Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • 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.
  • 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

If I get sacked for gross misconduct can I claim JSA?


Volition82
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4865 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,

 

I'm about to be sacked for gross misconduct, if I am can I claim JSA and HB (I rent)? Really worried about it as I have no one or no where to turn to for help and no savings. With the job market as it is it could easily be 6 months or a year before I get another job and without benifits i'll end up quite literally living on the streets.

 

This all happened on 24/12/10 and they called me in for the meeting today but I managed to pospone it as I said they have to give me reasonable time to seek advice. I've been to CAB and solicitors today but they are all shut until 4/1/11. If someone could tell me that I will at least get something from benefits to live on it would be a load off my mind. Thank you in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JSA can be sanctioned (payments of the benefit not made) where a person's employment has been terminated owing to misconduct. If sanctioned, it could be anything up to a maximum of 26 weeks. This is not from the date you left employment but from the date the JSA claim is made. A sanction is not definate as each case is dependent on the circumstances, but it is a possibility. In the case of a sanction, some people are successful in securing hardship payments (benefits at a reduced rate) - but again, this is subject to your circumstances. Using the guides below may provide more insight.

 

Sanctions

 

Hardship

 

You can still claim Housing Benefit and Council tax benefit whether your benefit is sanctioned or not, as housing benefit/council tax benefit is assessed on your income and capital, and does not concern itself with the reasons for unemployment.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ErikaPNP,

 

Thank you for your quick reply. I've had a look at the files you listed but to be honest it doesn't make much sense to me. I know it's very difficult to say without all the details facts but would I be right in saying that the most likely out come is that if I claim JSA it will be suspended for a time but as I have no savings or other income I should get a hardship payment? The fact that i'm claiming JSA even if it's suspended means that I can claim HB which I have done before and received and my circumstances haven't changed. If my JSA is reduced or suspended will I still get full HB?

 

As I said I know it's hard to say but i'm just looking for a rough idea. The thought of having no income of any sort especially with the current job market is very frightening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I can't say. Without knowing the reasons behind a termination I can't even begin to speculate the liklihood of a sanction. There is no direct entitlement to a hardship payment in the event of a sanction. The DWP will consider your case and the circumstances around it but I can't second guess their decision.

 

If your JSA is suspended (and it won't be in the event of a sanction. Sanctions stop payment of the benefit, they don't suspend the benefit entitlement in itself) then HB/CTB can be affected if the claim is a linked claim (paid because you get income based JSA). In this case they are likely to suspend your payments until you make contact with them for a re-assessment based on income. If your JSA is sanctioned, your HB payments won't be any different to what they would normally be.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been accussed of being drunk at work which I wasn't. I was ill and sent home and the next thing I know when i've come into work i've been accussed of drinking at work and they had so called found a bottle of vodka half drunk. Two employees have made statements to say I was drunk and I have obviuosly made a statement saying I wasn't. I haven't had the disciplinary hearing as yet but i'm guessing that i'll get the sack. Too cut a long story short since I started the job i've been forced into doing things which are against the law and i'd had enough and started to refuse hence the false accustaions. It's a nightmare of a situation just what you wanted on christmas eve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the alcohol allegation, DWP will consider both you and your employers version of events. Your employer is unlikely to say anything other than the reason for dismissal. Some do go into more detail but most don't; and some won't say anything more than "misconduct". That part of it boils down to whose version of events they consider carries more weight. Regarding the things you have been asked to do. Again, if this is the reason given for your termination they would consider both versions but if you were being asked to do something unlawful and were terminated for refusing to follow such an instruction, DWP will not sanction JSA. Another thing that the DWP will take into account when deciding a sanction is whether you have appealed the decision of your employers (particularly on the grounds that you did not do what they have accused you of). Though this on its own will not make or break the decision, it is more favourable when a jobseeker has appealed his employers decision to terminate. A person who accepts a termination when they say they did not commit the "offence" the employer states they did, raises questions. On the other hand, a person who appeals against the termination on the grounds that he did not do what he was accused of, is more credible. (which I assume you would be doing)

 

You might want to consider posting on the employment forums for advise on how to put your case across to your employers at this disciplinary, and also for further advice on appealing - if it gets that far.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The problem you have got is that the JCP will have to weigh up the balance of probabilities, ie who do they beleave?

I would tell the JCP that the matter is going to an Employment Tribunal on grounds of unfair dismissal, also if you have somebody who can vouch that you were not drunk enclose a statement from them confirming this.

The DWP are swamped by new claminets, they are supposed to check all claiments for reasons why they are claiming. Chances are they wont in your case [but no guarentees], just putting doubt in their minds might tip the balance in your favour

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The problem you have got is that the JCP will have to weigh up the balance of probabilities, ie who do they beleave?

I would tell the JCP that the matter is going to an Employment Tribunal on grounds of unfair dismissal, also if you have somebody who can vouch that you were not drunk enclose a statement from them confirming this.

The DWP are swamped by new claminets, they are supposed to check all claiments for reasons why they are claiming. Chances are they wont in your case [but no guarentees], just putting doubt in their minds might tip the balance in your favour

 

Please please please refrain from encouraging people to break the law!!

 

From the OP's post on the Employment Forum (which you have responded to) it is clear that the OP has no chance with an ET as for starters he has insufficient length of service to claim Unfair Dismissal, and secondly, no ET is going to rule that the employer was wrong to dismiss even on the suggestion that the employee was driving after consuming Vodka.

 

To suggest that the OP now perjures himself because the JCP might not check the background of the claim is unbelievably bad advice. Please stick to what you KNOW rather than what you THINK. To do otherwise could not only lend false hope to those who need help, but it also devalues the reputation of the entire site.

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

Hi

You can also cast a dispersion on the phrase 'there is doubt about your entitlement to the claim' which they will use in their letter when they tell you that you are being investigated [this is a standard letter and should not be read to mean that they are investigating anything]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...