Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

Redundancy Question


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2382 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 All,

 

Again posting on behalf of a family member, I will give you a break down of facts and what has happened to try and stick to the point.

 

 

  • Partners Sister was employed by a Railway Museum 4 years ago as a curator
  • She has asperger's syndrome so can be difficult in some social situations
  • Within the 3rd year she though everyone had a problem with her (how true this was we don't know.)
  • Within the 3rd year there was a problem with one volunteer that had overstepped his duties (cleaned her office without permission) that caused everything to flair up and he was asked to leave.
  • Things then broke down at work and she was put on sick leave with pay being diagnosed with depression, this was for about 3-4 Months.
  • In the meantime meetings had been held with her present asking for her to come back on reduced duties and less working hours (two eight hour days a week from 40 flexable hours over 7 days,) all this was agreed and was in place for about 2 months.
  • She didn't always go in when she was asked and called in sick saying she couldn't deal with the public (but then would go to steam punk events with friends.)
  • After some time she was bought into a meeting to discuss what had been going on and it turns out they have made her redundent as they are phasing out her job role.
  • She has been given a week to decide if she will accept what they have offered her (3 months of full pay approx £5k) or does she want it to go to a tribunal.

About two years ago they had another worker that was in a similar boat, she was off sick all the time due to mental illness and they ended up firing her and it went to a tribunal as they did it all wrong and paid her off in the region of £40k, so I now assume they have done everything correctly and above board, but her Dad is trying to find if they have done anything wrong that they can try and use in a tribunal.

Looking at ACAS it looks like they have acted correctly, fairly and legally but he doesn't want to just take their websites word for it and has asked me to put this post up.

So with the above information do you think she has a case for unfair dismissal etc or is there anything she should do / ask from her employer ?

Sorry if something doesn't sound right etc as it's being relayed from her Dad to me at the moment if there is anything you need me to ask her directly I am seeing her Sunday for her Birthday.

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from my point of view I think she may play on the fact she has Asperger's because when something doesn't suite her she will have a break down and as soon as you step down she is back to normal, but then if the same situation that she broke down over then bettered her say a week later she will be absolutly fine with it.

 

An example is this steam punk event, she will break down saying she can't do public transport to get into work or then deal with the public when they are open but then the next day go to a Steam Punk event and then get there of public transport and then spend a couple days with the public, this happened more than once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the real question is whether the post is really redundant or are they offering her a package dressed up as redundancy to save going through a dismissal procedure. People who are ill, disabled etc can still be sacked for the usual reasons and you have made it clear she didnt keep to the phased return programme. Fom what you say if they have evidence of attending these events that fly in the face of what she is claiming at work then they are just being nice but also taking a realisitc look at the costs of dismissal and the possibility of a claim at an ET ( which if they follow procedure will most likely win). The obvious grounds for dismissal are capability but could be gross misconduct if they are holding information about her external activities.

What would I suggest? In this case take the offer, they will have to provide a reference that reflects the manner of her departure and this will be a damned sight more positive than the one she would get if she decides to decline the offer. They could also withdraw the severance package and go for compulsory redundancy which will see her with a months salary at best. The risk of going to a tribunal on the basis of comparison with someone else's dismissal is not a good strategy. As you say, they arent going to get it wrong twice. Likewise if the role is redundant then again she will lose and may well end up with a costs order if her claim is reckless, frivolous or malicious.

She must understand something though, she is not staying in that job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the real question is whether the post is really redundant or are they offering her a package dressed up as redundancy to save going through a dismissal procedure. People who are ill, disabled etc can still be sacked for the usual reasons and you have made it clear she didnt keep to the phased return programme. Fom what you say if they have evidence of attending these events that fly in the face of what she is claiming at work then they are just being nice but also taking a realisitc look at the costs of dismissal and the possibility of a claim at an ET ( which if they follow procedure will most likely win). The obvious grounds for dismissal are capability but could be gross misconduct if they are holding information about her external activities.

What would I suggest? In this case take the offer, they will have to provide a reference that reflects the manner of her departure and this will be a damned sight more positive than the one she would get if she decides to decline the offer. They could also withdraw the severance package and go for compulsory redundancy which will see her with a months salary at best. The risk of going to a tribunal on the basis of comparison with someone else's dismissal is not a good strategy. As you say, they arent going to get it wrong twice. Likewise if the role is redundant then again she will lose and may well end up with a costs order if her claim is reckless, frivolous or malicious.

