Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • 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
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • 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.
  • 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

Sleep in Pay- Breaking the law on the minimum wage.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2339 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.

Just needed some advice.

I currently work in the care industry.

At our place we do sleep ins as our clients need 24 hour care.

 

A letter was written complaining that in light of recent rulings regarding sleep in pay,

the employer was underpaying us under the national minimum wage.

 

This was discussed in our staff meeting with all the staff names typed on it.

The area manager wanted to know who sent it.

They were very dismissive of the letter.

The area manager commented on the poor way it was written.

They wrote directly to the individual concerned saying they would look into it.

As per company procedure, they failed to respond within the 10 working days.

 

In fear of being singled out and the effects it could have,

an anonymous letter was sent to the company.

 

It stated that they had broken the law by not paying the minimum wage.

It also said we should have been paid the full amount from the end of July.

 

It requested that a response had to be made in 14 days on how they were going to address the back pay.

It also expressed concerns of what may happen to the sleep ins and how it could affect our residents.

 

Whilst not everyone saw the letter before it was sent,

then the manager has shown the staff since.

 

Whilst some did not give their consent, all agree, including the manager that the contents were right.

 

Our concerns were over the monies owed to us prior to the 27th July 2017,

the monies due since then and proposed changes to our sleep-in arrangements.

This also include our residents would not be covered.

 

We wrote this as we feared our jobs if HR found out.

 

1) The company tried to find out who wrote the letter. They got all the staff to sign if they knew anything about the letter and did they give authorisation. Most of us signed we did not in order to protect our identities,

but we all signed “but we agree with the contents”.

We all felt the company was more focused on who wrote it, rather than address the issues.

 

2) Over the last few days,

they have called us all in individually after the company had an emergency manager meeting.

We were all told verbally that the company has until March 2019 to pay.

In addition, they said that they would be waiting for an appeal due in March over sleep in pay.

 

From what we have understood,

the ruling regarding back dated pay by the inland revenue only applies to pay owed up to the 27th July 2017.

Normal enforcement by HMRC applies for pay after this date.

 

A number of care companies already pay the correct amount,

but the company still only pay £35 for a 9.5/ 10 hour sleep in.

We are often up during the night and rarely get any extra.

 

3) We were all told verbally that the company may have to consider closures if this is pursued. We all felt that this was delivered in a threatening manner.

 

4) In terms of moving forward,

they have proposed that our sleep ins will change to on call.

 

We were told we could leave the premises at night and come back,

but we must be able to return to the premises within 10 minutes (Nobody lives within 10 minutes).

 

It would be monitored and anyone arriving later will have their contracts terminated.

In addition,

we asked if all the staff leave the premises,

what would happen.

 

We were told someone would have to stay and cover.

In other words,

we all feel they are trying to avoid their legal obligations and have shown no interest in any ideas or other ways that can address this issue.

 

Most of us feel that the company is trying to take advantage of some of our foreign workers who are too afraid to upset the company.

This was given verbally and they wanted us to sign that we had a supervision over this issue.

 

We have also checked our contracts.

We have noticed that training is also not paid.

Training is a requirement by CQC and other care authorities.

All staff must have certain training.

This also, we feel is breaking the rules on the minimum wage.

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see on google searches the government are not backing this and keeping it at 35 per sleepover.

Unfortunately the company is correct, it could face closures as some estimates for the industry is as high as 600 million that is alledged owed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True.

However we work for a private company.

 

They have been paid the funding and we feel they do not want to give up on some of the profits they have made over the years.

 

We know many in the care industry and many are treated like dirt by their companies as they try to make as much money as possible.

 

I am all for companies making profits but most of us are fed up with not beong paid what we have to put up with.

 

Most of us do not work in care for the money.

 

Its so we can make a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do empathize with you but I cant see how the industry wether private or public could sustain this.

Your effectively doubling the cost of nighttimes.

I work, I'm paid a wage, Im also on call to anywhere in the country at a phone call.

If I get the call I travel but if the situation is not resolved and I go " off shift" I'm paid a retainer, not an hourly rate.

 

Please understand that I'm playing devils advocate here. I'm just trying to get you to see their side ( even though they ain't very cooprative or polite)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair,

this is down to the law making a determination and that being enforced by the government.

It isn't up to us to decide.

 

there are strong arguments that support the fact that people are at work and should be paid accordingly.

Arguments that have won some legal support.

But this isn't yet enforceable.

