Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, Hotpoint UK has been a subsidiary of Whirlpool for over 20 years. And unlike some domestic goods manufacturers you can buy from them direct and I believe they employ their own service engineers, Is that your situation? You bought direct from Hotpoint and Hotpoint sent out their own engineer?
    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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
  • 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

What happens to ET claim when Respondent is "dissolved"?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4776 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

I would really appreciate the forums suggestion with this problem. I was made unemployed in a "sham" redundancy. Immediately, I filed an ET1 claim etc, etc. The Respondents response was to close the business and file with Company's House to be removed from the Companies Register - (obviously they thought that they had a strong case against me). I applied to Companies House to have the "dissolution" put on hold until after the Employment Tribunal case. But because of a error within Companies house, my second application was lost and Respondent was allowed to be removed from the Register of Companies. Now the Respondent has asked the Tribunal to have the case dismissed. Does anybody have any suggestions about what to do next?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But because of a error within Companies house' date=' my second application was lost and Respondent was allowed to be removed from the Register of Companies.[/quote']

 

Is Companies House not legally accountable for act/s of negligence??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Whilst it may preculude the ET claim if there is no-one to identify as a defenadand. You may be able to claim some monies from the national insurance fund. Different definitions of 'going bust' exist depending on the type or organisation your employer was:

 

 

  • if your employer is a company, or a limited liability partnership, insolvency means administration, liquidation, receivership, or a voluntary arrangement with creditors
  • if your employer is an individual, insolvency means bankruptcy (sequestration in Scotland) or a voluntary arrangement with creditors

The insolvency practitioner can be called by one of the following terms depending on the type of insolvency:

 

  • administrator
  • liquidator
  • receiver
  • supervisor (of voluntary arrangement)
  • trustee (in bankruptcy)

Your rights if your employer is insolvent : Directgov - Employment

 

Now provided you were an employee at the effective date that the employer officially went into administration, then you should have satisfied the legal definition of redundancylink3.gif.

 

Redundancy happens when the job ceases to exist s.139 ERA 1996.

 

The question is, during administration when does a job 'cease to exist'

 

It would be prudent to contact the NIF (as they will be the ones paying the award), and checking what criteria they apply as regards effective dates, get advice on completing RP1 etc

 

0845 145 0004

 

Hope this helps

 

Che

...................................................................... [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. Always seek professional advice from a qualified legal adviser before acting. If I have helped you please feel free to click on the black star.[/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS] I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Black][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Red]'Venceremos' :wink:[/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, according to the OP's post they were made redundant (allegedly a sham) and the employer dissolved thereafter. So the job ceased to exist before the employer dissolved, whether fairly or not. There is now no legal entity to act as the respondant, so whether the redundancy was fair or not is moot. Assuming that the OP was paid whatever redundancy payment was due (whiich I am, because they have not alleged that monies were not paid - just that the redundancy was a sham), then there is no monies owed. The OP was not an employee of the company when it went "bust" - because they have alreday stated that the company dissolved after the redundancy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, according to the OP's post they were made redundant (allegedly a sham) and the employer dissolved thereafter. So the job ceased to exist before the employer dissolved,

 

Do not disagree, which is why I did say, "...provided you were an employee at the effective date that the employer officially went into administration." - which is indeed a point that may not apply here.

 

I suppose we need to ask Pennysdad what they were claiming in the ET - was it just UD or they alleging monies are owed?

 

Also there might be some mileage in a claim against Companies House if you can prove they were negligent and you have as a consequence suffered loss.

 

Think we need a bit more info Dad

 

Che

...................................................................... [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. Always seek professional advice from a qualified legal adviser before acting. If I have helped you please feel free to click on the black star.[/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS] I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Black][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Red]'Venceremos' :wink:[/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is relevant guys, and it might be covered by Elche's link. I thought there was a government fund for redundancy if an employer went bust. Is that relevant here?

 

My best, HB

 

There is. But it does not seem that redundancy or other pay is the issue. The OP said that they had lodged a claim for a "sham redundancy (I assume unfair dismissal is the claim, but it isn't clear). So it would appear also that they have been made redundant but claim it wasn't a genuine redundancy. The employer dissolved AFTER this, and after the ET1 was lodged. So there is no longer a respondant to answer the claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everybody

Thanks everybody for your input, to clarify the situation. The company was dissolved after I was made "redundant" and had filed my ET1 for unfair dismissal with the Employment Tribunal. I'm really interested to know if there are any precedents for a company being restored to the Register of Companies, because of a clear mistake at Companies House? Does anybody know???? Is this loophole being widely used to escape Employment Tribunals? If so how do we "close" it????

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your circumstance is rather unusual. Yes, companies often dissolve in order to avoid tribunals (although not in large numbers, admittedly). But they generally get away with it because the claimant doesn't know before the company is dissolved. I have never come across a situation where Companies House have dissolved a company after objections have been made, so I couldn't say for certain whether this can be overturned. There are provisions for a court to restore a company - but it would cost you to do this, and it may not be worth throwing good money after bad. To be honest company law isn't my area, so I'm a bit (as in very) rusty on it. But even if this were to be the case - is it actually worth it. Even if the company was put back into existence, I cannot see how its assets will be recreated. And there is very little point in winning (assuming you do) to be told that there is no money to pay any award. The RPS can make SOME contrubution towards an unpaid basic award in that situation - but it may be less money than it has cost you to get the court to restore the company!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Please could somebody tell me what a Respondent should do with medical records once the employment tribunal case that required them is over. Are they returned to the Claimant? Or does the Respondent keep them? If the Respondent does keep them is the Respondent responsible for their safe keeping? Is it proper for the Claimant to ask for their return?

I would be interested to hear from anybody else who has had to hand over their medical records at the request of an Employment Tribunal.

Thanks in advance:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Respondent represented (by a legal firm)? If so, what will happen is that their file, plus one copy of everything supporting (bundles, documents etc) will go into storage (secure) for six years. Anything remaining copies will be (securely) shredded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not help if you start new threads! I assune this is linked to your last enquiry? In which case I am confused, as it seems that the respondent does not exist - so how could they have asked for medical records?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First of all, sorry about posting two separate questions; I apologize for any confusion it was not deliberate on my part.

 

Secondly to put the timeline of events into perspective: At the time the medical records were given to the Respondent, the Respondent had not applied for dissolution at Companies House.

 

Whilst the medical records were in the hands of the Respondent the company was accidently removed from the Register of Companies. Since then the Respondent appointed a new legal representative, who has admitted that all the company records have been "lost".

 

I wrote and complained to the Employment Tribunal about this loss, but the Tribunal's response was less than helpful as they said there was nothing they could do. I find this amazing that an person can be instructed by the Tribunal to hand over their highly personal and confidential records to a Respondent, over can then "lose" them without any penalty or comeback.

 

Yes, I realize the documents were handed over to a corporate entity which no longer exists - but surely somebody has to be "responsible".

 

Then miraculously the Medical Records reappeared only to be used as a "bartering piece" as the Respondent sought to - only to disappear again.

Edited by citizenB
spacing for easier reading
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...