Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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

What's the rules on making an apprentice redundant?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5496 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

Coniff

 

It can be a real minefield for the employer, depending on the quality of the drafting used when the Apprenticeship Agreement was drafted.

 

Normally, the employer will be under a duty to seek suitable employers where the apprentice could have been transfered to before making him/her redundant.

 

The bottom line is that you need to read the agreement, check what provision it made for termination, including by way of redundancy, and come back.

 

If an apprentice is wrongfully dismissed he may have a claim for enhanced damages by reason of the loss of his prospects as a tradesman on completion of his apprenticeship (Dunk v George Waller & Son Ltd [1970] 2 All ER 630, , CA). See also Wallace v CA Roofing Services Ltd , QBD. The case concerned an apprentice sheet metal worker who was dismissed for reason of redundancy after 19 months and claimed damages for breach of contract, arguing that the contract was one of apprenticeship and therefore not subject to a redundancy dismissal. This was held to be the case and the matter was remitted for damages to be assessed, presumably on the basis that the contract should have been one for four years.

Che

...................................................................... [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. 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.[/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS] I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Black][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Red]'Venceremos' :wink:[/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says on her employment contract (not exact words, I don't have it in front of me) Apprentice for a term of 4 years.

 

See if you can get a copy, and check what provision it made for termination.

 

I have seen recently some very poorly drafted agreements that neglected to make adequate provision for termination - remembering of course that in law a redundancy is still a dismissal.

 

Ultimately the employee could find that they are entitled to a sizeable damages award because they have numerous heads of claim.

 

See:

 

In Flett v Matheson 2006 ICR 673, CA, F worked under a ‘Modern Apprenticeship agreement’, which operated as a tripartite arrangement between him, the ‘employer’ and a Government-sponsored training provider. When he was dismissed without notice, he brought a breach of contract claim before an employment tribunal. The issue was whether F was to be regarded as employed under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship, or neither. This was important because, were he employed under a contract of apprenticeship, he could seek damages in excess of £ 50,000 in respect of lost earnings and the potential diminution of his future prospects. If, on the other hand, he worked under a contract of employment, his claim would be limited to one week’s pay for being dismissed without proper notice. The Court of Appeal concluded that the tripartite arrangement had the essential ingredients of an apprenticeship; namely, it secured wages for the apprentice for the duration of an apprenticeship; training enabling him or her to acquire valuable skills; and status in the labour market following successful completion of the training. The fact that part of the training was provided by a third party did not deny the contract the classic qualities of apprenticeship.

 

Che

...................................................................... [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. 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.[/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS] I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Black][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Red]'Venceremos' :wink:[/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

Link to post
Share on other sites

S

See:

 

In Flett v Matheson 2006 ICR 673, CA, F worked under a ‘Modern Apprenticeship agreement’, which operated as a tripartite arrangement between him, the ‘employer’ and a Government-sponsored training provider. When he was dismissed without notice, he brought a breach of contract claim before an employment tribunal. The issue was whether F was to be regarded as employed under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship, or neither. This was important because, were he employed under a contract of apprenticeship, he could seek damages in excess of £ 50,000 in respect of lost earnings and the potential diminution of his future prospects. If, on the other hand, he worked under a contract of employment, his claim would be limited to one week’s pay for being dismissed without proper notice. The Court of Appeal concluded that the tripartite arrangement had the essential ingredients of an apprenticeship; namely, it secured wages for the apprentice for the duration of an apprenticeship; training enabling him or her to acquire valuable skills; and status in the labour market following successful completion of the training. The fact that part of the training was provided by a third party did not deny the contract the classic qualities of apprenticeship.

 

Che

 

 

wish id known this back in 1997, my first job on leaving college was a modern apprenticeship that i got sacked from after 2 months service, as the muppet who took me on didnt realise that as part of my contract i was to be allowed 3 days a week leave to attend an engineering course at college, so the asshole sacked me, because he thought he was getting a teaboy/skivvy

Link to post
Share on other sites

wish id known this back in 1997, my first job on leaving college was a modern apprenticeship that i got sacked from after 2 months service, as the muppet who took me on didnt realise that as part of my contract i was to be allowed 3 days a week leave to attend an engineering course at college, so the asshole sacked me, because he thought he was getting a teaboy/skivvy

 

It's all easy with hindsight mate!

 

Oh well, no point crying over spilt milk .... and all that.

 

Still a bummer though

 

Che

...................................................................... [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. 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.[/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS] I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Black][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Red]'Venceremos' :wink:[/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done some reading starting with the Flett v Matheson which lead onto other things and can quote a bit from the regulations as read by an employment specialist company:

 

If the employer terminates the agreement early, thereby depriving the apprentice of the training, the apprentice is entitled to claim damages for wrongful dismissal under the contract for the remainder of the fixed-term apprenticeship and also damages for future loss of earnings and prospect as a qualified person.

This is still the case even if the apprentice is a poor performer or is having difficulty passing any necessary exams or if he has a conduct problem such as poor timekeeping or poor attendance record.

Even a genuine redundancy situation such as a downturn in work, would not entitle the employer to dismiss the apprentice early, regardless of length of service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What if the employer is arguing that you aren't actually an apprentice because you never signed a deed of apprenticeship/indenture.

 

I have been treated as an apprentice, attending apprentice's dinner with the management and being put forward for apprentice of the year (and coming in the top ten for the area!) and also the training provider I take wednesday mornings off to study with has documents signed by my supervisor which class me as an apprentice!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...