Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 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. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could 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.   
  • 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

removal of time off in lieu


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2169 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 all,

I work in the NHS, when we work overtime there are two methods of renumeration, we can take it as paid hours or take it as time off in lieu of overtime worked.

We are being told that if we do not use our toil within a certain time we lose the hours owed to us.

This to me is the same as saying "if you do not spend your overtime pay within a certain time we will take it back".

I can't see how they can legally do this as toil is a renumeration for hours worked, exactly the same as salary is, could this be a breach of contract?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this please.

 

Many thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cannot re take toil back.

In fact they cannot take ay hours off of you like annual leave you can roll over to the following year.

I'm a civil servant too and they tried this with us. Our union took them to tribunal and won

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cannot re take toil back.

In fact they cannot take ay hours off of you like annual leave you can roll over to the following year.

I'm a civil servant too and they tried this with us. Our union took them to tribunal and won

 

Sorry, but yes, actually they can they do - legally. YOUR employer is not the same as THEIR employer and the circumstances are different. Your advice is based on what your employer does, under your contact of employment, based on some specific points of law. The OP is not the same as you. What the OPs employer can or can't do is not based on what yours can do.

 

The OP needs to consult their own union, and their own terms of contract .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contracts will be different, granted but they will have similaritys.

 

Our government contract states yo can only carry over 70.2 hours of annual leave to the next year.

This was challenged by tribunal and judged to be unfair as it reduces the remuneration and working time directive. TOIL hours were also included.

So on that basis the situations are more or less the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not think toil was classed as annual leave as you earn it for overtime so it is in fact the same as payment, also the point is that they are taking it away after 3 months if not used, most people are not being granted toil within 3 months as we are short staffed!

Do you have any details of the tribunal as this could really help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are in the same predicament as you in regard that we build up toil hours and then struggle to take them for staffing issues.

Remember toil is hours you have ALREADY WORKED. So in effect they are saying take them or lose them. That means you could work for no pay.

That's the argument.

That's why it was put forward with the annual leave argument.

It was deemed at tribunal as unlawful even tho the contract said different. It comes under fairness and performance of contract and the work time directive.

Contact the POA

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to disagree then, because I think you will find that the OP will be losing a lot of time if they depend on this advice. The NHS is not the Prison Service, and the circumstances of the POAs case are very different.

 

It is, in fact, very simple for the OP. Do not "bank" hours. Use them. Or take the pay. The latter being an option very few people in public service have anyway. Three months is not an unreasonable amount of time to use up TOIL. There is no "end of year" deadline, as in the POA case, and that makes the critical difference. It was that deadline that made the system unfair, because people may have only worked the hours recently. That was actually the argument used. Had they had a rolling deadline, as the OPs employer is proposing, the tribunal would almost certainly have never happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fundamental issue was the same.

Bank toil hours due to operational needs

Try to use toil hours but are refused cos staff shortages

Lose toil hours after 3 months

 

You state use toil hours or take the pay... You cant take the pay, you have to take the hours as leave.

 

The POA case was primarily with annual leave roll over but had toil hours as a secondary issue.

 

All I can say is to the op is contact your union. Our situation was very similar and you need to fight it. If we hadn't we would of lost it. We fought and won.

On a side note on your overtime, the POA have just won a case that you can claim holiday pay on your overtime hours

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. The fundamental issue isn't the same. Your situation was intrinsically flawed as a policy. Had the employer been cleverer about it, they would have done it in exactly the same way as the OPs employer has. It is entirely reasonable and lawful (to say nothing of being very common) for the employer to have a policy which limits the banking of TOIL, providing that the employer does not make it impossible to take the TOIL. Of course, in the POA case, that is exactly what the employer did - made it impossible to take the leave and then removed it.

 

I do, however, agree that it is more likely that the union may be able to limit or mitigate the policy - assuming, of course, that they haven't agreed the policy!

 

The underlying problem in both cases is that the employers have depended on overtime to run basic services because they cannot or will not recruit sufficient staff, so the accumulation of massive amounts of TOIL simply makes it harder to deliver the service, not easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a practical note, it seems like taking time off may be best - have you asked them to confirm when you can take the time off?

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

Thank you all for the input, i will find out if there is an agreement on removal of toil and also cotact unison because there is a policy which says toil should be paid if it cannot be taken for operational reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

my OH gets offered TOIL to be taken in the a/l period (NHS)

I used to get TOIL (education) which could be banked for the following year as well as some people liked to go skiing or holiday in New Zealand or whatever. a limit was then put on how much you could bank to stop people disappearing for 3 months Currently my holiday apy is paid out at end of year but due to admin cock up am getting it 6 months late. Used to have to take it as paid a/l in school summer holiday (I'm not f/t or a teacher so we dont all get the 6 weeks summer hols)but that got changed.

I short, what you think is right may not be as the rules change without much fanfare about this so check first

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's much simpler than described above:

You work overtime and cumulate toil.

Put a request for this time before the 3 months deadline and give them a good notice.

If they can't release you because they're short staffed they have to pay you or let you carry the tool into next period.

Losing toil when you have followed the procedure and asked for this time off in writing is a contractual breach.

It's as simple as "you work and get paid, you can't work for free because they're short staffed and can't release you to take toil".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...