Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • 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
      • 161 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

'Zero Hours Contract' and Holiday Pay Entitlement???


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5540 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

Hello and a big thank you to all for bothering to uphold such a resourceful website.

 

I have recently requested holiday pay from my employer only to be told that I was not entitled to it as I am working under a 'zero hours contract'. Its a food service position and I don't remember signing any contract when I began working for the business but I work full time hours.

 

Can anyone give me the official line on where I stand as regards my entitlement to 'holiday pay' under such a 'contract'???

 

Hope you can help,

 

Mary S

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there & welcome to CAG.

 

To be honest I've never heard of a Zero Hours Contract! However, every employee is entitled to holiday pay - even if they do not have fixed hours or work the same hours every week. Your employer should take an average of your hours over the previous 12 weeks and that will be your holiday pay entitlement.

 

You should also have been issued with your terms and conditions of employment i.e. hours and rate of pay etc, within 2 months of starting the job.

 

You might find the following line useful:

 

Holiday entitlements: taking your holidays : Directgov - Employment

 

and I would point your employer in that direction as well!!

 

Please let me know how you progress.

 

Kind Regards

 

Ell-enn

 

PS I have asked for your thread to be moved to the Employment Section

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero hours contracts are fairly common. My wife is a Home Care Worker and has one. It basically means that the employer is not obliged to give you work and in turn you are under no obligation to do the jobs requested. It suits her (our) family situation. She actually works around 30 hours per week, but can throw back a particular job if it doesn't fit what she is doing, or can take time off at relatively short notice to cover childcare etc. Different employers use them in different ways - in my wife's case reasonably sensibly, but in the past unscrupulous employers used it as a means by which they only paid for work actually done. For example, a restaurant might employ three staff and not know how busy a particular night was going to be. He would therefore have the three staff 'on call' in a rest room unpaid until it got busy enough to bring them out to serve.

 

Your employer is absolutely wrong to deny you holiday though. Your rights are exactly the same as everybody else's and you must be permitted paid holiday on the basis of the last 12 weeks' work. Whether an 'employee' or a 'worker' (naturally if you are self employed that is different!), this builds from the first day that you start work. Presumably the person you work for pays you and deducts tax and National Insurance? You need not have a formal Contract, but should be provided with a written statement of particulars within 8 weeks of starting. This should set out the basis on which you are working. Terms of your contract may be 'implied' if not specified in writing, therefore although your contract might not specify the number of hours which you work, it may be customary that you do a certain number each week. Implied terms are every bit as important as written ones in most respects.

 

Quite how you approach the subject again is another matter. I would ask again and tell your employer that you have taken advice on the subject of holiday as you couldn't understand why you didn't qualify. Ask why specifically he doesn't think that you qualify, and ask for this in writing if needs be. Providing that you have worked sufficiently to calculate an average working week, you should know what you are entitled to.

 

My wife's company operate on the basis of x hours holiday for every x hours worked, so it is quite easy to keep tabs on.

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

Some companies include holiday pay in the hourly rate for zero hour contracts but this should be included in your contract if thats the case. I am not sure if its legal but I used to be in that situation with a very large company working for a local council so theres a good chance it would be legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some companies include holiday pay in the hourly rate for zero hour contracts but this should be included in your contract if thats the case. I am not sure if its legal but I used to be in that situation with a very large company working for a local council so theres a good chance it would be legal.

 

It's been illegal since 2002 (I think that's the right date)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some companies include holiday pay in the hourly rate for zero hour contracts but this should be included in your contract if thats the case. I am not sure if its legal but I used to be in that situation with a very large company working for a local council so theres a good chance it would be legal.

 

I think that this is considered as 'rolled up pay' which was deemed unlawful in 2006. The rulling determined that holiday pay has to be paid at the time the leave is taken, not aggregated throughout the year.

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

Hi there & welcome to CAG.

 

To be honest I've never heard of a Zero Hours Contract!

 

Ellen, its basically a fudge, designed to show that (should a future issue occur) the employer can prove there is no mutuality of obligation. Chances are this is a contract for services rather than a contract of employment (on paper at least).

 

This is (in my view) a good example of where a tribunal would imply that there is another employment contract, where the commercial reality is that x hours per week are worked.

 

To Albert - can you check your payslips/documentation, and see whether there is anything in there about whether holiday pay is included with the hourly rate. As others have said, this is illegal now, but many employers still do it (notably agencies).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Slightly off topic, but only slightly.

 

My sister-in-law is a student with a part-time job at a clothes shop on a zero hours contract.

 

The company have now taken to some pretty strange tactics to get rid of her. Firstly, they cited the lack of one of her references (despite never mentioning it to her before saying she would have to leave).

 

Secondly, they contacted her to say that they would have to let her go because of the credit crunch (nice easy words to throw around!) so would she mind writing a letter of resignation.

 

Does anyone know where she stands in all this? I presume as it is a zero hour contract they are not obliged to give her any work, but cannot understand why they are actively seeking her resignation.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, they contacted her to say that they would have to let her go because of the credit crunch (nice easy words to throw around!) so would she mind writing a letter of resignation.

 

she should tell them to go forth and multiply in a series of short jerky movments if they want her to resign.

 

if she writes a letter of resignation then she is considered to be giving her job up, if they want to sack her they will have to do it themselves, not get her to do it for them.

 

Does anyone know where she stands in all this? I presume as it is a zero hour contract they are not obliged to give her any work, but cannot understand why they are actively seeking her resignation.

 

Cheers

 

how long has she worked there?

 

a "zero hour" contract usually means that someone is employed on an "as and when" basis, so they have no set working hours, but instead are offered work when it comes up, which they are normally entitled to refuse if they arent able to work those hours.

For example, if she is a student and they offer her 2 hours work which clashes with a class/lecture, then she is perfectly ok to refuse the work.

 

The employer cannot demand a resignation, if she is still wanting to work but they want rid of her, then they have the following options:-

 

1) Redundancy

If her position is surplus to company requirements, they could begin redundancy proceedings

 

2) Dismissal due to gross misconduct or some other disciplinary reason.

If she has done anything which constitutes a sackable offence (theft, not coming into work, not doing her job properly etc), then once the disciplinary proceedure has run its course they could sack her if its warranted

 

Of course, if she hasnt completed at least 12 months service then they are allowed to simply end her employment there without reason, which is pretty crap but allowed nontheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to paid leave comes under the Working Time Regulations. It applies to virtually everyone apart from the self employed, or those working as limited companies. I believe the WTR are enforced by the Health & Safety Executive. Another good website to look at.

 

Also giving payment instead of paid leave is illegal. Payment can only be given if someone leaves employment and has accrued holiday but not taken it.

 

Rolled up pay was made illegal some time ago.

My opinions are not expressed as an agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. My advice is given freely but please remember to always seek professional advice from a qualified legal adviser before acting. If I have helped you please feel free to click on the black star below.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...