Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • 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.   
  • 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

Requested to attend an investigation while off sick


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5216 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...