Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
  • 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

Is this garden leave??***Resolved***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2020 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

dondada,

 

just quoting cases is like taking someone to a law library and saying "look at all the books!"

 

What is helpful is highlighting the specific circumstances of the ruling, the specific point of law, and in what way they are like the posters case. If they posters case does not rely on the same point of law, then they are not useful cases.

 

G4S versus Powell probably does not apply here, because it concerned a case of disability. Illness is not disability except in very specific circumstances.

 

 

The OP said he had stroke about 6 months ago.The govt guidelines list stroke as long term impairment deemed a disability

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance

 

It is on page 8 G4S v Powell is clearly applicable to his case

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The OP said he had stroke about 6 months agoThe govt guidelines list stroke as long term impairment deemed a disability

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance

 

 

It is on page 8 G4S v Powell is clearly applicable to his case

 

I am afraid your reading comprehension is flawed. That page says disability CAN arise from a stroke, not that it DOES ALWAYS. Indeed I know a large number of people who have made a full recovery from a stroke and gone on to live very active and fulfilling lives. I hope this also happens for the OP.

 

So unless OP can give is a fuller view on the condition and if it meets the legal definition of disability, I am afraid further case law is of no relevance.

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

By the way, I thought other readers might like a summary of the case referred o

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/the-10-most-important-employment-law-cases-in-2016/

 

6. Pay protection can be a reasonable adjustment

 

G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell (EAT)

 

What happens to the pay of a disabled employee who is moved to a new role because he or she is unable to continue in an old role?

 

In Powell, a maintenance engineer developed back problems and retained his existing terms and conditions, but moved to the lesser role of “key runner”.

 

However, a dispute arose after his employer said that it would only keep the role, which it said was designed to be temporary, if he agreed to a reduction in pay.

 

In the engineer’s subsequent disability discrimination claim, the EAT accepted that, while not an “everyday event”, there is no reason why pay protection cannot be a reasonable adjustment as part of a package of measures to get an employee back to work.“

 

You will see from the wording that pay protection is seen, in some cases, as a reasonable adjustment to help an employee back to work, but it is by no means suggested it applies in every case, or is necessary in every case. More explicitly “However, it also said that the question of whether it was reasonable for that particular employer was separate and should be considered on a case-by-case basis” (http://dixcartlegal.com/articles/employment/disability-reasonable-adjustments-can-include-protecting-pay)

 

So it would be nothing short of reckless to encourage people, even those with a clearly evidenced disability, to rely on this case law.

 

Dondada, I think if you are going to ask Sangie to quote laws to support their advice, your own evidence needs to be of a much higher quality too. Otherwise people will be confused and misguided. This should, to my mind, be a place for help and support, not debating club. Usually I’ve got better things to do than hunt down and refute inappropriate case law, but when I have time, I’ll keep doing it, so people are well informed.

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

On the Equality Act note, I also have type 1 diabetes that was declared to my employer 21 years ago when I was appointed but they have never asked about reasonable adjustments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will see from the wording that pay protection is seen, in some cases, as a reasonable adjustment to help an employee back to work, but it is by no means suggested it applies in every case, or is necessary in every case. More explicitly “However, it also said that the question of whether it was reasonable for that particular employer was separate and should be considered on a case-by-case basis” (http://dixcartlegal.com/articles/employment/disability-reasonable-adjustments-can-include-protecting-pay)

 

.

 

 

Thank you for bringing this out as it illustrates my point "Case by case basis", I take that to mean it is fact sensitive.The OP (and others) in similar circumstances are now aware that Pay Protection COULD be a reasonable adjustment.Since they alone know the facts of their cases, they would then read the case law and see if it applies to their own case.

 

 

 

It is very annoying when people insult the intelligence of others because they asked a simple question.The OP is intelligent enough to research any Case Law and decide if it applies to him.

 

Let him do so, please

Edited by Andyorch
Quote reduced and response formatted.
Link to post
Share on other sites

no such requirement 21 years ago and the EA didnt exist either and they arent expected to be clairvoyant.

 

Pick your battles carefully.

 

 

On the Equality Act note, I also have type 1 diabetes that was declared to my employer 21 years ago when I was appointed but they have never asked about reasonable adjustments.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to ericsbrother and the point he made - wouldn't any employer, irrelevant of the length of time in charge of an employee, be required to be cognisant of any legislative changes and be required to implement such according to such members of the affected workforce?

 

Dondada has inspired me to continue my claim - thank you.

 

Going back to my recent post - where can I learn about representing myself should this end up at an EAT?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you attended an ET or EAT? I know for an ET you can attend a local one, not sure about second tier hearings.

 

Edit: As far as I can see you haven't confirmed whether this is an employment tribunal or an employment appeal tribunal.

