Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
    • The Barclay Card conditions is complete. There was only 3 pages. This had old address on. Full CCA. 15 pages. The only personal info is my name and address. Current Address The rest just like a generic document.  Barclays CCA 260424.pdf
  • 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

My Employer Wants To Do A Credit Check-Can I Get Sacked?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4900 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 All

 

Can anyone help me please?

 

My employer (a large electronics corporation) have told all the staff that they are going to CRB and Credit Check on everyone to evaluate the potential risk of fraud.

 

I have no criminal record but my credit file is a complete mess and will show a lot of debt.

 

I have worked there 12 years.

 

I dont handle money in my job I work in a call centre taking sales orders etc.

 

Will I get sacked on the spot?

 

Any advice greatly appreciated

 

Honeyot

 

xxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure this is the correct advice, but they - your employers - would need to have written consent to carry out credit check. Have a look at your Contract of Employment and see if this is covered at all. If not, I am sure they would need to vary everyones' Contract to cover this. I am sure you will not be the only person to be worried by this.

 

Hopefully others will be along with more help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Harrased Senior

 

Yes, we have all had to sign a consent form to the checks so its all been done above aboard.

I guess I'm looking for advice on how to respond should they say " youve got loads of debt therefore you are a risk to the company therefore your fired"

 

xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a bad credit record does not make you a risk – the days of debtors’ prisons are long gone. Do you have a union or trade body you can talk to?

 

In financial services, a credit check is often a part of the selection process and candidates have to agree to it first.

 

If your employer is going to say you are a risk because you have a poor credit record, they will be on extremely dodgy ground if they use that information to alter your working conditions in any way, or if they try to dispense with your services.

 

Does your job involve the handling of cash, the awarding of contracts or purchasing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Donkey B

 

i work in a call centre processing telephone orders for the electrical component industry. I dont handle cash or award contracts or anything like that. the closest I come to money would be if a customer phoned up and placed an order with a credit card rather than account.

 

I think the company are saying that if you are in debt then you are more likey to try commit a fraud to the company. Thats why they have decided to credit and CRB everyone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that is nonsense and would be a slander. People have problems with credit often through no fault of their own. To imply this makes them unreliable or dishonest is plain wrong. Has nobody stood up to them? It’s a pretty gross invasion of your privacy, because I can’t see how police and credit checks can be used on such a sweeping basis. Maybe you should tip off the press...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Donkey B

 

I think the company are saying that if you are in debt then you are more likey to try commit a fraud to the company. Thats why they have decided to credit and CRB everyone

 

I wouldn't say so. It seems to me, from your original post, that they're doing a credit check in regards to money laundering and fraud. If they were doing just a credit check then I would be concerned, but as they're doing a CRB too I'd say they're covering their arses for their insurers.

 

Also, have there been any changes in the last 90 days, such as a new MD/Sales Director or a different company take over?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Postjgg is doing a degree on employment law maybe worth pming him to look in.

 

This company can not sack you for being in debt - nor can they take disciplinary action - if they do you must use their apeal process - if you ended up taking this to tribunal - you would wipe the floor with them. Big payout.

 

A lot of employers now do credit checks because the CRA's have convinced them that people in debt are risks to the business.

 

My anwser to this has always been if they are dishonest they will rip you off regardless of the credit status.

 

I worked in retail for over 20 years and can tell you that the majority of staff we caught stealing - or defrauding the company never had poor credit histories.

 

There are very few offences that would stay on a crb check for 6 years - so unless you have been to prison or had a suspended sentence then a default on your credit file is considered worse.

 

This is realy begining to grate with me - i applied for a job at the RAC - no cash handling - nor order taking - just directing recovery vehicles to breakdowns - and had to have a credit check - told them they must be joking and to eff off.

 

Housing is also going this way - Rent a house - credit Check

New Job - Credit Check

Benefit Claim - Credit checks

 

So what they are saying now is if you have bad debts - you MUST pay them off even if you cant afford them due to your circumsatnces - or you get

 

No House

No Job

Benefits Cut.

