Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If Labour are elected I hope they go after everyone who made huge amounts of money out of this, by loading the company with debt. The sad thing is that some pension schemes, including the universities one, USS, will lose money along with customers.
    • What's the reason for not wanting a smart meter? Personally I'm saving a pile on a tariff only available with one. Today electricity is 17.17p/kWh. If the meter is truly past its certification date the supplier is obliged to replace it. If you refuse to allow this then eventually they'll get warrant and do so by force. Certified life varies between models and generations, some only 10 or 15 years, some older types as long as 40 years or maybe even more. Your meter should have its certified start date marked somewhere so if you doubt the supplier you can look up the certified life and cross check.
    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
  • 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

Part Time Contractor Redundancy due to Business Site Relocation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2069 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

Hello all,

 

Posting on behalf of a work colleague. Have passed them site details and suggested they register themselves.

 

The person in question works as a cleaner for a third party company who have a contact with our business.

 

Our business is part of a much larger group who are currently restructuring.

 

As part of the restructure, our business is moving from its current facility to a new shared site along with other parts of the organisation.

 

For this reason our contract with the cleaning company is due be terminated.

 

This now leaves the cleaner, who has 8 years service at this site, all be it possibly with differing cleaning comapanies.

By this I mean that although the contracted agent has maybe changed it has always been the person holding the position and performing the duties. They have essentially moved with the contact.

 

They have now been informed that once the closes they are basically redundant.

It is also being claimed they they are not entitled to any redundancy as it not them, her employer (cleaning company) who are making them redundant but us as we the ones moving site.

 

No other positions are available for them to be relocated / transferred to.

 

What are their rights in this case ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick edit on the above.

The contract has been held by the same company for the 8 years in question and the cleaner has been employed and posted here for the duration of this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little further information.

 

They have been employed with the same company for 8 to 9 years, have only ever been located in this current building.

 

For the past 4 years plus have been working 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. A total of 30 hrs a week.

 

They are not sure of they have a written contract etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little further information.

 

They have been employed with the same company for 8 to 9 years, have only ever been located in this current building.

 

For the past 4 years plus have been working 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. A total of 30 hrs a week.

 

They are not sure of they have a written contract etc.

 

The problem is that many cleaners are on zero hours contacts (workers, not employees) or self employed. We rally cannot guess at this. The differences are enormous, because only employees are entitled too redundancy pay at all, but they're are other issues, for example TUPE, which may apply. If this person posted themselves, and if they knew the answers to some of this, we might be able to help. But giving advice to a third party who doesn't know anything about it isn't going to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, as thay are employed by a contractor the contractor has a choice of redeploying or redundancy. Problem with this particular sector is that many employees are foreign so dont understand their rights and so are told they are now unemployed as the result of the loss of that contract when that isnt actually the whole story.

Probably not a zero hours contract but TUPE'd many times but thatwont cahnge things as far as rights go. However, start redundancy isnt very generous and employers in this sector like to redeploy and the didmiss for spurious reasons rather than pay up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turns out they have a written contract stipulating working hours among some other details.

 

They have been told there is no chance of redeployment as there are no other sites available and that they will be "made redundant".

 

It will only be statutory but that is better than nothing the employer first claimed was payable having seen their error.

 

They are now in line to receive 8 years worth of redundancy along with any outstanding holiday pay etc.

 

A happy, successful and correct outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...