Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
  • 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

Dismissal accused of theft


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4390 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 daughter has just been accused of theft and dismissed.

She was working about 25 hours a week.

There are a few people who didn't like my daughter working there and often were unpleasant. She has been accused of taking something as she left work without paying for it. She says she did take something, she left the money on top of till, because she had already cashed up. There was someone with her at the time and she has also been dismissed for theft. The evidence her boss has said is that someone else has told them, but there was no-one else there other than the two who got dismissed (my daughter and work collegue)

She has been working there approx 5 months.

 

Does any one know what we can do about this? Doesn't her boss have to prove that she stole something? Isn't this deffammation of character?

 

Hopefully someone can help with this dilema

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the premisis your daughter worked in have cctv???

If they do im sure it wouldnt hurt to ask to see it from the time your daughter took something, and then they would see your daughter putting money on the till to pay for the item she took.

:-D:p xxmissxx:p :-D
Link to post
Share on other sites

No there is no cctv.

Her boss said that someone told him that my daughter and work collegue was bragging about this.

By the way the item she has been accused in taking is a Solero ice lolly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DPR

 

Just a few of questions.

 

 

How was the dismissal carried out.

 

Was it the same for her friend.

 

Was she accused, and then dismissed, e.g. did she have opportunity to explain.

Sharkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

She was confronted by the boss who said 'admit it now and nobody need to find out about it and it will be dealt with now'. My daughter did admit to taking a lolly but said 'I left the money on the till'. Her boss just kept repeating 'admit it now' but that was on friday the conversation ended with the boss saying I will let you know by monday whats happening. But over the weekend my daughter has had phone calls from numerous people to say my daughter had been sacked for stealing.

On monday she never got a phone call, so she rang them the boss kept hanging up, so Myself and my daughter went up there to the shop. My daughter then got a phone call from the other boss (father daughter business) while we there on the premises, who told her over the phone that she was sacked for stealing and remove herself from the premises, did she want to get the police involved. My daughter then nearly in tears I took over the phone and asked for the reason she was sacked, he said theft, I asked what evidence he said he had been told I asked for proof and he kept saying and repeating himself 'do you want the police involved?'

Her friend has never been told to her face yet that she has been sacked he told me, like my daughter she was told we will ring you and everyone in the complex has been told they stole something.

Their business is set within a complex they rent the building and we have found out from one of the managers of the complex that the whole site is being changed round and they may not be renewing the shops contract, and by getting rid of 3 people within a month I'm wondering wether its a ploy to get rid of them, and over the last few weeks the boss has been whining how much the business is bringing in and that she paying wages out of her pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dpr

 

Strictly speaking they have broken rules, however I take it she did not have a contract or grievance procedure.

 

Unfortunately she will find it almost impossible to prove her innocence, there is the possibility of CCTV but you will have to gain access to this, they will look first and if they have made a mistake you can bet the tape will be lost or wiped.

 

You may be right about the need to shed staff, but if she has not been there that long its not hard to do that legally.

 

It may be more beneficial to walk away, if she is questioned whilst looking for other work she can state hand on heart what has happened, and that she was denied the right to defend herself correctly.

 

As they say "next time beware".

Sharkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I agree with Sharkie. The employer has undoubtedly broken the fundamental rules in dismissing staff, and had she been working there she would have little trouble in proving that the dismissal was unfair. On the spot suspension is OK whilst investigating an allegation of Gross Misconduct, but strictly speaking your daughter should have been given a formal disciplinary hearing with a right to be accompanied and a right to appeal the decision to dismiss - anything less than this will normally make any dismissal 'automatically unfair'.

 

After 5 months however there is not the same level of protection sadly.

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

I agree with the other posters, with under 12 months employment with this company, she does not have the protection of other workers. I would however, be inclined to push them to prove this alleged theft, as on the face of it, there is certainly no evidence to support a charge of theft. If your daughter said she left the money, it is for them company to prove that didnt happen. The word of the witness would be looked upon as shaky at best, I don't think the Police would be too keen to get involved, and even if they did any half witted brief could probably shred the prosecution evidence.

best regards and good luck

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She did have a contract but as you all say, my daughter was only there 5 months and there is no CCTV. I have thought about this all day and considering if it would be worth visiting my local solicitor, to see what they think.

She's got a job interview tommorrow so fingers crossed. She has been at college full time for the last 2 years, as well working, training to become a nursery teacher and her ultimate goal is to become a social worker, so every year she has to have police checks so obviously her police record has to be impecable.

It has just made me so mad that these bosses can treat her like this and I don't think theres not much we can do about it, without ruining her ultimate career path.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

My son was also accused of theft and there was CCTV which the police checked after arresing him. The police said they was nothing on the CCTV to suggest he had stolen anything and they rang his work and told them this. They still sacked him because they had told all the staff he had stolen it and they didn't want to look stupid by telling the truth.

 

Whatever the outcome, my son shall move on with his life and not think twice about it. At least everyone knows he didn't do it and it has just shown how stupid these people are. I don't know how they sleep at night and I hope they all rot in hell together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...