Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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

Ring Fenced...... do I automatically get an interview ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4825 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, grateful for any help that can be given.

 

Restructure at work and all new positions are ring fenced. I fall within the ring fence. I have been given a list of four jobs that it has been established I have the skill set for. 8 staff all have the same four jobs on our list. 5 other members of staff will assimilate into new roles. 1 other member of staff is taking retirement and her job remains and will be filled as part of the restructure ring fence along with a brand new role. I work for a local authority.

 

Expression of interest were invited from all staff for 2 jobs that were not on my skill set list and we were told that we could include a personal statement if we wanted to. 4 members of staff expressed interest and supplied a personal statement. I was one of the 4. 2 members of staff were interviewed for 1 of the posts and 1 memeber of staff was interviewed for the other post. I received a telephone call advising me that my personal statement had been assessed and I would not be interviewed as did not display enough evidence to meet the personal specification and job description.

 

 

My queston is this .......... If a personal statement was invited but not a requirement and I was within the ring fence should I have automatic right to receive an interview and the opportunity to meet the personal specification etc as part of the interview process. I could understand if lots of people applied and we had been told we must provide a personal statement to support our interest but this was not the case. Exact wording of email was............(I have left out the actual job descriptions and service area due to sensitive nature of the posts.) ......................................

 

" Dear all, Expressions of interest are invited for those wishing to apply for the following positions

 

1 (Job description)

2 (Job description)

 

Job profiles are attached.

 

Expressions of interest must be received by 5pm Thursday 3rd February. Interested candidates may wish to submit a personal statement in support of their application and this must also be received by 5pm on Thursday 3 Fenruary. Interviews will be held on Monday 7 February.

 

These vacancies are ring-fenced to staff within the ............ service. "

 

Whilst I did not think that I would actually get either of the positions I very much wanted the benefit of the interview experience and feedback that would follow. I feel I have been cheated of this opportunity.

 

Should I have been entitled to an interview ???

 

Many thanks for any help you can give me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can put much emphasis on the fact that a personal statement wasn't a requirement of the job, merely an option. i always used to view these as an integral part of the application itself, and an extension of the CV. They weren't compulsory, but if somebody enclosed one, it was always read as an opportunity for the candidate to convey additional information that might separate them from other applicants.

 

Unfortunately for you, I also see nothing in what you have said that would make me think that everybody had to be interviewed as a matter of right, and it seems as though you have missed out purely through sifting - it may well even be that certain people were not just ring-fenced, but had also been earmarked for certain positions, but sadly there is little that you can do about that.

 

I am desperately sorry for your position and can quite understand how you feel. Have you considered asking for a chat with somebody who was part of the selection panel and asking for some off the record feedback in order to improve your chances of being sucessful in future job applications? This might well give you some useful pointers and again, I can only speak from experience, but I have been asked for this on many occasions in the past and never saw it as a problem.

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

Thank you for your comments sidewinder, very much appreciated.

 

The general feeling amongst the staff is that certain people are favoured for certain positions and this has been the feeling since the restructure was announced. There were no surprises about who applied for what post and who was successful. It is exactly as we predicted. The selection panel was just 1 member of staff who is also the person in charge of delivering the restructure. I was probably the only surprise candidate that was not expected to apply. The interveiws were subsequently conducted by said member of staff and the head of service.

 

I have been told that I can have feedback on my personal statement and a mock intervew in preparation for the position that I am most hoping to secure and that's great. It just feels that I was not given fair opportunity on this occasion.

 

It's difficult as 2 of the most senior management team who have now secured the 2 posts have close family members within the service and also have long time personal ties with 2 other members of the team. There has been much favourtism over the years in this regard which has been obvious to everyone and reported on several occasions. I just want to do everything within my power to ensure I am given a fair crack at the whip.

 

Once again your comments and time are very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

from what i read " I have been given a list of four jobs that it has been established I have the skill set for."

and a 5th job came to light "Expression of interestlink3.gif were invited from all staff for 2 jobs that were not on my skill set list "

 

;i would say the ring fence gives you strength for the initial 4 jobs to get a interview but the 5th job is free for anyone to apply for and for any employer to request a interview with based on cv or statement

 

i would say by 5th job not being in your skill set is the reason why you did not get a interview. the personal statement are usually asked incase the company records failed to include skills which fit the job role that you may have achieved over the time.

 

if you simply did not produce a personal statement and hoped to explain yourself at a interview instead then they could only base who qualifies for a interview based on the skills they already know of. which in own admission were not applicable to the role.

 

did you send in a personal statement within the timeframe showing skills they did require to do the job? if so ask them for the feedback to aid you in the 4 jobs you are ring fenced for to ensure you appear sparkling on the list of potentials

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...