Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2027 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

My GP has said I'm fit to return to work and has signed a sick note to this effect, but my employer's OH doctor recommends my employer commissions a report from a neuro psychologist prior to any return.

 

As I'm fit to return I do not believe I should have to take any delay as annual leave and it can't be classed as sick leave, as I'm considered fit to work. What is the solution? Would this be "garden" leave?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Have they said it will be annual leave ?

 

Normally in this situation, a company will just pay you as normal similar to garden leave and you return to work when the employers OH are satisfied that you are safe to return to work. The reason it would not be annual leave, is that from a health and wellbeing point of view it would not be sensible or good practice to see your holiday time eaten up. You will need leave time during the year, so you have opportunity to recharge your batteries during the working year.

 

Suggest you contact your employers line manager to discuss and obtain written confirmation of the exact position.

Edited by dx100uk
quote

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

"garden leave" is when you are not working yoru notice but need to be available

 

this is "medical suspension" and most organisations would resume wages

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

Check in your Employment Contract for anything on Sicknesss/illness/Capability also check the Company Employees Handbook if they have one.

 

Are they using their Capability Policy???

 

1. When did you start employment with this Company?

 

2. How long have you been Employed with this Company to date?

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

are you currently being paid sick leave? if so i wouldnt expect that to change. If not then it can be read as you are currently suspended pending the outcome of a medical and they should pay you as they would be obliged to do so for any other reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it's the Easter weekend it's too soon for HR to have communicated with me so unable to respond with any detail. I hope to be hearing something this next week so shall post HRs response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the it will continue until they have done their deliberations. If they then refuse to let you return to work they should start proceeding to dismiss you on capability grounds or arrange a return t work in some graded return scheme agreed by OH and yourself. ita may be light duties or shorter hours but they cant do nothing and refuse to pay you,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received a letter stating I would be on half pay from now on. @phoned HR but the person I need to speak to is on leave.

 

 

Dear company,

 

as you are aware my doctor has signed me on as fit to work

 

I have been waiting for X weeks at your request for an additional medical check. I am fit and fully able to resume duties, yet about to be put on half pay.

 

This feels discriminatory. Please confirm I am in fact on medical suspension at your request and will continue to receive full pay, or confirm I can recommence duties immediately.

 

Yours,

 

you.

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

More news on this.

 

Today I received an email from HR. They say I am now on half pay because the Occupational Health doctor's recommendation that I have a psychological assessment, takes precedence over my GP who maintains I am medically fit to return to work on a phased return.

 

In addition it has been 17 days since my employer received the OH report and the recommendation but today they are finally making the actual referral.

 

I now feel compelled to seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they think you have a mental health concern going in heavy handed may simply confirm their prejudice. I would send the letter first....

  • Haha 1

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

An update.

 

I'm on half pay while awaiting the psychological assessment suggested by the OH doctor.

 

My employer says it would be too risky for me to return to the workplace without back to work suggestions from the psychologist (I've only had a stroke six months ago!).

 

Despite my argument that this is medical suspension and my GP saying I'm fit to return, my employer has overruled my GP.

My union say I have no option than to go along with what's happening and see my GP to ask him to say I'm sick with work related stress..

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

what good will seeing your GP do?

 

push hard, very day, for that OH appointment. Not having it is costing you.

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

If I might make an observation that had not been contributed hitherto, but which will cast some light on the subject,

 

whilst in no way suggesting that the employer is "morally correct", it should be pointed out that they are legally correct and the OP is laboring under a misapprehension that they have been signed as fit for work by their doctor.

According to what the OP says here, that is not what the GP has said.

 

"Fit for work" means returning 100% to your full job with all duties and hours. That is not what the GP said.

The for note must therefore say "may be fit for work on a phased return" or words to that effect.

 

That is ADVICE to the employer, so they are not refusing to accept the GP diagnosis or overruling it.

They are simply choosing not to comply with the advice.

 

In order for this to be a medical suspension, the employer must refuse permission to return to the FULL job in all its glory.

If the GP is willing to provide a fit note that says they are fully fit with no exceptions, then if the employer ignores that it becomes a medical suspension.

The unions hands are tied at the moment. The employer is legally correct.

Edited by sangie5952
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Sangie595 - my fit note says I'm to return on a phased basis though, as you say, my employer has overruled the GP's opinion and has a right to do so. However, the OH doctor who suggested a neuropsychological assessment following my stroke could be carried out concurrently with a return to the workplace. The employer has chosen not to do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's the problem - they have a right to do so.

The OH doctor also only gives advice.

 

I don't know if it's an agenda, or just being super cautious.

I don't have the information to make an informed guess about that.

 

What I can say is that the employer is acting within the law.

Nothing there to see ... Yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further update

 

For some strange reason my employer is now allowing me back on a phased basis prior to the neuropsychological assessment. I'm unsure what to think about this! At least my return will put me back on full pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be the bearer of bad news,

but are you sure it does that?

 

Many employers did not pay full pay on a phased return

- they pay the rate that is earned,

so if you work half the week,

you get half the pay.

 

Many people don't notice that is the case because they have company sick pay,

and that makes up the balance.

 

In effect they are being paid part salary and pay sick pay.

 

If you have sick pay,

it amounts to the same pay so nobody notices or cares.

 

But since your company sick pay had run out,

it might not be full pay unless your terms specify that.

You need to check

- don't assume.

Edited by sangie5952
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I intend to represent myself at a tribunal if the initial intervention of ACAS fails. I'm seeking £1600 of deductions from my salary that my employer took and is a failure of adhering to their own policy.

 

I don't feel it's worth employing a legal representative and want to do it myself but would appreciate any tips.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...