 

Being in debt is now being worse than a criminal - now thats what i call debt slavery. No freedom work for the creditors (Mainly the banks)

 

Just remove the word debt. and you are now nearer the mark

 

OOOH it makes me so angry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have witnessed someone working in financial services having their temporary contract terminated because of a CCJ showing up on a credit record. But this would not have happened if it were just defaults.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

DoH - I had one of those days yesterday, long story, not for this forum otherwise would let you all in - lets just say imagine a 64 year old senior citizen, disabled, 2 hearing aids, and a walking frame being escorted from an o2 shopfencing.gif

 

That's finished my day at work with a bliddy great smile h s

Hope all's well

R

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] I asked them to wait whilst I got my Bank card :violin:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Information that may help if a CCA request is refused due to the lack of a signature . . http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?248863-Signature-demands-fight-back-possible-!&highlight=

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very supprised it they would even be allowed do a CRB check, CRB checks are only for people who work with vulnerable adults or children. Other than that most aatempts to look into any iffy past are covered by the rehabilitation of offenders act. I moved into a new estate where there where loads of kids and the housing association where not allowed to run a check. AFAIK you cannot sign any rights under the rehabilitation of offenders away. As to the other forcing you to sign to give permision to access your credit file would give you leave to sue for contructive dismisal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting topic, I know a chap who was asked to sign a consent form for a credit check after a few years employment and he politely refused due to the fact that he had a number of disputes and felt that the information would be incorrect anyway. There were no repercussions on him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can do standard CRB checks which will give information on unspent convictions - these should be done prior to employment starting or during the probation period.

 

Those for people in education/health/care etc are the enhanced versions that can hold details from when you have not been charged and convictions that may have been spent under normal circumstances.

 

Dont forget also that the period for convictions to become spent is generaly a lot less than the informaion held on CRA files.

 

The reason being to give the opportunity for the individual to be to prove their rehabilitation.

 

It now makes more sense to steal the money from an employer and to pay your debts - than have the debt. because the period the issue will be held on file is less for the criminal act

 

Madness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as you continue to do your job well, why would they want to sack you? There are strict guidelines over redundancies and all sorts of things need to be taken into consideration. As you do not handle money I can't see why they'd be interested - what fraud could you commit? As for the CRB check I wouldn't have thought anyone would agree to that as it's absolutely irrelevant to your jobs and to whether or not you're likely to commit fraud. CRB is in two forms, normal and enhanced. As a headteacher and later a taxi driver I went through the enhanced CRB - it's nothing to worry about unless you've been prosecuted for offences with children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have witnessed someone working in financial services having their temporary contract terminated because of a CCJ showing up on a credit record. But this would not have happened if it were just defaults.

 

I was informed by a prospective employer that i would have to explain -AND PROVE - that i was dealing with any defaults or delinquest accounts.

 

Strange thing is i have recentley been aproached by a recruitment agencey asking if i would be interested in a job in loss prevention - And no credit checks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very supprised it they would even be allowed do a CRB check, CRB checks are only for people who work with vulnerable adults or children. Other than that most aatempts to look into any iffy past are covered by the rehabilitation of offenders act. I moved into a new estate where there where loads of kids and the housing association where not allowed to run a check. AFAIK you cannot sign any rights under the rehabilitation of offenders away. As to the other forcing you to sign to give permision to access your credit file would give you leave to sue for contructive dismisal.

 

Not quite right count o

The full CRB check is for people wishing to work with children and vulnerable adults but I work in the Security Industry and every three years when my SIA licence is renewed I have a CRB check for past offences, I receive a copy of the report

In general companies seem to be tightening their procedures and in this case I really don't think there's anything to worry about but a call to the CAB or ACAS would help to ease doubts

Good luck

R

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] I asked them to wait whilst I got my Bank card :violin:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Information that may help if a CCA request is refused due to the lack of a signature . . http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?248863-Signature-demands-fight-back-possible-!&highlight=

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Experian:

the employer can usually only look at publicly available information, says James Jones of Experian.

 

This includes the electoral roll, county court judgments, bankruptcy and individual voluntary arrangements which are legally enforceable deals struck with your creditors to repay them some of your debt over a fixed period. But if the firm shares credit history data with credit reference agencies and if the job is sensitive, they can look at your full credit report, with your consent.

 

Elsa x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...