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    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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

Suspended from work


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5032 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

Hello,

 

Stumbled apon this site via google, I have quite a list I could use some advice on, i'll try to be as clear as possible.

 

First off I work for a council, in a school, due to staff cuts my position has been subject to a skills audit resulting to my colleague being made redundant.

 

As a final hurrah before leaving my colleague obtained various bits of information from our headteachers documents circulated them to the press. He was promptly arrested and has confessed.

 

As a two-man IT department I was initially asked not to come in for the first day after the weekend this happened, the site was closed due to the nature of the information and I.T. systems investigated, I was then told to take the rest of the week off as the network was still down and i would not be able to complete my daily duties due to the investigation (I know this investigation was not ongoing atleast on site after the first day due to information from other staff).

 

After the first week I was told I could come back to work, my line manager provided with new keys to our office and told our support guys would inform me of logins etc in due course, two hours later I was summoned to the front office and informed I was being suspended.

 

The grounds for suspension were that due to my close working relationship with the offending colleague, and the fact that all administrator logins were shared, I posed a security risk. I was also informed the found items on my PC which caused concern. I was escorted to my office which I was asked to clear of my belongings. I was not given a copy of our grevience policy or any relating documents.

 

UNISON rep was called and I was informed they were aware of the situation having been contacted by my colleague and the head of HR, he assured me this was a precautionary measure and that someone would be available to attend any meetings.

 

3 weeks on I have been asked to attend an off site meeting to be interviewed about the above.

 

 

I have a number of concerns about this:

  • The meeting is outside of my normal working hours, I work 0800-1600, meeting it at 1600 and some distance from my place of work.
  • I know exactly what has happened due to my colleague informing me after his arrest, this information was disclosed to my employer shortly after i was told. I feel any answers I give in my interview may be compromised by this knowledge, before being told I knew nothing.
  • I am currently off work sick with depression, my employment issues are contributing but not the primary reason for this, I have been signed by my GP. I am in no fit state yet to attend the interview.
  • I have not been informed what has been found or what I am suspected of doing therefore have had no time to prepare answers.

All administrator logins were shared between the two Technicians, as are workstations in the office i am concerned that anything he has done may be attributed me.

 

We had been working without an IT manager for over a year and had no guidance on security, best practices etc. In a previous annual appraisal I raised 7 pages worth of concerns to the head to which I was told "we employ you to have the answers to those, but your not responsible" this is documented in my staff file. We were only recently (2-3 weeks) given an Acceptable ICT Use Policy, due to issues mainly relating to how we apply this to other staff we had not signed this document and were waiting to meet with line manager to discuss.

 

Two further issues;

 

As an amateur photographer I purchased an excess portfolio folder from our technology department, then filled it with images, including some of my children, when being asked to remove my stuff from the office this portfolio was seized due to the images "possibly" being printed at work - there is no facility for this, although I have no receitps for their external printing. I am concerned with having images of my kids being in the possetion of unknown others. One contact has advised me to formally request this item back as their grounds are unreasonable and outside of the scope of the investigation, if not returned; assume they wish to purchase the images and invoice them accordingly, this made me lol.

 

Further more during this period of suspension applications are being received for the IT manager position (newly created in the new structure). The deadline for the applications was originally 07.06.10, I was informed by a member of the admin team that this had been extended to 11.06.10 due to technical problems with the school website causing application forms not to be available. I forwarded my application special delivery and it was received before the 11.06.10 deadline. I have now received a letter stating that as me application was received after the 07.06.10 deadline it was not considered. How can I approach this? I know of one other applicant who was informed via email by the same admin team member of the 11.06.10 date, Im hoping he kept the message, although im not sure yet.

 

Thanks in advance, apologies for the post length.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG. I'm sorry to hear about all your problems. It's certainly complicated, isn't it?

 

I expect the others will be along to comment later and I will have a look later if I have time.

 

For now though, I have a vague recollection that you may not be required to attend a meeting while you're signed off sick. Hopefully someone will comment.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Stumbled apon this site via google, I have quite a list I could use some advice on, i'll try to be as clear as possible.

 

First off I work for a council, in a school, due to staff cuts my position has been subject to a skills audit resulting to my colleague being made redundant.

 

As a final hurrah before leaving my colleague obtained various bits of information from our headteachers documents circulated them to the press. He was promptly arrested and has confessed.

 

As a two-man IT department I was initially asked not to come in for the first day after the weekend this happened, the site was closed due to the nature of the information and I.T. systems investigated, I was then told to take the rest of the week off as the network was still down and i would not be able to complete my daily duties due to the investigation (I know this investigation was not ongoing atleast on site after the first day due to information from other staff).

