Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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

Holiday Entitlement and Bank Holidays


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2865 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 work 4 days a week and therefore entitled to 22.4 days holiday (rounded to 23 days) from 2011 to 2014.

 

A per my contract and through custom and practice, I receive double rate for working on Bank Holidays since 2009.

 

In 2015, I worked 8 Bank Holidays and these were paid at double rate. However, that year the management had reduced my holiday entitlement by 8 days. Their reason was that I was paid double on Bank Holidays, this rate was as part "payment in lieu" for a holiday entitlement.

 

My office is open through out the year and I work every Bank Holiday each year and this never effected my statutory holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks (23 days)

 

After writing my grievance and giving my employer plenty of opportunities to pay me the correct entitlement, I have now filled for Employment Tribunal and the case was accepted.

 

Do you guys thing I have a good chance of winning this case? I have payslips to prove I have received 23 days holiday and also double rate for Bank Holidays in the past.

 

Look forward to your input.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest topcat14

In my opinion your holiday entitlement is being reduced to 15 days which would equate to less then the 5.6 weeks pro rata, so yes, i believe you have a good case.

 

Are you contracted to work on a Monday & Friday (this is your normal pattern)

 

Can you work any other day of the week on the weeks where a bank holiday falls, and therefore choose not or you are not asked to. The Judge may ask this at the hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law does not allow employers and employees to contract out of statutory holiday entitlement therefore their payment in lieu argument argument has no legal merit at all. The only exception is following termination where the employer pays you for holds not taken but accrued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the information.

 

It is shocking how ignorant my employer is when I asked them to contact ACAS to seek advice as they were breaking employment law. They told me they were following ACAS guidelines for holiday entitlement.

 

I have lost my contract paper and have requested it multiple times from my employer but they keep ignoring my request for a copy. I have a feeling they do not have a copy either as I was TUPE'd over back in 2011.

 

Without the contract paper, I can prove past holiday entitlements and bank holiday rates through copies of payslips.

 

Can I force the employer to provide a copy of my contract?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you work any other day of the week on the weeks where a bank holiday falls, and therefore choose not or you are not asked to. The Judge may ask this at the hearing.

 

I normally work weekdays and I do not see why I should avoid working on bank holidays where I am entitled to double rate which is a great incentive. This has never been an issue between 2009 to 2014 and no reason to start now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest topcat14

I agree you should not have to change your days off because the working week has a bank holiday in it. I was merely trying to establish if there was any room for movement in those weeks, because the employer may say that there was that option, and the Judge may ask the question.

 

Do you have any time sheets or the like, that could prove you worked particular bank holidays, and tie that with your payslip as evidence that you were paid the rate for those days when you worked?

 

If all else fails, could you call a witness with the same contract as you ?

 

If you cannot prove it, and neither the employer can produce the TUPE'd terms, then an ET judge will have to take a view on who he or she believes.

 

Having said that I firmly believe you have a strong case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any time sheets or the like, that could prove you worked particular bank holidays, and tie that with your payslip as evidence that you were paid the rate for those days when you worked?

 

Thanks for your vote of confidence, much appreciated.

 

I have time sheets dating back to 2011 and also payslips which supports full 5.6 weeks holiday entitlement being given as well as double rate for all bank holidays worked.

 

If I decided not to work on a bank holiday, that shift would be given to a colleague and I will left out of pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your complicating matters to much. They cannot reduce your statutory holidays and argue payments in lieu its unlawful.

 

Thanks, I wanted to be prepared and cover everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

UPDATE:

 

After a stressful day from 10:00 - 17:00, my case was dismissed on a technicality.

 

Although I proved my employer only told me I had 17 days reaming instead of 25 days (accrued) on an email, the respondent's expensive barrister argued I did not actually put in a 'request' for the 8 days and therefore my employer hasn't actually refused any holiday.

 

As the year has ended, the regulations prohibits annual leave being carried over, I have now lost them. Barrister told judge she could not offer these now as it will be 'payment in lieu'

 

Judge said if I did a holiday application and then it was refused, there would be grounds.

 

Either work for a decent company or learn the employment law to tackle these problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely awful. Why would you put a holiday form in if you had been told in writing you weren't entitled.

 

UPDATE:

 

After a stressful day from 10:00 - 17:00, my case was dismissed on a technicality.

 

Although I proved my employer only told me I had 17 days reaming instead of 25 days (accrued) on an email, the respondent's expensive barrister argued I did not actually put in a 'request' for the 8 days and therefore my employer hasn't actually refused any holiday.

 

As the year has ended, the regulations prohibits annual leave being carried over, I have now lost them. Barrister told judge she could not offer these now as it will be 'payment in lieu'

 

Judge said if I did a holiday application and then it was refused, there would be grounds.

 

Either work for a decent company or learn the employment law to tackle these problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are over 100 employees working for the same company who have had their basic statutory holiday entitlement reduced. They all complaint at the the time and now have accepted this as a way forward.

 

My employer lied under oath saying they recognise 5.6 weeks statutory entitlement and all employees are given this entitlement.

 

Hopefully they will have learnt from this and provide the statutory entitlement to all employees this year forward.

 

I was the only person who took it all the way to the Employment Tribunal and as a result everyone else will now benefit to.

Edited by akashi
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...