Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Zero Hour Contract Queries


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2350 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

I am hoping for a little clarification on behalf of my brother in law who runs a small company with around 12 persons

who now has an issue with an employee who has assaulted another member of staff

and who he understandably does not want working there anymore.

 

Now all employees are on these zero hours contracts

 

my first question is can you dismiss / discipline persons on these contracts?

 

suggested he follow the company disciplinary procedure to be told there is not one so I am pretty sure that's not helpful!!

 

none of the employees have actual physical (paper) contracts zero or otherwise and am not sure this is correct?

 

it would seem there is no obligation for the employer to offer hours and if this is correct would this be a viable way of dealing with it

(i.e. just not offering anymore hours)

or would you be open to possible discrimination claims by continually telling the same person you don't need them to work?

 

Finally I think he really needs some assistance making sure he has the correct procedures and policies required by a small company and was thinking ACAS may be the best point of contact but can anyone else suggest any organisations that can provide support to small businesses as and when needed?

 

Thanks guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no written contract it is not a zero hour contract!

Which means that he is not a company.

He is several employment tribunals waiting to happen!

 

In this day and age there is no excuse for the smallest of employers not to be able to work out what they need to do

- there are resources falling over themselves on the internet.

 

But there is a difference between advice and guidance, and support on individual circumstances - the latter is almost always at a cost.

 

If a member of staff has assaulted someone he is on some danger already.

The proper action is to suspend and institute an investigation,

leading to a disciplinary for gross misconduct if there is a case to answer.

And he potentially falls at stage one.

 

To suspend someone it must be on full pay.

But he isn't paying people when they aren't working.

But given this can't be a zero hours contract because it isn't in writing,

any challenge to his actions is going to have serious consequences if that person is aware of their rights.

 

It may be unpalatable for him,

but I would suggest a settlement agreement (which will cost money)

if he is seriously looking to avoid ANY trouble.

 

It's that or risk it.

Which he may get away with.

But he also may not, and that might cost more money.

All he needs is a claim at a tribunal.... And his bill will start to rise.

 

He URGENTLY needs to address his shortcomings as an employer.

Based on just these few lines, he has many of them.

 

Being an employer is not just a responsibility - it is a business cost.

Trying to do it on the cheap seldom works out well.

 

I would suggest he check to see if there is a small business advisory or network in his area - many have them.

But it won't solve all his problems by joining one - it will only help him to realise how many problems he has!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you are saying makes absolute sense and it would appear from my initial conversation that the business seems to still be run as things were in the bad old days before employment legislation rightly provided workers with better protection.

 

I don't think the ways in which the company are being run are for any reason other than utter cluelessness however ignorance I am sure is no defence in the eyes of the law and I guess everything has ticked over to date because there have been issues such as this however I get the feeling he thinks this is still the 80's and you can sack someone in the Lord Sugar "your fired" manner.

 

I had suggested ACAS who I know provide training on certain employment issues such as discipline and grievance etc but will suggest he looks into your suggestion of an advisory group as you rightly suspect as I do that there are many issues that need addressing to comply with the legislation these days.

 

But back to the issue in hand for now and having managed an office previously I am aware of the suspension and any subsequent disciplinary proceedings and how these should be carried out but like you without a contract and set disciplinary procedure I am struggling to work out how this will work under the circumstances?

 

I am also however aware that he has a duty of care to all employees so as things stand there should be no way this individual can come back to work Monday and while your suggestion of a settlement is something I would agree with till this is resolved are there any laws being broken if he simply tells this person he is not offering him any working hours next week but this would not seem to be a long term solution and eventually this person needs to be potentially dismissed.

 

With regards to contracts I am guessing this is something that should be addressed straight away and provided to employees but presumably these will not be retrospective and only take effect from when they are signed or is that not correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL Yeah I suppose there is no tax fiddle going on as tbh that would not have surprised me either...

 

I used to manage a call centre and we had an HR department to assist with this sort of thing as well as disciplinary procedures and policies so this is somewhat beyond me as they literally have nothing.

 

I mean how do you suspend / discipline someone with no contract as rightly pointed out by sangie and everything I know and learnt was from having a proper process in place and the support of an HR Partner.

 

I have pointed them in the direction of specialist help with a view to at least getting the basics in place but am looking for ideas of immediate remedial action that can be taken such as actually issuing contracts that might mitigate future issues but am not sure these can't be retrospective with regards to start dates etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this..... the section on “what is a contract of employment”....

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/rights-at-work/basic-rights-and-contracts/contracts-of-employment/#h-are-you-an-employee-or-self-employed

 

In every employment I’ve had an assault is grounds for instant dismissal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that I'll take a look.

 

I suppose the danger is that if they start handing out contracts now it will undoubtedly lead to people wondering why when they never had one before but I pretty much think that's unavoidable as they need to be done and I would imagine an employment lawyer is the best place to get these done or perhaps advice from ACAS as for example if someone starting five years ago I don't know if you put that as a start date or from present day.

 

I am sure there are lots of other considerations too and at very least a disciplinary procedure which everyone has access to.

 

One thing I haven't noticed an answer to is the fact there appears to be no obligation on the part of a company to offer work hours to those on a zero hour contract, is this in fact correct and is there a time limit as to how long that could go on for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this..... the section on “what is a contract of employment”....

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/rights-at-work/basic-rights-and-contracts/contracts-of-employment/#h-are-you-an-employee-or-self-employed

 

In every employment I’ve had an assault is grounds for instant dismissal.

