Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

My legal right to refuse a certain driving route due to PTSD issues


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2238 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

Hello anyone who is an employment law specialist. I've been working for my company for a little over three years now as a driver. (I don't want to say to much about it in case it identifies me, as I know certain work colleagues use this site). I've worked hard and diligently for those three years without any issue.

 

However, last week I was put on a ridiculous route that I hadn't been trained for and despite saying this before, and doing my best during, I still made a massive mistake that could potentially see the company fined a shedload of money. So, naturally, my boss went mad and called me into an unofficial meeting.

 

I suffer from complex PTSD. This is something I chose never to reveal on my yearly review health form, because I find it embarrassing personally, and also my boss is 'a good ole boy' who's opinion is 'man up' and get the job done.

 

In the meeting I stood my ground and politely, calmly, professionally explained to him that it wasn't 100% my fault because I'd never been trained on the operating system of this new van, on this new route, to access places I had no idea where to deliver to. He went crazy. I told him, again calmly and politely, that after 3 years of diligent work I'm happy to continue to do any of the 15 out of 16 shifts - but for my own mental health I'm refusing to do THAT 16th shift which I failed in.

 

Again he went unprofessionally aggressive - "I will not have my drivers laying down their terms to me, if you don't like it FFF off, I'll have you rota'd to do it every day next week if I choose, in fact I think I will...." etc.

 

I was faced with the choice in the moment of grabbing my ankles and apologising for things that weren't my fault, or standing up for myself and losing my job. My ass is still sore from choosing the former course of action.

 

My question is, can he indeed simply 'fire' me for refusing to do this shift, whilst I'm happy to do any other of over 15 others? Would it be helpful to explain, backed up with medical notes, that he needs to make special adjustments for my 'disability' due to my PTSD as to why I'll not be doing that particular shift however much he gets busy with his pen on the rota sheet?

 

My feeling is I could 'win the battle; lose the war' - I might be able to force him through DDA or ET to take me off that shift, but it will inevitably lead to such a souring of day-to-day personal relationships as to force me to leave quick-smart anyway.

 

Apologies for rambling a bit, but I hope anyone with knowledge can get the gist enough to advise.

 

Thank you in advance....

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, you're not going to get far expecting him to make reasonable adjustments for something he doesn't know about

 

but neither will you get far admitting you lied on your health forms - breakdown of trsut happening right there could lead to dismissal

 

it sounds like you and this boss are not a match made in heaven, and drivers are in short supply nationally, so there's an obvious solution

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

Thanks for the reply Emmzi.

 

I guess you are probably right, but having done this job for so long I'm scared of change, and this is part of my MH condition.

 

I enjoy it, (well, more than any other job I've had in my 30 years of jobs! ha!) and I genuinely like my work colleagues and I think they like me too. I would be very reluctant and sad to just walk away over what, in reality, should be an easily resolved minor issue.

 

But my boss is a real "[removed]" - if you understand what i mean, so any challenge to his managerial god-like omnipotence is met with Thor's hammer!!

 

 

He's actually not a bad person, but when pushed into a corner because he's a bit thick he comes out fighting like a rat.

 

Also, just to add

- on my original health form after being offered the job I did put "Anxiety".

So maybe that would help my case.

(I've subsequently been diagnosed with Complex PTSD

- from an event that happened way back in 1994).

 

 

with all the stigma surrounding MH,

I was even reluctant to put 'anxiety' because I desperately needed the job at the time and didn't want to give them any excuse to choose the next guy!

 

I don't want to leave this job, but I CANNOT do this particular shift and it looks like he will force my hand.

 

 

Does anyone have any real world advice on my rights when he does please?

Edited by dx100uk
merge/space + naughty word removal - dx
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess your contract has something about "carry out reasonable instructions" and unless you can show why it is unreasonable, you're probably looking at conduct followed by dismissal if you do it a second time

 

Rights will only come into it if you are prepared to show your hand probably with an occupational health referal and all that entails.

 

So, you need to choose which risk you want to take.

 

Is there any way you could get comfortable with the route? Going out with another driver maybe? On your day off if you don't want boss to know. Beta blockers? CBT? "cannot" is a very strong term before you have tried anything to help. Bosses do not like "cannot" and you may in turn get "it is a requirement of the job that all drivers are flexible to cover all routes." If it is a smaller employer then the "reasonable" barrier for reasonable adjustments is quite low.

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

Fair advice again, thank you.

Yep, that's pretty much exactly what my supervisor said.

(Supervisor is a great person and one step between me and the boss).

 

I was just hoping for some sort of 'rabbit in the hat' knowledge from you that would simply get me out of having to endure this shift.

 

I don't want to go into details, but there is something about this particular route and where it drives past that 'triggers' my PTSD, whilst no other route ever does.

 

It's a long and boring story, and I guess in this age of disposable work force I just have to suck it up or move on - which I will do.

 

A shame though.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

I perfectly understand your situation.

15 years ago i was run over by a car and up to last year i would drive a much longer route to avoid passing that spot.

When i mentioned it to my friend in his car he drove past that spot reassuring me that nothing would happen and in fact nothing happened.

A couple of days later he was with me in my car and the short route to where we were going was passing from there.

I was gonna take the longer route but he convinced me to drive past there and face my fear.

I did and nothing happened.

I now drive past that spot regularly and despite always remembering the incident, i am not afraid anymore.

You could try the same thing with someone you can trust and see if it helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...