Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
    • The Barclay Card conditions is complete. There was only 3 pages. This had old address on. Full CCA. 15 pages. The only personal info is my name and address. Current Address The rest just like a generic document.  Barclays CCA 260424.pdf
  • 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 2170 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...