 

After the first week I was told I could come back to work, my line manager provided with new keys to our office and told our support guys would inform me of logins etc in due course, two hours later I was summoned to the front office and informed I was being suspended.

 

The grounds for suspension were that due to my close working relationship with the offending colleague, and the fact that all administrator logins were shared, I posed a security risk. I was also informed the found items on my PC which caused concern. I was escorted to my office which I was asked to clear of my belongings. I was not given a copy of our grevience policy or any relating documents.

 

In what way a 'security risk'? Surely with new login names and passwords any such 'risk' would be eliminated? Have you not been told (basically if without going into details) what type of material on the PC warranted further investigation. Presumably the suspension and reasons for it have been confirmed in writing?

 

UNISON rep was called and I was informed they were aware of the situation having been contacted by my colleague and the head of HR, he assured me this was a precautionary measure and that someone would be available to attend any meetings.

 

3 weeks on I have been asked to attend an off site meeting to be interviewed about the above.

 

Have they given any more specific details about the nature of the allegation?

 

I have a number of concerns about this:

  • The meeting is outside of my normal working hours, I work 0800-1600, meeting it at 1600 and some distance from my place of work.
  • I know exactly what has happened due to my colleague informing me after his arrest, this information was disclosed to my employer shortly after i was told. I feel any answers I give in my interview may be compromised by this knowledge, before being told I knew nothing.
  • I am currently off work sick with depression, my employment issues are contributing but not the primary reason for this, I have been signed by my GP. I am in no fit state yet to attend the interview.
  • I have not been informed what has been found or what I am suspected of doing therefore have had no time to prepare answers.

An investigatory meeting is slightly different to a disciplinary hearing as it seeks to determine whether a case warrants the disciplinary process, however you should have some information as to what is being investigated. If this is not provided then you cannot answer questions during the meeting which you have had insufficient time to consider. Simply say that you believe something to be incorrect but need more time/details in order to be able to answer. If necessary you can ask for the meeting to be adjourned.

 

You cannot be forced to attend if you are off sick, and it would be reasonable to ask for an alternative date, however as procedures have to follow a reasonable timetable, be aware that they can hold the investigation in your absence (and similarly any disciplinary hearings which may follow).

 

If the meeting is scheduled outside of your normal working hours and an unreasonable distance away, then you should be able to ask for an alternative location and time.

 

All administrator logins were shared between the two Technicians, as are workstations in the office i am concerned that anything he has done may be attributed me.

An investigation should look at that possibility with all available evidence. If the policy of shared logins makes that impossible, then it will not be correct to attribute wrongdoings to a specific user. Times and dates of documents may be relevant as if you can definitely exclude yourself from one activity this will add weight to the 'it wasn't me, it was him' argument.

 

We had been working without an IT manager for over a year and had no guidance on security, best practices etc. In a previous annual appraisal I raised 7 pages worth of concerns to the head to which I was told "we employ you to have the answers to those, but your not responsible" this is documented in my staff file. We were only recently (2-3 weeks) given an Acceptable ICT Use Policy, due to issues mainly relating to how we apply this to other staff we had not signed this document and were waiting to meet with line manager to discuss.

 

Supporting evidence to aid the investigation

 

Two further issues;

 

As an amateur photographer I purchased an excess portfolio folder from our technology department, then filled it with images, including some of my children, when being asked to remove my stuff from the office this portfolio was seized due to the images "possibly" being printed at work - there is no facility for this, although I have no receitps for their external printing. I am concerned with having images of my kids being in the possetion of unknown others. One contact has advised me to formally request this item back as their grounds are unreasonable and outside of the scope of the investigation, if not returned; assume they wish to purchase the images and invoice them accordingly, this made me lol.

 

They may argue that this material warrabted investigation due to the folder containing images of children - awful I know, but probably necessary in today's climate - the images may well be yours but they are stored on a school facility. This should only be retained for as long as necessary though and you can make a reasonable request for the material to be returned once it is established that it is your property and of no importance to the investigation.

 

Further more during this period of suspension applications are being received for the IT manager position (newly created in the new structure). The deadline for the applications was originally 07.06.10, I was informed by a member of the admin team that this had been extended to 11.06.10 due to technical problems with the school website causing application forms not to be available. I forwarded my application special delivery and it was received before the 11.06.10 deadline. I have now received a letter stating that as me application was received after the 07.06.10 deadline it was not considered. How can I approach this? I know of one other applicant who was informed via email by the same admin team member of the 11.06.10 date, Im hoping he kept the message, although im not sure yet.

 

You need to complain about being given misleading information giving the reasons why and stating how you believed that the deadline was extended. Without evidence this may be difficult.

 

Thanks in advance, apologies for the post length.

 

..

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...