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

Disciplinary meeting - what evidence can I ask for?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2621 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 have a disciplinary meeting coming up for not abiding to a particular policy. However I have witnessed many people (in the presence of managers etc) do the same. There has been no meetings to say they will be cracking down etc

 

Basically my employer and I had a disagreement over one thing, suddenly I'm being investigated for a couple of things, and straight to a disciplinary for others.

 

So I wondered if I can ask for my disciplinary meeting how many other staff have been disciplined for the same reasons? Would that be appropriate? It does feel like they are looking for things to have a go at me with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can ask. But I doubt that they will answer ("none of your business") and it won't help you anyway because what happens or doesn't happen to someone else has no relevance to whether or not YOU followed the policy or not.

 

Of course they are looking for things to "have a go at you with". There are always consequences for falling out with the employer. The problem is that unless you are purer than the driven snow, they will always find reasons. As you are discovering, the only defence to breaking rules in employment is that you didn't - "I did but I have a good excuse" is not a strong defence, and it's a defence that an employment tribunal won't be in the slightest bit interested in.

 

What is more concerning here is that they are investigating you "for a couple of things, and straight to a disciplinary for others". That indicates to me that they are not "having a go" at you. They have every intention of dismissing you and doing so fairly in law. What exactly did you have a disagreement over? And I presume you have two years service with this employer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I have a disciplinary meeting coming up for not abiding to a particular policy. However I have witnessed many people (in the presence of managers etc) do the same. There has been no meetings to say they will be cracking down etc

 

Basically my employer and I had a disagreement over one thing, suddenly I'm being investigated for a couple of things, and straight to a disciplinary for others.

 

So I wondered if I can ask for my disciplinary meeting how many other staff have been disciplined for the same reasons? Would that be appropriate? It does feel like they are looking for things to have a go at me with.

 

It depends on the exact issue, as it might not be black/white.

 

You need to question why the particular policy is not being followed first. Is it something that can be proven by stats, call recordings etc ?

 

Concentrate on your own situation. Don't drag other employees into this, unless they directly have anything to do with your issues.

 

If you tried to bring up disciplinary matters relating to other employees, i expect you will be told that for reasons of employee confidentiality they cannot discuss it with you and they must stick to purely your own conduct.

 

These initial disciplinary meetings are fact finds to understand the situation. Before the meeting, unless misconduct is serious so requires urgent attention, they should give you advance notice of the meeting and what issues they wish to discuss. You should get hold of all paperwork that is relevant. If the policy is not being followed by others and there is anything on record by a manager where they are allowing deviation from the policy, then get hold of it. It needs to be from someone in a management/supervision role, where they are shown to be moving away from a stated company policy. It can't be from your colleagues at the same level, as you might all be doing something that management will say they never authorised.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

also depends on what policy breaches they are looking at. If something like the use of computers during lunch hours for personal reasons then unless a very strict ban the approach will be pragmatic as to what is acceptable and what isnt so questioning why someone else isnt in trouble will do you no favours. If it is a regulatory matter then you raise it elsewhere and in the correct formal manner. Two wrongs dont make a right as the saying goes so stick to your case and tell them that you understand that the policies are there for good reasons and you will be adhering to them properly etc if givent the opportunity. If it is about personal use of company facilities dont challenge theto prove their case, they will and then firm up their approach to things

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with either of the previous two posters, but I do want to re-emphasise one thing that I said that neither has picked up. I am more concerned about the comment indicating that there is more than one disciplinary and other investigations going on. This is not normal. Employers who are p*****d off with someone might slap back - fairly or not. References to multiple cases against one individual only means one thing though, and that isn't a slap back. That is a dismissal. It only requires, normally, some thing like three VERY MINOR things to get fairly dismissed. First warning, final warning, dismissal. The final curtain does not have to be about anything serious if there are the required number of other warnings already on the record.

 

Context is therefore pretty important here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...