 

 

HB

Edited by honeybee13

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to ericsbrother and the point he made - wouldn't any employer, irrelevant of the length of time in charge of an employee, be required to be cognisant of any legislative changes and be required to implement such according to such members of the affected workforce?

 

 

In 21 years, have you ever needed an adjustment to accomodate your diabetes? I have MS but don't really need them to do anything abiout it.... managing my condition is currently down to me!

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

so when did you raise this with them as an issue for consideration, the day after the new laws came in?

 

they will be aware of the laws but not aware that you may have diabetes because it is none of their business unless you request some consideration for a disability as a result of this condition.

 

You cant bring up things after you have left and then say that they werent considered so it is now unfair and you want some recompense.

 

Can you show an example of where your diabetes was a factor in some disciplinary matter? If not you would be wise to move on to the next point

 

As someone who retired early because of health grounds I can say that it is an absolute devil to get anywhere by expecting anyone to give a stuff about your condition.

 

I too have MS but one OH doctors report said that I shouldnt get an enhanced pension because they may find a cure for it before my normal retirement date and as for a missing leg, the prosthetics are so good these days they are better than real ones. well if that is true why wasnt Oscar Pistorius a word famous roofer rather than runner?

 

I have taken organisations to court for disability discrimination and won one and lost one.

 

You will find that because of the nature of your claim that it may well take 3 years to get to then end of the matter.

 

Do you want to spend the time doing that rather than something else.

As said, choose your battle carefully. A small victory over procedural matters is better than a big disappointment.

 

 

In reply to ericsbrother and the point he made - wouldn't any employer, irrelevant of the length of time in charge of an employee, be required to be cognisant of any legislative changes and be required to implement such according to such members of the affected workforce?

 

Dondada has inspired me to continue my claim - thank you.

 

Going back to my recent post - where can I learn about representing myself should this end up at an EAT?

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to ericsbrother and the point he made - wouldn't any employer, irrelevant of the length of time in charge of an employee, be required to be cognisant of any legislative changes and be required to implement such according to such members of the affected workforce?

 

Dondada has inspired me to continue my claim - thank you.

 

Going back to my recent post - where can I learn about representing myself should this end up at an EAT?

 

Hi Andyasw,

 

Yes the Equality Act wasn't in place at the time you were employed However, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was in place when you were employed

Yes, there was a duty to make adjustment.However, there is a legal principle called Laches, you waited too long

 

You have a strong case in the Deduction/Pay Protection Claim.Pay Protection is an exception.Your employer ignored the Doctor's advice, that means you qualified for the exception

 

You need to first ask your employer for their reasons.The Tribunal would not be too happy if you didn't seek to resolve the issue.

 

Finally, you need to do a lot of research! G4S is a relevant case in your situation.But you need to also read cases where the Claimant lost.You need both cases to be able to distinguish your case

 

The other side would try and prove to the Judge that your case is similar to the one that lost.You need to know that case in order to show to the Judge the difference (the legal term is called "Distinguish") .Feel free to ask any question

 

Wish you all the best

Edited by dx100uk
Formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Dondada but where can I find such cases to read up on? Is there any particular website you would recommend?

 

The website I like using is https://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed31608

 

https://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=li0&p=4&s=pay%20protection

 

But you might like other websites.Just read as many case laws so you can distinguish your case

 

Wish you all the best .keep us updated

Link to post
Share on other sites

My case against my employer is now in the early conciliation process with ACAS.

 

 

Hopefully they will decide it's not worth the risk of expense of defending an ET and make an offer :) Fingers crossed!

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

Sadly not - ACAS have been in touch with my employer who is arguing that a return to work plan required planning as their opinion was that I could not return to full time working and that I agreed to a phased return and this is also what my GP had put on the fit note.

 

Seems like I haven't a case after all despite their sickness policy stating that if an employee believes they're fit to work but management do not then this is classed as medical suspension.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Since my last post I am now in receipt of an ACAS certificate and am therefore able to apply to an ET for a hearing.

I have consulted with employment lawyers who say I have a case for unauthorised deductions as a person covered under the Equality Act and that I should also claim for injury to feelingsfor the stress, anxiety and upset my employer has caused me during a period when I required support not punishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I would take their steer and let them get on with it :)

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

Since my last post I am now in receipt of an ACAS certificate and am therefore able to apply to an ET for a hearing.

I have consulted with employment lawyers who say I have a case for unauthorised deductions as a person covered under the Equality Act and that I should also claim for injury to feelingsfor the stress, anxiety and upset my employer has caused me during a period when I required support not punishment.

 

 

 

Well done to you:high5:

 

You listened to your gut and ignored the nay-sayers in your mind

 

Let the lawyers handle it from here

 

They are professionals and that would take the stress off you

 

I'm really pleased for you

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...