I have a newspaper article that I wish to place here, am I allowed.?

It points to the type of company I believe the Umbrella company to be.

It should make more sense if you see the article.

Newspaper articles are normally OK, dondada. Which one is it?

HB

Thanks, this is the newspaper article

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/murky-plot-flood-britain-thousands-10163193

What relevance has it to my case?

While this;

I got the job through an agency.

The agency introduced me to Umbrella A.

A called me and sent me to their website.

A sent me documents to sign.

But B was on the document. (which I signed)

Anytime I had issues I called A and they dealt with it.

Eg, when I couldn't upload my passport.

So technically B is my company as I signed the document.

Well, B didn't put in a response so I investigated.

On my payslip, A name is on it.

On my Employee's Handbook, A's number is on it.

At the time of my employment B had two directors.

One British and the other Filipino.

Now it is just the Filipino.

I believe umbrella B is a front for A.

Just a note

The British director on B is also the director on A

On A he is joint director with the man named in this article.

The British director has had a total of 588 appointments

which is way too many.

I know it is a bit confusing as you don't know the names.

I have informed that the Tribunal that I believe B is a front for A and I wish A to be joined in the Claim.

I don't think B has any assets so it is not worth getting a default judgement on B.

Thanks

I apologise if I'm being thick, but is anyone in the article you linked to involved in your case please? Or is it the principal of what the umbrella companies are doing?

HB

I apologise if I'm being thick, but is anyone in the article you linked to involved in your case please? Or is it the principal of what the umbrella companies are doing?

 

HB

Like I said B is a front for A

I was an employee for B

One of the directors of A was mentioned in the article.

Should I mention his name?

His name is already in the public domain so I don't think there is any issue mentioning it here.

I think the article speaks for itself, DD.

HB

Hello Everyone,

Just a quick question;

The End User has made an offer to settle

My question is this; if I settle with the end user, will that not bring the claim to an end?

I really want to take Umbrella (Payment) Company to the Tribunal.

I believe their behaviour is appalling.

So I don't want to settle and bring the claim to a premature end.

Thanks everyone

It depends on the terms you are being offered in the settlement. Who does it say you would be closing the claim against? All parties, or just one?

And, if you have no loss now (as you have settled) I am not sure what you would be going to court for. So your remaining claim may not be valid.

So, it seems likely you need to choose. Cash or moral victory, and weigh the odds.

It depends on the terms you are being offered in the settlement. Who does it say you would be closing the claim against? All parties, or just one?

 

And, if you have no loss now (as you have settled) I am not sure what you would be going to court for. So your remaining claim may not be valid.

 

So, it seems likely you need to choose. Cash or moral victory, and weigh the odds.

Could there be costs consequences for the additional costs the “End User” (and / or the agency) incurr from now on?.

The Tribunal will be entitled to say “could have been fully settled, any additional costs could have been avoided, point of Tribunal is to decide on damages (and that was resolved by the full settlement offer), not to ‘give the OP their day in court’ “

It depends on the terms you are being offered in the settlement. Who does it say you would be closing the claim against? All parties, or just one?

 

And, if you have no loss now (as you have settled) I am not sure what you would be going to court for. So your remaining claim may not be valid.

 

So, it seems likely you need to choose. Cash or moral victory, and weigh the odds.

Thanks

The offer is only with the End User.

I (believe) I can continue my claim against the other two.

No, I don't really want my day in Court.

If they are sorry and demonstrate it then I'm fine.

Could there be costs consequences for the additional costs the “End User” (and / or the agency) incurr from now on?.

The Tribunal will be entitled to say “could have been fully settled, any additional costs could have been avoided, point of Tribunal is to decide on damages (and that was resolved by the full settlement offer), not to ‘give the OP their day in court’ “

Thanks

Unfortunately, I don't understand

are you saying that if I settle with one that means I will have Cost consequence for the others?

Thanks

 

Unfortunately, I don't understand

 

are you saying that if I settle with one that means I will have Cost consequence for the others?

No;

If you settle with one your case is over.

If you don’t settle “just so you get your day in court”, and it comes out that you were offered a full settlement of the whole of your claim : the Tribunal may find you liable for ALL the costs from (shortly after) the time of the offer as the matter should have been resolved at that point.

one thing you will never get from a Tribunal is an apology. That is why you go after and get money as compensation.

Thanks

 

The offer is only with the End User.

 

I (believe) I can continue my claim against the other two.

 

No, I don't really want my day in Court.

 

If they are sorry and demonstrate it then I'm fine.

Hi Everyone,

The End User has come up with a Counter Schedule of Loss.

In it they claim that I'm not entitled to Injury to Feeling compensation.

Yet they are offering up to £4,500.

My loss of earning was just £1400.

Are they right that I'm not entitled to Injury to feeling compensation?

Thanks

Only the judge can decide that for sure, but injury to feeling is a pretty rare award.

Yes they are correct.

The circumstances in which injury to feelings apply relate only to discrimination cases - which this doesn't appear to include.

Take the money and run.

Having your day is court is vastly overrated, and you have more than your loss.

They are offering an economic settlement.

Cheaper than the tribunal for them, but you might easily get less at the tribunal.

Noted.

Thanks everyone