Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Ring Fenced...... do I automatically get an interview ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4798 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all, grateful for any help that can be given.

 

Restructure at work and all new positions are ring fenced. I fall within the ring fence. I have been given a list of four jobs that it has been established I have the skill set for. 8 staff all have the same four jobs on our list. 5 other members of staff will assimilate into new roles. 1 other member of staff is taking retirement and her job remains and will be filled as part of the restructure ring fence along with a brand new role. I work for a local authority.

 

Expression of interest were invited from all staff for 2 jobs that were not on my skill set list and we were told that we could include a personal statement if we wanted to. 4 members of staff expressed interest and supplied a personal statement. I was one of the 4. 2 members of staff were interviewed for 1 of the posts and 1 memeber of staff was interviewed for the other post. I received a telephone call advising me that my personal statement had been assessed and I would not be interviewed as did not display enough evidence to meet the personal specification and job description.

 

 

My queston is this .......... If a personal statement was invited but not a requirement and I was within the ring fence should I have automatic right to receive an interview and the opportunity to meet the personal specification etc as part of the interview process. I could understand if lots of people applied and we had been told we must provide a personal statement to support our interest but this was not the case. Exact wording of email was............(I have left out the actual job descriptions and service area due to sensitive nature of the posts.) ......................................

 

" Dear all, Expressions of interest are invited for those wishing to apply for the following positions

 

1 (Job description)

2 (Job description)

 

Job profiles are attached.

 

Expressions of interest must be received by 5pm Thursday 3rd February. Interested candidates may wish to submit a personal statement in support of their application and this must also be received by 5pm on Thursday 3 Fenruary. Interviews will be held on Monday 7 February.

 

These vacancies are ring-fenced to staff within the ............ service. "

 

Whilst I did not think that I would actually get either of the positions I very much wanted the benefit of the interview experience and feedback that would follow. I feel I have been cheated of this opportunity.

 

Should I have been entitled to an interview ???

 

Many thanks for any help you can give me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can put much emphasis on the fact that a personal statement wasn't a requirement of the job, merely an option. i always used to view these as an integral part of the application itself, and an extension of the CV. They weren't compulsory, but if somebody enclosed one, it was always read as an opportunity for the candidate to convey additional information that might separate them from other applicants.

 

Unfortunately for you, I also see nothing in what you have said that would make me think that everybody had to be interviewed as a matter of right, and it seems as though you have missed out purely through sifting - it may well even be that certain people were not just ring-fenced, but had also been earmarked for certain positions, but sadly there is little that you can do about that.

 

I am desperately sorry for your position and can quite understand how you feel. Have you considered asking for a chat with somebody who was part of the selection panel and asking for some off the record feedback in order to improve your chances of being sucessful in future job applications? This might well give you some useful pointers and again, I can only speak from experience, but I have been asked for this on many occasions in the past and never saw it as a problem.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your comments sidewinder, very much appreciated.

 

The general feeling amongst the staff is that certain people are favoured for certain positions and this has been the feeling since the restructure was announced. There were no surprises about who applied for what post and who was successful. It is exactly as we predicted. The selection panel was just 1 member of staff who is also the person in charge of delivering the restructure. I was probably the only surprise candidate that was not expected to apply. The interveiws were subsequently conducted by said member of staff and the head of service.

 

I have been told that I can have feedback on my personal statement and a mock intervew in preparation for the position that I am most hoping to secure and that's great. It just feels that I was not given fair opportunity on this occasion.

 

It's difficult as 2 of the most senior management team who have now secured the 2 posts have close family members within the service and also have long time personal ties with 2 other members of the team. There has been much favourtism over the years in this regard which has been obvious to everyone and reported on several occasions. I just want to do everything within my power to ensure I am given a fair crack at the whip.

 

Once again your comments and time are very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

from what i read " I have been given a list of four jobs that it has been established I have the skill set for."

and a 5th job came to light "Expression of interestlink3.gif were invited from all staff for 2 jobs that were not on my skill set list "

 

;i would say the ring fence gives you strength for the initial 4 jobs to get a interview but the 5th job is free for anyone to apply for and for any employer to request a interview with based on cv or statement

 

i would say by 5th job not being in your skill set is the reason why you did not get a interview. the personal statement are usually asked incase the company records failed to include skills which fit the job role that you may have achieved over the time.

 

if you simply did not produce a personal statement and hoped to explain yourself at a interview instead then they could only base who qualifies for a interview based on the skills they already know of. which in own admission were not applicable to the role.

 

did you send in a personal statement within the timeframe showing skills they did require to do the job? if so ask them for the feedback to aid you in the 4 jobs you are ring fenced for to ensure you appear sparkling on the list of potentials

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...