Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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

Redundancy while off sick and pregnant??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5946 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

My wife is off sick because of complications with her pregnancy and has just been told by her boss that she’s going to be made redundant. There’s lots of questions we’ve got to see if he can do this so I’ll bullet them below, We have to write a letter as part of the consultation process and I hope someone can help us here so we can put the right info in it

 

 

I’ll just state the facts

  • They were aware she was pregnant, she’s been in hospital twice because of it and has been signed off sick for the past month
  • The claim is they need to save money due to a downturn in business and as she was last in she’s first out
  • She has been with the company 11 months
  • They are making another member of staff redundant, but the part time secretary who works for her is not losing her job. My wife (also part time) does roles that are more specific but also does secretarial duties if required.
  • Her specific tasks have been redistributed while she’s been off ill.
  • The boss said when we had a meeting that “during her last pregnancy she was off long term sick, and I see this one going the same way” He indicated that if she was off sick he wouldn’t be paying her wages as she would be on SSP and he would be saving money, possibly enough to not have to make her redundant
  • She never received a contract or T&C’s when she started last January, it was only created when we asked when she would be going onto SSP and produced in November.
  • Her boss is asking for a letter of representation with suggestions why she should not be made redundant or other ways he could save the money.

Can he make her redundant while she’s pregnant and off sick?

 

Sorry this post is so long, I’m just trying to find out what rights we have if we have a case and if it’s worth it as she’s only part time and been there less than 1 year – it will be 1 year in early January.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your wife's employer seems to be sailing close to a claim of Sex Discrimination. He has to be very careful when making any comment relating to maternity leave or sickness as a result of pregnancy as could be seen as clearly discriminatory under the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Employment Rights Act.

 

She also cannot be made redundant on the grounds of last in - first out. Any decision must solely be based on objective criteria, with the correct period of consultation. If any statement has been made to the contrary then any dismissal (on the grounds of redundancy) could be automatically unfair.

 

When are the redundancies due to become effective? How many employees are there, and how many are to be made redundant?

 

Her contract need not have been written, but she should have received a statement of terms and conditions within 8 weeks of starting.

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

Thanks Sidewinder

 

We had a meeting 2 weeks ago and he wants it all sorted before Christmas. There are 10 staff in the firm (including the partners) and he's making two people redundant.

 

My main concern is that Citizens Advice told us we don't have a leg to stand on because she's been there less than a year and he would just say that it was nothing to do with her pregnancy (BTW He's a solicitor!!)

 

In the meeting he did acknowledge that he hadn't provided any T&C's and he actually said that we could take him to tribunal - I don't know if it would be worth it, as my wife is only part time and I'm not sure if we could afford it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tribunal is free - ordinary people can do it without a solicitor - go for it.

 

He can do last in first out IF he can objectively justify this - which with the Age Discrimination legislation he may not be able to.

 

He can select your wife for redundancy during her pregnancy/maternity leave IF he can show that the pregnancy has no bearing on this.

 

Your paragraph "The boss said when we had a meeting that “during her last pregnancy she was off long term sick, and I see this one going the same way” He indicated that if she was off sick he wouldn’t be paying her wages as she would be on SSP and he would be saving money, possibly enough to not have to make her redundant" shouts out Disability Discrimination and Sex Discrimination to me.

 

Potentially the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 also assist you.

 

If he has already made up his mind, the best you can do is to negotiate the best settlement possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...