Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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

Disciplinary for facebook


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4582 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,

 

My partner wrote something in conversation with a friend on facebook referring to the company as "d***s", but in no way mentioned the company name or a specific individual it was regarding the hours staff were receiving sometimes 25 hours a week then to be 8 hours the following week.

 

Now the office called her in regarding the comment, they said this is not a disciplinary we would just like to know what you have to say about it. So they had a chat and she thought that was that. Only to be told today that she needs to attend for disciplinary due to comments she made.

 

My question is are they allowed to do this, in no way does the message mention the company name. Im not even sure you would know who she was on about if you didn't know who she worked for.

 

It a sad time if you cannot even write something your annoyed with without getting into trouble, and it was not purposely set out to call them names it was in general conversation.

 

Any help would be appreciated

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you go on Facebook and close/lock/delete the account. I did this with LinkedIn when I had an incident re someone phoning a place I used to work at.

 

Cheers

My Doctor says that I don't suffer from Paranoia

 

But I know what he's really thinking !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you go on Facebook and close/lock/delete the account. I did this with LinkedIn when I had an incident re someone phoning a place I used to work at.

 

Cheers

 

 

EDIT mmmmm double post

My Doctor says that I don't suffer from Paranoia

 

But I know what he's really thinking !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

if its not mentioned the company or person by name then they have no case

 

if she has then she has no defense

Is it that clear cut?

If, by the context that she spoke, it's clear who she was refering to I would have thought the ER could successfully argue 'bringing into disrepute'.

After all, if you know someone, or are their friend on facebook, you tend to know where they work.

 

Are there lots of people at work called Richard? That might be a defence.

 

The company having a policy on this type of situation in their D&G procedure will be significant here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think it was that clear to people. The majority of the conversation wasn't even about work and the line they are giving the disciplinary against reads something like: "Yeah i know they are di*ks aint they..ive only got 13 this week"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that clear cut?

If, by the context that she spoke, it's clear who she was refering to I would have thought the ER could successfully argue 'bringing into disrepute'.

After all, if you know someone, or are their friend on facebook, you tend to know where they work.

 

Are there lots of people at work called Richard? That might be a defence.

 

The company having a policy on this type of situation in their D&G procedure will be significant here.

 

Spot on!

 

Clearly the employer feels that they have a case, and the fact that the employer has got wind of what was written is testament to the fact that they can be identified by implication. Referring to one's employer as a 'd*ck' in any context or however tenuously is never a good idea and there are 1001 sad tales of people caught out by apparently innocent comments made via social networks, and employees should be SO careful about anything which they write about an employer in that manner.

 

It matters not that comments are only made visible to 'friends' (one of which has presumably seen fit to report the comment?) - the comment is made to a public forum, and if the employer can be identified even by implication, then they would have a more than adequate case to warrant disciplinary action. Certainly a policy on the use of social networks will clarify things, but call it bringing the employer into disrepute, or call it a breach of mutual trust, any employer would be entitled to feel aggrieved, and the 'they haven't got a case' option needs to be treated with care. Gross Misconduct can be for an act which any reasonable person should know to be wrong, so it need not necessarily be written down as a specific clause to become quite serious.

 

However, I don't believe that from what was written here it is sufficiently serious to warrant more than a warning, and a carefully crafted argument, mixed with suitable humility and an understanding that this shouldn't have been written, may even lessen the impact further.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1155971/Teenage-office-worker-sacked-moaning-Facebook-totally-boring-job.html

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

Just as a matter of interest it appears that the OP is referring to an individual(s) as a "d**k" rather than the company. So how can that be deemed as bringing the company into disrepute? The fact that the company may employ the "d**k" is neither here nor there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner wrote something in conversation with a friend on facebook referring to the company as "d***s"

[/Quote]

 

I read this in the OP as stated, as in 'a bunch of' rather than being an individual.

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

The discussion could have been about a completely different company not the company that she works for.....employers are so over sensitive todays. They want to know what their staffs do when out of their control. Staff work for a company and during their working hrs the company is in control of them, but when staff leave their place of work the employer surely cannot tell them what to do or say in conversations to friend and family over the internet , unless it is the Gestapo is the employer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

My partner wrote something in conversation with a friend on facebook referring to the company as "d***s", but in no way mentioned the company name or a specific individual it was regarding the hours staff were receiving sometimes 25 hours a week then to be 8 hours the following week.

 

Now the office called her in regarding the comment, they said this is not a disciplinary we would just like to know what you have to say about it. So they had a chat and she thought that was that. Only to be told today that she needs to attend for disciplinary due to comments she made.

