Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Can a PPC (claimant) refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
  • 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

Witchhunted at work, boss is changing the allegations as i am innocent


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2220 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 started working for the local authority under a year ago, my employment record is excellent, no absence or lateness and great feedback in first 6 months, signed off.

 

There is 5 of us in our department, 3 males 1 other female.

The female is married to one of the males.

I have had nothing but grief and complaints from this female work colleague in the same position as myself.

 

I have told my manager at every monthly meeting she is difficult to get along with, my manager said

"We, had a discussion whether bringing another female into the team would change the group dynamics".

This female has been the only female for over 7 years.

I have been very enthusiastic and work hard but she is lazy and I believe she thinks I may be showing her up.

 

I was signed off in November after 6 months and had a tidy up of the office and data.

This female reported me in December for not reporting an incident, (there was nothing to report).

 

I have been under investigation for the past 4 months, today I received a letter telling me another allegation has been raised in the course of the investigation and it will be going to a disciplinary panel. No mention of the 2 original allegations as they have not been able to prove any wrong doing on my part. My manager keeps changing the points of the investigation.

 

First it was failing to report, second it was person may have suffered injury, then it was not written in the log properly.

No the new allegation is falsifying a critical document.

 

What can I do, I have the union backing me but I am still worried as it seems they are determind to get me out of the company.

The female colleague that has made complaints about me, her husband trained me and is an asset as he performs a lot on computer repairs for my manager for free. I believe this has turned into a witch hunt, what can I do to stop myself losing my job?.

I have done no wrong.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please will you space and punctuate your post more clearly. It's very difficult to read a solid block of text.

 

I gather that you have been working at the authority for less than 12 months. This means that you do not enjoy statutory employment protection so you are in a difficult position.

 

Whatever happens, you should start keeping a very detailed log of every incident and every conversation. Keep it at home and keep it up-to-date.

 

I expect that somebody else will visit this thread and give you better advice than I can so monitor the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking others have ulterior motives is one thing, but you mustn't voice this opinion; it will not help your case. You are an outsider in an established work group and if you want to get along, nodding and smiling tends to be the way to go until you have built up relationships.

 

I would stick to fcats; look at the resuts of the investigation, point out inaccuracies. Make sure you have your rep with you.

 

Stay away from "why" people may be "out to get you". Pay close attention to the detail of what is said.

 

Losing your job over minor paperwork on a first offence would be unusual. Is it a minor report/error under consideration?

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

You appear to have support of your Union -for now, so follow their advice.

Workplace relationships can be fraught, as we all expect people around us may have ulterior motives.

In Nature, it is called establishing the 'pecking order'.

Your situation is not that unusual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking others have ulterior motives is one thing, but you mustn't voice this opinion; it will not help your case. You are an outsider in an established work group and if you want to get along, nodding and smiling tends to be the way to go until you have built up relationships.

 

I would stick to fcats; look at the resuts of the investigation, point out inaccuracies. Make sure you have your rep with you.

 

Stay away from "why" people may be "out to get you". Pay close attention to the detail of what is said.

 

Losing your job over minor paperwork on a first offence would be unusual. Is it a minor report/error under consideration?

 

Yes it is minor and as they have not been successful in the other 2 allegations of misconduct they are trying for a new allegation, I definitely feel like the outsider, thanks for your feedback

Edited by Witchhunted
Link to post
Share on other sites

You appear to have support of your Union -for now, so follow their advice.

Workplace relationships can be fraught, as we all expect people around us may have ulterior motives.

In Nature, it is called establishing the 'pecking order'.

Your situation is not that unusual.

Yes my Union Rep have been great and very supportive, he is also struggling to understand why they are doing this and trying so hard to discipline me for something I have not done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being local government the whole process will be drawn out but that is no bad thing as you wont be booted out on a snap decision, esp if the union is confident that this is all about nothing. Consider looking at vacancies withn the organisation, they tend to appear on a regular basis and if one does then apply and get yourself out of that envirnment.

 

It may be that the dynamics of the working relationship between the husband and wife has changed and is spilling over into their home life so in one of them's mind something must change.

