Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank 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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 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

Not allowed any rest breaks


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2346 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'm representing a group of employees at my retail workplace some of which are part time and some are full time. The shifts we do vary between 4 and 12 hours a day. It is an individual business not part of a chain or anything. There is no union or HR department there are just the managers who own the business and about 20 staff who work for them. The problem is that we are not allowed to take any rest breaks even in 12 hour shifts. We have previously been allowed a few minutes to eat a meal at some point during the shift but we have to stay at our workplace and if the phone rings we have to leave our meal to answer it or if a customer needs serving we have to serve them. Often our food is left to go cold before we can get back to finish it.

 

The new problem is that we have seen an email between the managers complaining about staff eating during their shift and it shouldnt be allowed as it looks bad to the customers (the email wasn't meant to be seen by us but one of the managers left it on screen on a computer in a public office. They dont know we have read it and ok maybe we shouldn't have if it wasn't addressed to us but we have and its about us anyway).

 

So one of us contacted acas and all they said was there is nothing they can do as there is no way to enforce it. Then we contacted HSE who were very understanding and they passed it on to our local council. Although we have since contacted the council who have said they have been in to speak to one of the managers and they are not going to take any action because they pay us for the whole shift (like if we work from 7am to 7pm straight we get paid for 12 hours. they would only take action if they stopped our pay for a rest break but didn't allow us to take it). We don't think this is fair but we really don't know what to do about it so we are hoping someone on here can advise us on what to do. Other people have said just leave and work somewhere else but it's not as simple for that for some of us who can't find a different job.

 

Thankyou

Link to post
Share on other sites

You complain to the relevant authority.

Also:

Workers who can’t take or aren’t allowed rest breaks should speak to their manager informally.

 

Get more information for employees who want to raise a grievance or advice for employers on handling grievances if there is a disagreement about rest breaks.

Workers can also get advice on rest breaks from the Acas helpline.

 

If a worker can’t solve a problem, they may be able to make a claim to an employment tribunal.

 

Are you a union rep, or have access to a union?

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You complain to the relevant authority.

Also:

 

 

Are you a union rep, or have access to a union?

They've already said they aren't in a union. And the have complained to "the authorities" - it got them nowhere because there is no enforcement agency!

 

OP, the only way to enforce this is to take your employer to a tribunal. Which is using a hammer to crack a nut, and which, in any case, is likely to result in your breaks becoming unpaid! Nobody does the standing up for you - you have to do it yourself. Assuming that you all agree that you are willing to risk the payment for your breaks, then you need to discuss this with your managers. But you have to be willing to accept that the break won't be paid - if even one of you isn't willing to give up the money then you will be picked off one by one. There is nothing else - you can't get someone else to come in and do it for you whilst you remain anonymous - they will know that the staff have complained. They probably do already. There is only one way to organise - and that's to all join a union. But even then, it requires you to stand up for yourselves. Nobody is ever going to do it for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: Reread your post sangie and fully agree. Its one of the big reasons to join a union.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: Reread your post sangie and fully agree. Its one of the big reasons to join a union.

 

Of course there is no obligation for the employer to recognise the union as a negotiating agent for 20 staff, and based on the OPs original statement I doubt if they would.... perhaps there are 21 staff who are willing to join said union?

 

https://www.gov.uk/trade-union-recognition-employers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is no obligation for the employer to recognise the union as a negotiating agent for 20 staff, and based on the OPs original statement I doubt if they would.... perhaps there are 21 staff who are willing to join said union?

 

https://www.gov.uk/trade-union-recognition-employers

 

They don't need recognition. They need membership. A union is entitled by law to represent any worker(s). This is a right in law that no employer can refuse - recognition or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For sangie

 

Would you be kind enough to cite that Law?

 

Cancel that. I’ve translated what you said. You are right, but only in matters of discipline and grievance. Which would only apply in this case if the employee(s) brought a grievance, and even then only as a companion and within certain restrictions. A union has no rights to negotiate, for example, pay or breaks unless recognised by the employer. (Whether voluntary or statutory)

Link to post
Share on other sites

For sangie

 

 

 

Cancel that. I’ve translated what you said. You are right, but only in matters of discipline and grievance. Which would only apply in this case if the employee(s) brought a grievance, and even then only as a companion and within certain restrictions. A union has no rights to negotiate, for example, pay or breaks unless recognised by the employer. (Whether voluntary or statutory)

 

the union can take it to a tribunal though.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

For sangie

 

 

 

Cancel that. I’ve translated what you said. You are right, but only in matters of discipline and grievance. Which would only apply in this case if the employee(s) brought a grievance, and even then only as a companion and within certain restrictions. A union has no rights to negotiate, for example, pay or breaks unless recognised by the employer. (Whether voluntary or statutory)

That is not entirely correct. A union has the right to represent its members in all matters, recognised or not. There is only a legal right to accompany a member (and the restrictions are not actually as serious as you imply - they are allowed to represent their member, which is quite wide ranging) to disciplinary or grievance meetings, but that does not mean that they cannot do anything else! The employer can, of course, refuse to speak to a union representative. Most are not that foolish - all that does is ramp things up a notch unnecessarily. As pointed out, the union can represent their members to an employment tribunal, and that is not in the employers interests. And, in this case, they would not be negotiating breaks. The law is very clear that breaks, unpaid, are not optional. They would be pointing this out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think that a small employer would want to take on a Union solicitors in a case about working hours where the law is absolutely clear? The real clout would come if they ALL joined a relevant union so the employer couldnt then decide to sack the one person who did ( that would be another claim at an ET but peopel dont seem to understand one law tend to think that others arent important for them either) Once you are all in a union have a look at doing a safety audit of the workplace.

Many employers like unions when it comes to Health and Safety matters, the reps go off on courses paid for by the union and when they come back they do all of the employers H&S functions for free!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...