She must understand something though, she is not staying in that job.

 

Being a small Museum I imagine they are phasing out the role so they don't have to do through the full dismissal procedure and will add the responsibilities to either one of the other paid staff or among some of the longer term volunteers.

 

I don't know if they have any evidence of her external activities but it is known by family and friends and it could of made it's way into the railway.

 

I have said from the beginning to take the offer as they are actually offering her more than she is entitled to according to ACAS but her Dad wants to see if they can go any further with it (that is just how he is.)

 

They both know that no matter what happens she won't be returning that has been made clear.

 

I will relay this information over to her and her Dad and see what they have to say, thanks for your input.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the real question is whether the post is really redundant or are they offering her a package dressed up as redundancy to save going through a dismissal procedure. People who are ill, disabled etc can still be sacked for the usual reasons and you have made it clear she didnt keep to the phased return programme. Fom what you say if they have evidence of attending these events that fly in the face of what she is claiming at work then they are just being nice but also taking a realisitc look at the costs of dismissal and the possibility of a claim at an ET ( which if they follow procedure will most likely win). The obvious grounds for dismissal are capability but could be gross misconduct if they are holding information about her external activities.

What would I suggest? In this case take the offer, they will have to provide a reference that reflects the manner of her departure and this will be a damned sight more positive than the one she would get if she decides to decline the offer. They could also withdraw the severance package and go for compulsory redundancy which will see her with a months salary at best. The risk of going to a tribunal on the basis of comparison with someone else's dismissal is not a good strategy. As you say, they arent going to get it wrong twice. Likewise if the role is redundant then again she will lose and may well end up with a costs order if her claim is reckless, frivolous or malicious.

She must understand something though, she is not staying in that job.

 

I agree with this. The fact is that her father is being ridiculous. Even if this isn't a true redundancy, she has brought this on herself. Her behaviour, disability included, will not reflect well on her in a reference or a tribunal. Assuming she is not going to melt down in a tribunal - if getting her office cleaned causes a problem, she had no idea what a tribunal will do to get! Sometimes it is worth recalling that saying about gift horses. She isn't being dismissed. I'd say that's a plus!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the redundancy involves less than a dozen people they have to do very little in the way of consultation, proof of redundancy offering new posts etc, just give the correct notice and say that the job as a stand alone no longer exists for financial technological or operational reasons. They require no real proof the work doesnt exist, they just have to say it has changed and incorporated into someone else's job and that is that.

 

As for her external activities all it needs is for her to appear in someone else's social media postings and she is stuffed. Doesnt matter she didnt put the pictures into the public domain. On that point even so called private posts in closed groups are public as far as the law goes.

 

Try and dissuade her dad from getting involved unless he is happy to stump up the £125k that the ET can order against her if it seems to them to be a malicious, reckless etc claim. A tribunal is not a bonus feature on a gambling machine.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for her external activities all it needs is for her to appear in someone else's social media postings and she is stuffed. Doesnt matter she didnt put the pictures into the public domain. On that point even so called private posts in closed groups are public as far as the law goes.

 

The OP's description of the family friend and the job role would make it fairly easy to identify her by the employer. There can't be too many small museums where a curator with asperger's is being made redundant.

 

A £5,000 offer is very reasonable for four years of employment in my opinion, and I'd take it like a shot in a similar position.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all,

 

Thanks for the replies, I have spoken to her Dad and he is now taking a step back and leaving her to deal with it but her partner is now pushing to do something :/

 

He says that he has spoken to ACAS and apparently (again this has come from him and not me speaking directly to them myself.);

 

 

  • They can't just call her into a meeting to make her redundant and have to give her a notice period (they actually did give her a week to decide if she accepts or not and I assumed this would of counted as a notice period)
  • They have to offer her another job within the company before letting her go (I don't get this part because how do you offer a job to someone if there isn't one, I thought that is what the point in redundancy was.)

The only reason I am posting about this is to try and persuade them to not push any further as it could end up costing them money they don't have to get nothing out of it, as stated before this Museum had to pay of an ex worker £40K, they aren't going to get it wrong a second time. If it was me I would have shaken their hands, thanked them and just taken the £5k and gone elsewhere as it obviously wasn't going to work out any longer.

 

 

Anyway, thanks for the help and I will pass the information on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

by calling her into a meeting they ARE giving notice. As the tersm offered are better than stat redundancy it would be called severence at this stage and that offer can be withdrawn if she doesnt accept and then they go down the formal minimum route instead.

