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    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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

Help with NHS Disciplinary Hearing - Likely Dismissal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5096 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 there, I'm urgently looking for help on behalf of my husband who has been suspended from work for the last 3 weeks and is awaiting a disciplinary hearing next tues (20th) with the strong possibility of dismissal for gross misconduct.

 

We are beside ourselves with worry as we know the person who commissioned the investigation and actioned the hearing does not like him. She has gone as far as to say as much. I am on maternity leave and have no income coming in at this time and we are worried about the consequences of dismissal.

 

My husband and I both work in the NHS as Scientists. My husband is a manager of a laboratory. He has an exemplary track record as an excellent manager and very strong references from previous employers. As such he has climbed the career ladder quickly and is one of the youngest lab managers at 33!

 

He started working for this trust in 2008 and has virtually no training or support from his line manager since he started. When he started working there he replaced a man that was also moved from post! and inherited a department in all sorts of trouble with lack of protocols and in fighting between staff.

 

His line manager ordered an investigation in to 7 allegations against him back in November 2009. The last 2 were unsubstantiated and dropped. The remaining 5 were upheld and as mentioned the hearing is next week.

 

The whole incident relates to a locking mechanism on a fridge containing blood failing within the hospital. My husband was notified of the problem in the middle of the night at home and first thing the next morning he went to the fridge to assess the problem. He called the engineers straight away and arranged for them to look at it. The engineer arrived within 24 hours but said a new part was needed.

 

My husband believed the matter would be resolved within 72 hours. Unfortunately, on the day the engineer arrived to repair the fridge my husband was on annual leave - we were moving house! The new part broke in the engineers bag and 2 of his colleagues took the fridge out of service for safety reasons. This is exactly what my husband would have done had he been at work that day.

 

On the day the fridge lock broke he notified his line manger, quality manager and team and the users of the fridge by email and verbally and explained the problem. He also put a notice on the fridge that the lock was broken but the fridge could still be used. If the staff used the fridge following protocol and using the electronic equipment related to it as per training/protocol there would be no problem. The only problem would have arisen if someone completely ignored protocol and removed the wrong blood. My husband arranged for a regular stock take to monitor the contents to ensure nothing was taken inappropriately. The process that the fridge was used for and its contents were unaffected and no adverse incidents arose from the locking mechanism being open. The fridge was repaired and put back into service in 7 days.

 

The first allegation is procedural and is that he failed to assess the nature and severity of the problem. At most he may have been naive to assume that staff would have done what they were trained to do. There is no policy or protocol covering what to do in this situation as this problem was not one that could have been foreseen. As soon as the incident happened my husband began to update the protocols on what to do if this happened again - ie take the fridge out of action etc

 

The remaining 4 allegations relate to communication. They allege that he did not communicate the problem to his mangers and staff and that his communication was poor. It is also alleged that he ignored the saftey concerns of his staff.

 

In the investigation the officer alleged that he had not told his manager and the quality manager although my husband had "read receipts " of the email he sent. The investigating officer then changed track and said that email was not an appropriate method of communication! My husband then produced an email from his line manager that stated all service disruptions were to be communicated via email. This was not included in the investigation report. The investigating officer then said the email he sent was misleading and did not stress the severity of the problem. However, many more junior members of staff understood the situation based on the email.

 

My husband also discussed the situation with 2 senior members of the team who now say he "glossed over" the subject and that they did not understand the situation. These 2 members of staff coincidently have voiced strong dislike of my husband since he started working there and he was even warned to watch his back!! One of them has spoken to a very senior manager prior to this event suggesting that my husband was too young and inexperienced for this role. This individual has also lodged complaints of intimidation and harrassment from a clinical colleague and is a know trouble maker. In fact my husband's manger warned him back in September that this lady was playing games!

 

The witness statements from his team that were taken to substantiate the claims that "he ignored their safety concerns" are very vague - no one can remember exactly what or when they said anything! and their comments were along the lines of " is it still ok to use the fridge?" rather than "what about patient safety or isnt it dangerous?"

 

The manger has followed the disciplinary procedure so far however the report of the investigation was available on the 5th March and we only received a copy by post on 10th April!! Giving just over the 5 working days to prepare.

 

My husband is a member of a trade union and is going to be accompanied at the hearing although the member is currently off sick so there is looking like there will be limited or no time to meet to prepare a defence together!

 

It just seems that the whole system is stacked in favour of the line manger, she is chairing the hearing, she decides if witnesses are allowed, her decisions are final! But we know she does not like my husband! She has also never expressed any concerns over my husband's performance prior to this incident. He has not received any warnings or been given any opportunity to improve.