 

Not if, by that, you mean dismissal on the spot with no disciplinary.

That would be unlawful.

 

Everyone has a right to be heard

- and sometimes things are not always as straight forward as one might think.

 

What about someone who lashes out in anger after the other person called his mother/sister/ wife a **?

Or the person with a disability who had anger management issues in certain circumstances?

Or the other person lashed out first?

 

There is never a good reason for violence - but there may be a reason,

and it may be an understandable reason!

And even if it isn't acceptable

- the law is very clear, and dismissal on a whim without due process, even when appropriate, is not permissible.

 

OP,

I appreciate that it may raise questions in what is now appearing to be employees minds if he now starts changing things.

It will raise even more when someone takes him to a tribunal and he is trashed in it!

 

Not having a written disciplinary code does not prevent him using one.

Fair investigation, fair hearing, fair decision - it isn't rocket science!

 

Thank you for that I'll take a look.

 

I suppose the danger is that if they start handing out contracts now it will undoubtedly lead to people wondering why when they never had one before but I pretty much think that's unavoidable as they need to be done and I would imagine an employment lawyer is the best place to get these done or perhaps advice from ACAS as for example if someone starting five years ago I don't know if you put that as a start date or from present day.

 

I am sure there are lots of other considerations too and at very least a disciplinary procedure which everyone has access to.

 

One thing I haven't noticed an answer to is the fact there appears to be no obligation on the part of a company to offer work hours to those on a zero hour contract, is this in fact correct and is there a time limit as to how long that could go on for?

 

I did answer this.

There are no written contracts.

Therefore they are NOT zero hour contracts.

That places him in a very difficult situation because he is already in breach of the law.

 

If the EMPLOYEES are even slightly wised up,

he is about to be taken to the cleaners unless they like him a lot.

 

Holiday pay?

Pension?

Minimum hours?

Guaranteed pay?

Maternity and paternity rights?

Sick pay?

 

So his staff are currently employees

- he can't just sack them all and make them zero hours.

Well he could - but that's a very fast route into the employment tribunal.

 

I appreciate your view that he's done this out of ignorance, and I agree it's definitely not an excuse that the law will accept.

 

However, sorry, but I find it hard to believe that ANY employer can be so completely ignorant of the law as to fail to notice ANY of these things.

 

It sounds much more like a selective memory, ignoring things for as long as he can because he never expected to get called out on it.

 

But either way, he owes it to his employees to treat them fairly and honestly.

They are the people making his business work for him.

They are not a necessary evil.

They are the reason he's making money.

And it is, like anything else, a business expense that needs to be recognised.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response and to be honest there is nothing in there that I would disagree with.

 

 

My understanding is that they have things such as paid holiday, pensions, I doubt minimum / guaranteed hours, SSP payments but no company sick pay scheme however this would of course be discretionary anyway so I don't see this as a problem.

 

 

They are going to need to take professional advice going forward in my opinion as the status quo cannot continue for all the reasons you have given but the remedial actions required to be at the very least compliant with the basics of employment law are beyond what I can advise them.

 

 

One last question I have which is purely out of personal curiosity is without contracts are these people workers or employees?

 

 

Reason for asking is that when I was looking at the CAB link it calls zero hour contracted persons workers.

 

 

The actual situation itself seems to have resolved itself for the time being with the employee concerned texting one of the directors to advise they were quitting and not coming back but whether there are further implications to come is anyone's guess.

 

 

I guess I had this much easier with an HR department to advise me in my previous job and would not fancy having to sort all this lot out....

Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading the replies and looking at the link to info on contracts im leaning towards that the people are all employees, being employed by someone that needs a lot of advice before he has several tribunals and court cases brought against them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response and to be honest there is nothing in there that I would disagree with.

 

 

My understanding is that they have things such as paid holiday, pensions, I doubt minimum / guaranteed hours, SSP payments but no company sick pay scheme however this would of course be discretionary anyway so I don't see this as a problem.

 

 

They are going to need to take professional advice going forward in my opinion as the status quo cannot continue for all the reasons you have given but the remedial actions required to be at the very least compliant with the basics of employment law are beyond what I can advise them.

 

 

One last question I have which is purely out of personal curiosity is without contracts are these people workers or employees?

 

 

Reason for asking is that when I was looking at the CAB link it calls zero hour contracted persons workers.

 

 

The actual situation itself seems to have resolved itself for the time being with the employee concerned texting one of the directors to advise they were quitting and not coming back but whether there are further implications to come is anyone's guess.

 

 

I guess I had this much easier with an HR department to advise me in my previous job and would not fancy having to sort all this lot out....

 

In my view they are certainly employees. It is a common misconception that a contract needs to be written. The law assumes a contract is formed by the offer of employment and the paying / receipt of a wage. Howevercv that is the kicker. The law assumes an employment contract in the absence of written terms that state otherwise. So not workers - a zero hours contract MUST be in writing. And clearly not self- employed. So that only leaves employed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If explicitedly (verbally!) stated for “zero hours” as part of the terms of a verbal contract : would it be possible to create a verbal zero hours contract?

If not, why not??

 

Of course, proving it (or what the courts would find the contract was) is another matter....... so, I’m not saying it is wise, but is it possible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it states in employment law that zero hours contracts MUST be in writing

 

Can someone point me to the legislation or case law fir this, please.

I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but I’d like to look at the precise wording ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I read it from the link posted and following other links from that CAB page on more info on zero hours contracts

 

I can see where that link notes ALL employees should be given a written statement of particulars, within 2 months, but that isn’t quite the same....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...