 

Are the "incidents" H&S office related things or are they things reported into the office from elsewhere? Ie, f someone tripped on a cable and no injury or damage caused then many organisations would feel that there is nothing to report whereas other individuals would consider that is the most dangerous thing that could have led to seriosu injury etc and will bang on about it. If external then was it a non event or a non actionable event. Again, people will see this differently.

 

Genrally if one was doing a safety audit you would mention the trip hazard but it wouldnt be considered an injury and may not be a dangerous occurrence depending on what was being done a the time (cable across walkway dangerous, trip over cable behind desk whist retrieving dropped pencil wouldnt be).

 

However not reporting still wouldnt be a sacking offence

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Being local government the whole process will be drawn out but that is no bad thing as you wont be booted out on a snap decision, esp if the union is confident that this is all about nothing. Consider looking at vacancies withn the organisation, they tend to appear on a regular basis and if one does then apply and get yourself out of that envirnment.

 

It may be that the dynamics of the working relationship between the husband and wife has changed and is spilling over into their home life so in one of them's mind something must change.

 

Are the "incidents" H&S office related things or are they things reported into the office from elsewhere? Ie, f someone tripped on a cable and no injury or damage caused then many organisations would feel that there is nothing to report whereas other individuals would consider that is the most dangerous thing that could have led to seriosu injury etc and will bang on about it. If external then was it a non event or a non actionable event. Again, people will see this differently.

 

Genrally if one was doing a safety audit you would mention the trip hazard but it wouldnt be considered an injury and may not be a dangerous occurrence depending on what was being done a the time (cable across walkway dangerous, trip over cable behind desk whist retrieving dropped pencil wouldnt be).

 

However not reporting still wouldnt be a sacking offence

 

It was something seen externally but not reported, but reported in log, so they have decided their was nothing to report but have now added another allegation of falsifying the report which is ludicrous. No reason to falsify anything the whole event was a non starter. The original allegations were failing to report and failure in public safety, now they agree there was nothing to report in the first place but have decided The way I wrote it in the log was lying. The female colleague I work with put the original complaint in against me. Your right I need to get out of that environment. I think they are trying to justify having me under investigation for so long so have to be seen to get me on something.

Edited by Witchhunted
Link to post
Share on other sites

Send a bunch of roses to the woman anonymously and you will see that the attention will immediately switch away from you.

Then you can calmly look for another position.

Husband and wife in same office ALWAYS ends in tears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send a bunch of roses to the woman anonymously and you will see that the attention will immediately switch away from you.

Then you can calmly look for another position.

Husband and wife in same office ALWAYS ends in tears.

 

I almost never agree with king but this would be hilarious. Needs a mate at a safe distance like Australia to send the flowers tho ...

 

However, in reality, I'd just find another position.

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

Send a bunch of roses to the woman anonymously and you will see that the attention will immediately switch away from you.

Then you can calmly look for another position.

Husband and wife in same office ALWAYS ends in tears.

 

That’s brilliant. I have tried to get along with her, even bought her pandora earings for secret Santa, trying hard to fit in, I feel stupid now I know it’s her trying to slander me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost never agree with king but this would be hilarious. Needs a mate at a safe distance like Australia to send the flowers tho ...

 

However, in reality, I'd just find another position.

 

Been on the job hunt all day but need to prove my innocence first, as I have a great work record and don’t want it ruined.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been on the job hunt all day but need to prove my innocence first, as I have a great work record and don’t want it ruined.

 

It doesn't sound like the have an major infractions in mind, just a minor ticking off if indeed anything. I wouldn't let that stop you getting on with being happy elsewhere.

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

It doesn't sound like the have an major infractions in mind, just a minor ticking off if indeed anything. I wouldn't let that stop you getting on with being happy elsewhere.

 

It really feels like my manager is out to get me, if she can’t get me on one thing she will get me on another. This new allegation is minor but could be made out to be something it’s not. The way it is worded is scary. I almost want to stay to spite her but would be so unhappy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It really feels like my manager is out to get me, if she can’t get me on one thing she will get me on another. This new allegation is minor but could be made out to be something it’s not. The way it is worded is scary. I almost want to stay to spite her but would be so unhappy.

 

 

The best revenge is living well.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...