 

It isn't about what people think is right or wrong.

It's about the fact that the OP knows that this can't be enforced and wants a different answer.

 

When it can be enforced,

then they will be entitled to push it,

and take legal action themselves if they wish.

 

But there are no magic wish fairies that make things happen for you.

You have to do it yourself.

And that applies whether you are in a union or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read it, the Government ordered HMRC to suspend actions against the care companies, not the care companies not paying the minimum wage. This, as I see it, means that all overnight sleepovers should be paid at the full rate.

 

As an example, a friend of mine is a carer who no longer works nights but was paid up to £35 per sleepover (dependant on which company she worked for. In addition to this, the last company she worked for never paid for travel time, allotted one care appointment to end at 10:00 but another client, who could be miles away, a start time of 10:00 meaning that my friend had to leave the first client early to get to the next one on time.

 

The law states that when you leave home and go straight to a client (not the office) that is classed as travel time and should be paid. She wasn't!

The company paid 12p per mile once she had completed over 25 miles. She had to buy her own uniform from the company at an inflated price.

 

This same company never informed her of her right to claim back tax paid to cover her mileage and uniform cost and cleaning.

 

This same company made over £4m in profit in 2015 which was distributed to shareholders but at the expense of their worker. My friend regularly worked over 60 hours per week yet her payslip never showed her hours but a breakdown of the salary showed that she was being paid for approximately 30 hours. Is this fair? Oh, and she has to pay for her own business use insurance for her car.

 

I have every empathy with carers. This is a thankless job with zero job security as they are generally on zero hour contracts and if the complain about the working conditions, they get less shifts and obviously less money.

 

When councils outsourced the care to private companies, this was all about reducing costs but they gave the contracts to the cheapest, not the best option for their clients. If they were to bring these back in house, staff rights would be protected.

 

Sorry, rant over. I felt I had to respond to some of the comments made so far.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a case of ask mommy/ask daddy.

Ask mommy a question, dont like the answer, go ask daddy.

 

I'm too bemused by Someone wanting the minimum hourly pay to snore their head off.

 

 

Correct - get a life or move on to a job where you are wrapped up in cotton wool - what a state this country is in these days when people want paying for nothing just being there if needed.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that the point though, OC, they don't always sleep when they stay over?

 

From what I've read, carers can be in a home with people who don't sleep, have panic attacks or other reasons for being looked after by someone. They don't always sleep through and I've read about people being up half the night trying to help people who are distressed or confused.

 

My mother's care home had people with dementia who didn't know what time of day it was and would roam around at night getting into trouble.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so did my wife

on her own with Adults with special needs,

 

started one on the floor working and one sleep in just in case needed = flat rate,,

 

must say within a few months no extra sleep in person available and she did all night checking Blood for sugar levels etc etc for quite some years

- and still suffers sleeping disorder by waking up at 3 a.m. etc but when she started as sleep in for 2 nights also some day duties she was paid £30 per sleep in regardless if called to go with one of the patients to hospital etc, god help her if that situation arose the time she was on her own working.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are getting beyond ourselves here. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people didn't agree that it was a bad idea to send children up chimneys! The law is the law. And the law says that this time is work time and should be paid. And I agree with silverfox. The conditions of care workers are generally abysmal. All of which is also irrelevant.

 

I go back to the fact that there is no magic wish fairy. If the OP wants paying according to the law, they must enforce that themselves. Even when, and if, the government allow HMRC to enforce this, the employer is going to know that it was their own employees who reported them. There is no escaping standing up for yourself. If people want better terms of employment, then they must fight for them. Who did you think got the ruling made in the first place? Organised workers in the care industry. No fairies granting wishes here - you must do it for yourself. And if you can't or won't, then any worker deserves the employer they get. People have died for the rights we enjoy today, and yet workers sit around whinging about their employers, letting those rights be stripped away, and blaming the unions. You want something? Get off your knees...

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP. your managers are bricking it because they tender for these contracts and are now stuck with having to pay out an extra 20% in salaries overall so as you are not union members they will react with a knee jerk to try and stop their losses. If they sack a couple of peopel for insisting on their rights they think everyone else will say they are happy being shafted and pass that thought on to their lobbyists to government in the hope that the matter is overturned.

It is a risk but fronting them out or suggesting a suitable interim settlement they can live with and then boast to their friends they have got this box ticked will stop the witch hunt. The alternative is a series of unfair dismissal claims as you go one by one

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...