2007 at 01:58.
|
| |
16th March 2007, 21:01
|
#18 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Holder
Watch out, there are Claims Touts about! Cagger since
: Feb 2007
Posts: 286
| Re: Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances
Received this reply from Spratt Endicott.
===8<==============Original message text================ Royal Mail Plc -v- Yourself
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
With reference to your email dated 8.3.07 we confirm that the terms of
settlement contained therein are not acceptable and we are instructed
to
progress the matter to trial. ===8<===========End of original message text==============
I think the plan should now be to wait about a week (?) before replying. I'm told they expect me to now beg for the "drop hands" settlement they offered previously...
Also wondering about the merit of replying that I have received their email and I note their client's feigned amnesia of the commercial realities of pursuing the matter. |
| |
Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE
|