 

My question is are they allowed to do this, in no way does the message mention the company name. Im not even sure you would know who she was on about if you didn't know who she worked for.

 

It a sad time if you cannot even write something your annoyed with without getting into trouble, and it was not purposely set out to call them names it was in general conversation.

 

Any help would be appreciated

Mark

 

 

In this particular case, you don't have to mention the company name in capital letters to be held liable for any offensive context - some people may still know who you are working for. And if you work on casual hours basis (I assume that's the case here) - it was your choice, you knew what you were signing up for.

 

The first meeting was just an investigation hearing. But on the face of it the company may decide whether to proceed to a discplinary level or not. Apparently, the explanations given by your partner were not that much convincing.

If she can reliably prove she works for some other company and she meant them - then yes, she can get out of it clean handed. Otherwise, I am afraid she will have to face the consequences.

Edited by ms_smith
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you check a dictionary you will see that the term "d**ks" has a number of different meanings. Certainly there are a couple of rather vulgar meanings but there is also

dick 2 (dibreve.gifk) Slang n.1. Chiefly British A fellow; a guy.

 

So if your OH works in a very male dominated environment then she could have just been referring to the fact that the place was full of men. Which I am sure that she was........

That should give them something to think about at the hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

what you write on facebook book, as long as it does not list the company name is your own business, companies try to stop people like yourself from speaking out the truth, if your not happy with anything at work or you see something that is wrong and the company is allowing it to happen, you can whistleblow and you are protected for whisltleblowing under direct gov rules http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/Whistleblowingintheworkplace/DG_10026552

Link to post
Share on other sites

what you write on facebook book, as long as it does not list the company name is your own business, companies try to stop people like yourself from speaking out the truth, if your not happy with anything at work or you see something that is wrong and the company is allowing it to happen, you can whistleblow and you are protected for whisltleblowing under direct gov rules http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/Whistleblowingintheworkplace/DG_10026552

 

Partially true, for if the company can demonstrate that it can be clearly ascertained who the company is, then they may have a quite legitimate cause of action.

 

Whistleblowing would apply to matters in the public interest or concerns over illegal or unsafe practices - not just that you are a bit peeved with them or think the employer is a d*ck!

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

companies these days scare employees into not writing on facebook or twitter they are having problems at work or the work environment is not right, as employees you have every right to vent your frustrations out on facebook or twitter, you can even name the company, but make sure you dont use bad language, stick with the facts and if any company tried to sack an employee then that company would be liable

Link to post
Share on other sites

companies these days scare employees into not writing on facebook or twitter they are having problems at work or the work environment is not right, as employees you have every right to vent your frustrations out on facebook or twitter, you can even name the company, but make sure you dont use bad language, stick with the facts and if any company tried to sack an employee then that company would be liable

 

Problem is with social media generally that word can get around like wildfire and it only takes a word out of place or something taken out of context and it can quickly become a matter of bringing the company into disrepute. At the very least, an employee expressing dissatisfaction with the job/company/boss can easily find themselves on a very sticky wicket and facing all sorts of problems over potential breaches of trust.

 

For that (very good) reason any company should have robust policies in place regarding what can and cannot be mentioned on social networks. Far better to nip things in the bud and 'scare' employees if needs be. It is dangerous to suggest that 'you have every right to vent your frustrations out on facebook or twitter' as that is hugely misleading. A company can legitimately have a policy which disallows mentioning the organisation concerned in a negative light. As an employer, one has the right to expect that the individuals working for that organisation will at all times consider themselves ambassadors for the business, and that workplace grievances are dealt with via official channels, and not aired in a public forum - one reason why we will normally remove company names or identifiable facts posted here.

 

Keeping to the facts will only protect you to a certain degree, for even where there is no specific policy dictating the use of social networks to air grievances, there is still the barrier of a 'mutual trust and confidence' to overcome, and no Tribunal likes to interfere with how a company runs it's business providing that it stays within the law. Consequently, whilst a dismissal may well be excessive depending on exactly what is said, a warning may well be warranted, so far better to keep workplace discussions within the workplace and not all over the internet. Personally I wouldn't want to put this to the test too much!