 

Is the hearing the time and place to bring up the games/harrassment played by the 2 witnesses? or does this look like sour grapes? To top it off some members of staff have been discussing the investigation on facebook!!

 

The week this happened we were moving house with no onward accomodation - I moved back with my parents and he stayed with my uncle. We also had a 1.5 month old baby. Can he use this as mitigating circumstances?

 

We just feel they've made up their minds already - possibly even before the investigation! HR have told the union rep previously that there is a known bullying culture by these individuals but they are powerless! NHS HR is shocking!!!

 

Any advice is greatly appreciated - people say its virtually impossible to be sacked from the NHS - well not in this hospital!!

 

I could go back to work early but I work in the same building - how could I face those individuals that took away my chance to be with my baby!!

 

I'm sorry for going on and on!! I just feel permanently sick :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - Yes he has a rep representing him however, she is currently off sick and the hearing is next tues so we are not sure if they will have time to meet to build a defence.

 

We have not mentioned the facebook to anyone yet other than the rep as we want to make sure its dealt with properly and not just ignored. We have taken screen prints so that we have evidence if they delete the conversations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there. I'm really sorry to hear of your little family's problems and hope we can help. You've had some good pointers already.

 

Have you looked at the ACAS website about recommended disc. procedures? They have a confidential helpline that you can ring.

 

I think there's quite a lot to unpick here, and hopefully other caggers will be along soon.

 

HB x

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 'Mrs Scientist',

 

Let us take your post on a point by point basis...

 

a) there are protocols in force at the Trust... and, to your knowledge, the ones in force have been followed.

 

b) in this particular incident, no specific protocol is in force... [T]here is no policy or protocol covering what to do in this situation as this problem was not one that could have been foreseen. However, your husband drafted a protocol to address the problem and attended to the incident as soon as known.

 

c) communication... [M]y husband then produced an email from his line manager that stated all service disruptions were to be communicated via email... and so he did...

 

According to management... did he address the problem appropriately? - Did any incident arise from his actions? - Is the protocol drafted by your husband, following the incident, implemented? - What communication channel should he have used to inform them of the incident? and whom should he have informed? What could have been the repercussions if the fridge had been taken out of service all together?

 

No protocol is in force in order to address such specific incident but your husband has acted rapidly in communicating the problem to both management and staff having access to the fridge. He, in addition, drafted a protocol to be used in similar cases. His employee files are 'clean'...

---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---

 

***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***

 

- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -

Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the advice given.

 

We have looked at the ACAS website and will call them later.

 

The union rep is now off sick and will not return until after the meeting. My husband has requested that the meeting is rescheduled, as stated in the Trust policy, and is awaiting a response.

 

The fault with the fridge was not forseen when the original policies were written. These policies have now been redrafted to cover unexpected problems, which should cover the any similar events but were not implemented at the time of his suspension.

 

The management allege that the actions he took did not address the problem appropriately.

The communication structure is not clearly documented within the department, but my husband did inform his direct line manager regarding the situation. My husband has also received contradictory instructions regarding when and who to inform of matters relating to the service.

 

There were no clinical incidents relating to the management of the fault and his decision meant that there was no delay in the provision of blood.

 

We will keep you updated as their response regarding the postponement.

 

Thanks again to you all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the advice given.

 

We have looked at the ACAS website and will call them later.

 

The union rep is now off sick and will not return until after the meeting. My husband has requested that the meeting is rescheduled, as stated in the Trust policy, and is awaiting a response.

 

The fault with the fridge was not forseen when the original policies were written. These policies have now been redrafted to cover unexpected problems, which should cover the any similar events but were not implemented at the time of his suspension.

 

The management allege that the actions he took did not address the problem appropriately.

The communication structure is not clearly documented within the department, but my husband did inform his direct line manager regarding the situation. My husband has also received contradictory instructions regarding when and who to inform of matters relating to the service.

 

There were no clinical incidents relating to the management of the fault and his decision meant that there was no delay in the provision of blood.

 

We will keep you updated as their response regarding the postponement.

 

Thanks again to you all.

 

To take any pondered action which would have for result the avoidance of any serious outcome is a good and thought action. In the absence of any protocol defining a process to follow, an informed and responsible procedure avoiding a possible serious situation should be regarded as adequate.

 

Your husband acted 'reasonably' to overcome the problem he faced and as such has avoided any critical situation in the absence of a defined protocol...

 

All direct managers/supervisors and staff under his responsibility have been informed of the situation and the 'protocol' to be followed...

 

I cannot see where your husband has failed in his repsonsibilities to act properly...

---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---

 

***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***

 

- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -

Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...