Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
  • 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...