Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Requested to attend an investigation while off sick


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5189 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

I was suspended from work for an allegation of gross misconduct.I went to 2 investigations and was presented with various statements and evidence.I concluded the second hearing by instigating the company grievance procedure against the investigating manager as i felt they were victimising me in that they were ignoring conflicting statements,ignoring others procedural errors that led to my charge,going back to the same people for further statements which were becoming more detailed despite the passing of time, and asking sensasionalist questions,i.e. what would have happened if?,during a meeting designed to gather facts.

I am now off with depression.I have now received a request to attend a further investigation,while off sick,to be chaired by the same line manager stating that whilst i have been signed off from normal duties they would expect me to be available to attend.

Any advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cracker. This must be tough for you.

 

I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me will be along, but do you have a copy of the firm's grievance procedure? If you do, is having your line manager chairing the meeting following their own procedures?

 

It sounds wrong to summon you when you're depressed, could make you worse, couldn't it? I hope someone else will know the answer. I think this may have cropped up recently on the forum.

 

Remember that being picked on because you've made a grievance is victimisation.

 

Have you spoken to the ACAS helpline? They should be able to advise you.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't be required to attend such a meeting whilst signed off from work with depression. You are in no fit state to deal with these matters at present, indeed doing so may well exacerbate your condition.

 

Respond to this request as I have stated above. If they continue to contact you regarding this matter, write a formal grievance letter, stating that you are being harassed.

Are you still suspended? Or on SSP?

They should deal with a disciplinary matter without undue delay. If they've investigated the matter, it should go to a disciplinary hearing, decision made, finished.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Elpulpo, is it normal to make the employee part of the investigation? I thought someone separate was meant to carry it out.

 

I wonder what this meeting would be for, when it eventually happens.

 

Cracker, don't be pushed around, you have rights.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still suspended and have provided a doctors note,i am still on full pay.I have had a doctor write a letter specifically ponting out i am not fit to appear at any work related meetings as this could have an adverse effect on my recovery.I still suspect they will hold the meeting without me present.

I find it surprising that an investigation without my input would be held and wonder what effect this could have further down the line i.e.disciplinary/appeal/unfair dismissal?

 

Any help would,again,be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still suspect they will hold the meeting without me present.

 

You could be right.

Perhaps you could email them and suggest that (as a compromise and to demonstrate that you are making every attempt to assist them in their investigation) they could send any further questions they have for you in writing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that they're continuing to pursue this matter even after receiving a letter from your doctor.

 

What size is this company? Do they have an HR Dept?

May I ask, do you have a history of depression/stress related illness?

How long have you worked for there?

 

I don't agree, Mariefab.

I don't think this matter should proceed at all until this person is well enough to return to work.

 

You're not well enough at present to address this. If they hold a hearing in your absence it will be unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this matter should proceed at all until this person is well enough to return to work.

Nor do I. But Cracker seems to think they might and they know their employers.

I just thought that, in case they did go ahead with the investigation without Cracker, it would be a good idea to be able to demonstrate that Cracker went out of their way to try to co-operate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for a large retailer with instore/regional/divisional h.r.I've been there over 10 years and have never had a days sick 'til now.The companys letter to me(inviting me to the investigation) suggests 'progressing with the investigation may help alleviate your symptoms'.

I suspect not.The financial year ends soon and it's time to tidy up the p&l's.The handbook states 'it may be possible for you to continue to attend...in which case we require you to do so'.

 

I am in a union but they can't appear at an investigation.

 

To go or not to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive my ignorance, Cracker and everyone else. Why can't a union attend a meeting with you? Going alone is the last thing you need.

I think the meetings so far have been investigatory meetings, held prior to a disciplinary hearing.

One doesn't neccessarily have right to be accompanied at these.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive my ignorance, Cracker and everyone else. Why can't a union attend a meeting with you? Going alone is the last thing you need.

Agreed as you should be able to have some one with you at the inetrview. I woudl approach your union and question this as it sems wrong. If you go to the meeting while off sick, they may use that against yu and state that if you are able to attend the interview you are fit enough for work. This sounds like it could be one of the major stores that sell electrical goods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only have a fellow company employee with me at an investigation.Union rep's are only allowed in to disciplinary and grievance meetings. As per company handbook and confirmed by union.

 

Not an electrical retailer!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...