Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Aesmith - Thank you for your recent interest in my issues.  Input on people's topics can be most useful from specialised experts or those that have similar experiences.  Some people really struggle with knowing what to do (I certainly do) - so it is most useful and helpful and reassuring when solid sensible advice is offered.  I have found there to be some very kind, helpful, supportive and legally knowledgeable people here on cag over the years - who give sound legal advice for people to roll up their sleeves and follow up on.   Of course, sometimes it can be quite challenging sifting the wheat from the chaff.  I don't have lawyer or barrister.  I sometimes attend pro-bono legal clinics for help.  And sometimes have access to barristers via a pro-bono service called Advocate.  Both ad-hoc. 
    • The Judge was wrong. The keeper is only INVITED to say who was driving, there is no obligation for them to say.
    • Member of the Question Time audience asks Richard Tice about Donald Trump.    
    • I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC  
    • Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e]  says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc.  All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could  still have been within the  time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing 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
      • 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

Uber Tribunal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2728 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

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments regarding this weeks tribunal decision whereby judges ruled that Uber drivers were employees, not self-employed?

 

There were some very hard hitting comments from the judges regarding the company.

 

An estimated £314 million has been lost in tax and national insurance contributions every year, whilst this operation has been on going.

 

I am personally delighted and it is companies like Uber who are responsible for so many of their workers being driven into debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Honeybee.

 

Thank you for the welcome.

 

I am delighted because Uber were creating what is known as false self employment. Their drivers were effectively employees but were acting as self employed. It meant that Uber evaded paying millions of pounds in NI contributions that could have gone into an already impoverished National Health Service. Uber also evaded their employers obligations to their drivers. These drivers have none of the rights that most people take for granted and can be dropped at a minutes notice. When that happens, debt is not far behind.

 

HMRC are able to issue hefty fines on companies who abuse the worker status but their resources are limited. The more cases like this that are successful, the less likely these greedy employers are likely to try these short cuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could have interesting ramifications.

 

I would be interested to know the root of the legislation that the lawyers used.

 

Would it be EU led legislation?

 

Oh wait, we screwed that didnt wr

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

cld it set a precedent re other areas, eg courier co's continuously using the same self employed drivers?

 

It won't set a precedent as an employment tribunal decision. Only when a case goes to an employment tribunal appeal would it be a precedent (much in the same way that case law is). There are several precedents out there already. Most employers are now aware of the risks and use the legal (but wholly immoral) loophole of an umbrella company. However, the pressure is even on these companies to operate correctly otherwise they will leave themselves open to similar claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could have interesting ramifications.

 

I would be interested to know the root of the legislation that the lawyers used.

 

Would it be EU led legislation?

 

Oh wait, we screwed that didnt wr

 

I would start with the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998

Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't set a precedent as an employment tribunal decision. Only when a case goes to an employment tribunal appeal would it be a precedent (much in the same way that case law is). There are several precedents out there already. Most employers are now aware of the risks and use the legal (but wholly immoral) loophole of an umbrella company. However, the pressure is even on these companies to operate correctly otherwise they will leave themselves open to similar claims.

yes, wrong choice of word. meant generally, as perhaps as you say re 'similar claims' re yr last sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are not employees but "workers" which is different. Yes they use their own cars but so do care workers transporting little old ladies to the shops as part of their duties.

Uber claim self-employed but how the work is handed out and who controls the money and other things mean that the tribunal found it easy to make that decision. Yes, most companies like couriers and telecoms who send out people in vans and issue work and then claim the person driving THEIR van is somehow self-employed will be worried and rightly so. This is not about zero hours contracts, although all of these classes of worker are on that contract, it is about what real freedoms the people have to decide what jobs they accept. because people pay Uber when they book a cab and Uber decide who gets the work and then has performance mileposts to reach it cannot be said that drivers are self-employed or they would be running a one person band and not part of this outfit.

Uber hate it because they make a lot of money and do almost nothing for their cut and now they will ahve to pay employers NI, pension contributions and other benefits that any other zero hours contract worker has a right to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...