Hello again. Well done so far, that's a good result. We'll help you as much as we can if you decide to self-represent. I imagine you'd find it less scary now you've been to a hearing?

 

My best, HB

Thank you honeybee, and everyone else for the advice and support. I do feel much more confident now about representing myself at a hearing. I've had a lot of experience supporting people to engage with services such as Social Services in relation to child protection for example and also dealing with debt collectors and service providers on peoples behalf but my confidence had taken quite a blow because of everything that has happened.

I do feel that I've got some of that back now

Well, fwiw I think you can do it, especially with that experience behind you. Your rep does sound a bit clueless.

Loss of confidence is awful, I know. I think you have the moral high ground now, but don't get too cocky .

HB x

I would certainly consdier a grievance about the spying. But I do urge you to ask your rep for the full options. They should have explained to you the risks of constructive unfair dismissal - I certainly would to any client that I represented. Why not ask them why they are advising this given the risks. I don't know the case details, so all I can do is tell you what the risks are and what the odds of winning are in general - and they are not good. So I think you deserve at least an explanation for their advice.

I would certainly consdier a grievance about the spying. But I do urge you to ask your rep for the full options. They should have explained to you the risks of constructive unfair dismissal - I certainly would to any client that I represented. Why not ask them why they are advising this given the risks. I don't know the case details, so all I can do is tell you what the risks are and what the odds of winning are in general - and they are not good. So I think you deserve at least an explanation for their advice.

I sadly have little confidence in my representation but I'm hoping to find someone else. I often ask them questions which go unanswered. Rather than be lead by what I want, they seem to be entirely focussed on their own agenda. The best example I can give you is regarding 'Deduced Effects'. I asked them time and time again if this should be included in my statement but received no response and no advice either. At the PHR this was one of the areas the judge focussed on so it's a good job I'd done my homework.

I will ask about the advice but don't hold out much hope of a helpful response. I clearly need to act sooner rather than later so if I have no luck with them explaining my options I'm going to go with a grievance. I don't think this can prejudice my case and at least I will have done something about it. I don't see what they could do about the damage they have done though. The usual process would be to first submit a grievance to the director of my department but I would have thought it would have to be someone higher up who sanctioned the surveillance so I'm not sure whether I should just send my grievance to the CEO?

Just as an aside, I found out during the PHR that my employer only told their representation they had the dvd footage in late November. It was recorded in mid August so they held on to it for several months before deciding to use it. I though this strange and am left wondering if I have seen all of the footage or just the parts they thought they could use to incriminate me!

Hi

Just read the most of this thread and as one with relevant experience of being covertly filmed myself and having suffered like you the anxiety etc that comes from disclosure of mere fact they have been filming, I can say definitely two things. First the defendant / other side only resort to dirty tricks like this to either prove a fraud is taking place and therefore get the case kicked to touch or obtain something, ANYTHING, that their counsel can grab onto to enable the claim to be reduced.

From that you can take that they must have had a meeting to discuss what options they had. To conclude they must spend thousand of pounds on covert surveillance only to get what they did shows they are desperate. So take comfort that you are in the right and your struggle goes on until you win. Personally I would spit it back in their faces when they drag themselves to the table and want to negotiate their way out of the mess they have created. If it is Public money they are wasting they should be sacked themselves for unwanton waste and if it is shareholders profit they should be summarily sacked and action to recover wasted money taken from them personlly.

OK rant over!

Good luck. Keep strong. There is life the other end of this.

Hi

 

Just read the most of this thread and as one with relevant experience of being covertly filmed myself and having suffered like you the anxiety etc that comes from disclosure of mere fact they have been filming, I can say definitely two things. First the defendant / other side only resort to dirty tricks like this to either prove a fraud is taking place and therefore get the case kicked to touch or obtain something, ANYTHING, that their counsel can grab onto to enable the claim to be reduced.

 

From that you can take that they must have had a meeting to discuss what options they had. To conclude they must spend thousand of pounds on covert surveillance only to get what they did shows they are desperate. So take comfort that you are in the right and your struggle goes on until you win. Personally I would spit it back in their faces when they drag themselves to the table and want to negotiate their way out of the mess they have created. If it is Public money they are wasting they should be sacked themselves for unwanton waste and if it is shareholders profit they should be summarily sacked and action to recover wasted money taken from them personlly.

 

OK rant over!

 

Good luck. Keep strong. There is life the other end of this.

Thank you for the support. I never thought I would suffer from anything like depression or anxiety or paranoia. I've always been very laid back, let nothing phase me and very confident.

They are a charity and a limited by guarantee company so not-for-profit. I have suspicions that it was the lone decision of one director to hire a private detective to spy on me. The fact that they did not use the footage when I was going through the grievance process speaks volumes and then they did not tell their solicitors about it until, as you said they got really desperate. It was only after they realised that I wasn't going to put up and shut up that they started using the excuse that they did not believe I was a disabled person as defined by the DDA. In answer to my grievance, the director dealing with it basically said because you don't have a disability, we can't have discriminated against you, or harassed you or treated you any differently. That will come back to haunt them now the Tribunal has found that I am a disabled person and as such afforded protection by the DDA.

I wonder what the Charity Comminsion's rules are with wasting charity money in this way?

As I said they went to prove 'fraud' didn't get it so they are stuffed. Expect delay and stonewalling and any other type of method to stop them paying you compensation.

I take it you are still an employee? If so have you thought about putting in a further grievance to the Trustees against the director for authorising an 'illegal' action, accepted that this is a moot point, but if the law is unclear the grievance could come back and bite him and the Trustees might want to get rid of him as a liability!!?? I would also be interested to hear if implementing a debatable illegal action against you because you had raised a grievance / ET claim for Discrimination in an effort to disprove overwhelming evidence of a disability was a further act of Victimisation against you? As your health has deteriorated because of this action perhaps your solicitor should consider getting further medical evidence and laying further allegations down and claiming for the additional personal injury?

If they fight dirty you fight back with all you can.

I managed to obtain an answer of sorts from my representation. Using advice and information given here, in addition to my own research, I have made the decision to raise a grievance regarding the 'spying'.

At my last greivance, I was aksed what I thought they should do to put things right. This question took me by suprise a little as I expected them to be offering solutions to a problem they created. Does anyone have a view on this in case I am asked the same question regarding my second grievance?

It's a fairly common question, but in this case I agree that it is somewhat diffcult to know what the answer is. An apology? Not doing it again? I think I would be tempted to turn the question around and ask them what they intended to do about it.

If they do that I would say to them, 'well if you are saying that you further discriminated against me and victimised me because I had raised a grievance then the only appropriate solution is to compensate me as and when you compensate me for the currently lodged grievance.' The fact that you are in dispute with them means that only monetory compensation will suffice. The normal way of going is they give you money, you resign, both agree a compromise agreement, problem solved.

If they do that I would say to them, 'well if you are saying that you further discriminated against me and victimised me because I had raised a grievance then the only appropriate solution is to compensate me as and when you compensate me for the currently lodged grievance.' The fact that you are in dispute with them means that only monetory compensation will suffice. The normal way of going is they give you money, you resign, both agree a compromise agreement, problem solved.

I've offered them the opportunity to enter into negotiations for a compromise agreement previously but they weren't interested. It may be a different story now the Tribunal have found me to be disabled as per the DDA.

I've drafted my grievance and emailed it to my representation for their opinion.