They dont have to offer another job if their isnt a suitable vacancy, they are not cutting 12 jobs down to 10 posts and it hasnt been made clear why the post is redundant, if financial then there never will be another vacancy

Link to post
Share on other sites

by calling her into a meeting they ARE giving notice. As the tersm offered are better than stat redundancy it would be called severence at this stage and that offer can be withdrawn if she doesnt accept and then they go down the formal minimum route instead.

They dont have to offer another job if their isnt a suitable vacancy, they are not cutting 12 jobs down to 10 posts

 

This is what I have told them (apart from the severance bit as I wasn't aware of that.) There are no other vacancies at the Museum that she would be qualified to do and they aren't going to be creating one.

 

it hasnt been made clear why the post is redundant, if financial then there never will be another vacancy

 

On paper the redundancy is due to the role existing in reality it is to get rid of her as she isn't benefiting the company anymore due to not meeting their expectations / her contract obligations.

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

not a problem, that means it is for operational reasons, one of the 3 groups of reasons.

It would be good if you can persuade the people involved to take a look at this thread, Sangie is a FTO for a union, my union rep days are in the past but we lay reps seem to spnd a lot of the time in the 1990's-2000's managing organisational change rather than the more traditional industrial relations problems of pay and conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not a problem, that means it is for operational reasons, one of the 3 groups of reasons.

It would be good if you can persuade the people involved to take a look at this thread, Sangie is a FTO for a union, my union rep days are in the past but we lay reps seem to spnd a lot of the time in the 1990's-2000's managing organisational change rather than the more traditional industrial relations problems of pay and conditions.

 

I have passed all the details and information on and told them it's not in their interest to pursue it and left it up to them. At the end of the day I can't stop them as it is their problem but I can at least advise. Thanks again for the help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Again posting on behalf of a family member, I will give you a break down of facts and what has happened to try and stick to the point.

 

 

  • Partners Sister was employed by a Railway Museum 4 years ago as a curator
  • She has asperger's syndrome so can be difficult in some social situations
  • Within the 3rd year she though everyone had a problem with her (how true this was we don't know.)
  • Within the 3rd year there was a problem with one volunteer that had overstepped his duties (cleaned her office without permission) that caused everything to flair up and he was asked to leave.
  • Things then broke down at work and she was put on sick leave with pay being diagnosed with depression, this was for about 3-4 Months.
  • In the meantime meetings had been held with her present asking for her to come back on reduced duties and less working hours (two eight hour days a week from 40 flexable hours over 7 days,) all this was agreed and was in place for about 2 months.
  • She didn't always go in when she was asked and called in sick saying she couldn't deal with the public (but then would go to steam punk events with friends.)
  • After some time she was bought into a meeting to discuss what had been going on and it turns out they have made her redundent as they are phasing out her job role.
  • She has been given a week to decide if she will accept what they have offered her (3 months of full pay approx £5k) or does she want it to go to a tribunal.

About two years ago they had another worker that was in a similar boat, she was off sick all the time due to mental illness and they ended up firing her and it went to a tribunal as they did it all wrong and paid her off in the region of £40k, so I now assume they have done everything correctly and above board, but her Dad is trying to find if they have done anything wrong that they can try and use in a tribunal.

Looking at ACAS it looks like they have acted correctly, fairly and legally but he doesn't want to just take their websites word for it and has asked me to put this post up.

So with the above information do you think she has a case for unfair dismissal etc or is there anything she should do / ask from her employer ?

Sorry if something doesn't sound right etc as it's being relayed from her Dad to me at the moment if there is anything you need me to ask her directly I am seeing her Sunday for her Birthday.

Thanks in advance

 

Apologies as it seems that I'm hijacking this thread:sorry:

 

But do Tribunals still award this kind of amount (40k)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies as it seems that I'm hijacking this thread:sorry:

 

But do Tribunals still award this kind of amount (40k)?

 

Occassionally in discrimination cases, which have no cap; but you're talking really obvious systemic discriminaton

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, awards of this size are not unusual. The cap for unfair dismissal is £80,541. However, the majority of claims are for less that this. That is because tribunal compensatory awards are linked to income, and do not compensate for more than 1 years loss of income. Few people earn £80k a year! And many don't have a year out of work either. Most tribunal claims are lower value - employers who dismiss higher paid workers are usually too clever to make mistakes; or settle when caught out. The lack of higher awards is actually a result of the demographics of employment tribunals rather than a reflection of the awards amounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...