Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
    • Hi DX - quick question, what is the bank likely to do when they get my letter of change of address ? also what is the worst they can do? thanks J1L
  • 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

Made redundant, but now they've replaced me


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5656 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

 

At the start of May, two members from a four member team were made redunandant from our jobs. I was pretty upset at the time, and would have contested it had I not been lucky and got myself a better job (pay and location) within a week. All other members of staff were genuinely shocked that I was one of the two to go, considering I have been there the longest and therefore acknowledged to have known the most about the job. My attendence record was better than a member who stayed, and, again, everyone acknowledged that there was too much work for just two people to do, so it does (still) feel a bit of a personal decision taken against me.

 

In any case, as I said I was very lucky in getting another job so soon, so I chose to forget about it. However, I have just found out that the company have now employed a new person in the role, advertising it just 4 months after the redundancies. This has me a bit peeved to be honest, as I assumed that if a job was redundant, it was redundant, and not to be filled again so soon after. Again, this made the redundancy feel pretty personal.

 

Is there anything against this practice, or are they free to do that? It doesn't feel very ethical at all!

 

Thanks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this doesn't help, but they proberbly pay the new person less money. I am of the opinion that redundancies occur so that the company can get rid of high salaried staff and employ cheaper people.

Just some guy. I try to help, but all advice is my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, when the redundancy process started was a proper selection process used? i.e. were all four of you scored against the same criteria? If you all do the same job and this selection process was not carried out then the redundancy could be classed as unfair dismissal.

 

Kind Regards

 

Ell-enn

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

Not knowing enough about redundancy laws, i was on the understanding that if you were made redundant, your employer couldnt replace you. Anyone ?

Please note that although my advice is offered, you should consult your legal representative before taking ANY action.

 

 

have a nice day !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware there is no set time limit in which an employer cannot re-advertise a position previously made redundant, however if they do so without good reason they are wide open to an allegation of unfair dismissal.

 

An employer may quite reasonably make a position redundant only for the business to later see an upturn in orders or be awarded a new contract, making it viable to employ staff to cater for this. It may also be that movement of staff elsewhere in the structure has increased the workload back to a position where your former position is once again viable. If, however he simply decides that he has made a mistake, then a wise employer will leave it for a 'reasonable' period before readvertising the position, will not advertise exactly the same job, or may even approach the previous post holder to invite them to apply, for as Ell-enn suggests this may demonstrate that the selection process for redundancy or even the reason for making the postion redundant was flawed at the start. The law does not restrict the ability of an employer to hire and fire as he deems fit to run the business efficiently, providing that he does so in a lawful, fair and reasonable manner.

 

In answer to your question therefore, it would depend on the circumstances and what you hope to achieve. You could always write to the company and ask them to reaffirm the reason for job being made redundant (only to be readvertised shortly afterwards) and explain your sense of feeling that the reason may have been personal. The response may make you feel better or worse, or you may not receive a reply at all. To pursue any claim against the employer if you are not satisfied though, you would need to persuade a Tribunal that there are sufficient grounds to extend the usual time limit of three months in order to bring action, and any award to you as a result of a successful action would be based on the detrimental impact of the unfair dismissal on your circumstances. In your case, having found a job which involved better pay and conditions within a week, I feel that even if you were able to bring, and win a case, any award would be insufficient to make it worthwhile.

 

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate where you are coming from, and I know that I would feel the same, but I do not believe that there is much mileage in pursuing it.

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

AFAIAA there is nothing in the ERA which sets a limit. Some say three months, but more often six months is considered to be the accepted period as it represents the maximum time available to a redundant employee in which they could argue that the redundancy constituted unfair dismissal upon seeing their former position readvertised..

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...