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

companies these days scare employees into not writing on facebook or twitter they are having problems at work or the work environment is not right, as employees you have every right to vent your frustrations out on facebook or twitter, you can even name the company, but make sure you dont use bad language, stick with the facts and if any company tried to sack an employee then that company would be liable

 

LOL, I remember I commented on my facebook profile (closed to the public) also about a former manager, for her being a proper and real piece of s*it and nasty b*tch... ET proceedings were under way but it was really difficult not to comment, based on the shocking facts really... I got a few responses from a former colleague, we had a laugh about her on my wall and both agreed on her being a zero, in other words. Someone from the former workplace notified her about it though and there was a time that that ZERO theatened to sue me for defamation, lol. For me having in hand all the evidence to prove my words, she can do nothing. Maybe can do just a poo, out of fear, hahaha (civil court proceedings are under way as well...)

What I am getting at is that employees should find a balance between 2 issues: what they have agreed to when signing up a contract and how to sort any genuine problems at work in the most optimal way, without a risk to attract unwelcome sanctions from the employers.

(In my case, during ET proceedings, I got a blah-blah-letter from their reps yet I refrained from other comments but, indeed, it can give you an idea of what can happen if you channel your frustration on social networking site, even if it is closed to the public).

Edited by ms_smith
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

you can name the company you work for and state any problems, because you are protected under the whilstblower act, companies just want to scare employees from telling the truth about what problems are at work, they can't censor you at all, by all means use facebook and twitter to talk about problems at work or if the company is doing something wrong use facebook and tell everyone

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/Whistleblowingintheworkplace/DG_10026552

 

http://www.whistleblower.co.uk/FAQ.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart - that is the second time that you have posted this link incorrectly and it represents incredibly bad advice!

 

Protection from a detriment due to whistleblowing is only valid in specific cases where the employer is breaching Health & Safety or is breaking the law - it has to be a Protected Disclosure. It also has to be made to a prescribed person or to the employer directly - your own link to the DirectGov website makes that clear, but nowhere does it mention that Facebook or Twitter are prescribed bodies, so an employee following your advice to use these to raise even legitimate concerns, let alone gossip or problems with the way that the company does business, would not be protected, but will almost certainly fall foul of contractual responsibilities over bringing the company into disrepute or breaching the mutual trust and confidence of the employment relationship.

 

If you want to pass on your clearly held views on the use of social media to spread gossip without fear of sanction, then feel free, but please do not attempt to pass these on as law or acceptable practice - they aren't and you are badly misleading people to state otherwise.

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

sidewinder, lets suppose for example the employee knows the employer is doing something wrong, it could be breaching Health & Safety or breaking the law in some other way for example employing new members of staff who are related to existing employees which would be classed as narcism again breaching rules, so could not the employee who knew this was happening use social media to highlight and name and shame the employer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart - that is the second time that you have posted this link incorrectly and it represents incredibly bad advice!

 

Protection from a detriment due to whistleblowing is only valid in specific cases where the employer is breaching Health & Safety or is breaking the law - it has to be a Protected Disclosure. It also has to be made to a prescribed person or to the employer directly - your own link to the DirectGov website makes that clear, but nowhere does it mention that Facebook or Twitter are prescribed bodies, so an employee following your advice to use these to raise even legitimate concerns, let alone gossip or problems with the way that the company does business, would not be protected, but will almost certainly fall foul of contractual responsibilities over bringing the company into disrepute or breaching the mutual trust and confidence of the employment relationship.

 

If you want to pass on your clearly held views on the use of social media to spread gossip without fear of sanction, then feel free, but please do not attempt to pass these on as law or acceptable practice - they aren't and you are badly misleading people to state otherwise.

 

I agree the Whistleblowing policy DOES NOT cover employees to make slanderous, libel or just insulting comments about a company and/or another employee and it is foolish to tell people otherwise.

 

Personally i am amazed that people are still foolish enough to post comments about their workplace on FB.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the did it in a grievance that would cover it, but the employer would sweep it under the carpet, thats why people use facebook, twitter or blogs to name and shame employers who do wrong and think they can get away with it, if its not covered in your contract that you cant use facebook or twitter and you have not signed anything to say so otherwise, then facebook or twitter should be the way forward

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the did it in a grievance that would cover it, but the employer would sweep it under the carpet, thats why people use facebook, twitter or blogs to name and shame employers who do wrong and think they can get away with it, if its not covered in your contract that you cant use facebook or twitter and you have not signed anything to say so otherwise, then facebook or twitter should be the way forward

 

Naming and shaming could be slander. So, it may be acceptable for me to moan that I don't like my job; but couldn't name and shame the people or the company.

 

My mum was pulled up on this - she had a moan about having to work over Christmas - no company or names mentioned and she got pulled up on it. Thankfully, no action was taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...