Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • 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 (as trustee and leaseholder) 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.
  • 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

Work investigation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2031 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

I intend to raise a grievance if and when it goes to disciplinary naturally but I was trying to hold out for them to come back and say investagtion found that there was no case to answer. I spoke to an employment solicitor about 6 months ago and they said if i resigned i would have case for constructive dismissal as they have not followed there correct procedures by not calling me for meeting months ago and keeping me away from work for so long has made it very hard for me to go back to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had any sort of proof that you committed fraud you would've been out of the door months ago.

This is the classic case that nobody wants to touch because it inevitably leads to embarrassment.

They know you haven't done anything wrong and no manager wants to face you to apologise because they know a serious grievance would follow.

If you think they'll be offering redundancy soon, one more reason to remain employed by them.

In fact that could be the best solution: they offer you redundancy, you accept it, they never resolve the fraud allegation and everyone is happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou King. I believe you have exactly understood what my issue was. When I mentioned redundancy though I actually meant a severance pay equivalent to what a tribunal would award. As much as it's not so much about the money as me walking away with some sort of pride after how they have made me feel in the last year as if I wasn't important enough to deal with this issue in a speedy manner..I believe they started the process and when police refused it they don't know how you get themselves out of it now as you say. Do you see the point I was making that if I went for constructive dismissal why I would have a good chance or would you advise me to sit tight. Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience people vastly overstate their chances of winning a tribunal. You insist on sitting where you are so that you can win a big tribunal award. Tribunal awards are NEVER as big as people think. And people lose more often than they win. You have another job. Bird in hand? Or risk it all INCLUDING a reference that says you were dismissed? Or more? That guarantees nobody wants to offer your another job? Be very careful what you wish for. One seldom gets it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I intend to raise a grievance if and when it goes to disciplinary naturally but I was trying to hold out for them to come back and say investagtion found that there was no case to answer. I spoke to an employment solicitor about 6 months ago and they said if i resigned i would have case for constructive dismissal as they have not followed there correct procedures by not calling me for meeting months ago and keeping me away from work for so long has made it very hard for me to go back to.

 

So you were advised to resign 6 months ago and claim constructive unfair dismissal (CUD) and it's now been 11 months since you were suspended?

 

You need to act promptly to claim CUD and there's a real risk that a tribunal would now say that you've accepted the situation and your CUD claim would fail.

 

You need to go back to the solicitors for further professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sangie it's not about sitting where I am. I didn't ask to be in this position. Im just asking to be treated fairly and by them taking a year to clear me of wrong doing they are not following there correct procedures..a tribunal if reached that stage does not look at whether You Were guilty or innocent which sadends me but whether they followed correct procedures..I am hoping that it won't come to that but for my own sanity I have to fight it to the end

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ganymede yes I understand what your saying..When advised that 6 months ago I just kept hoping that situation would get resolved without having to resign . I've had my investagtion meeting now so going to see what comes from it saying I've waited this length of time and if it goes to disciplinary stage I will go back to solicitor. Thanks for good advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I now get a fuller picture of your situation

To claim CD there needs to be a Repudiatory Breach

Clearly, there has been one (long period of investigation)

However, you seem to have accepted the breach via your delay in resigning

While there is, sometimes, a defence in delay eg you tried to get a new job

That doesn't seem to be the case here

You delayed because you wanted the situation resolved

You rested on your rights (Laches)

You need a lawyer if you wish to go down the route of Constructive Dismissal

A lawyer is the best person to tell you if your case has merit or not

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dondada. Do you think I should just sit tight then and let them go through there procedures and if dismisses go for unfair dismissal as this seems to be an easier case to win as the onus apparently is on then then to prove they followed a fair procedure. It wasn't that I had accepted the situation as in the last year I can prove that I have been constantly contacting asking for updates and this was even referee to at my investagtion meeting and was told that they would start and keep contact with me. They are in process of calling other witnesses now that I have stated could back me up on my defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dondada. Do you think I should just sit tight then and let them go through there procedures and if dismisses go for unfair dismissal as this seems to be an easier case to win as the onus apparently is on then then to prove they followed a fair procedure. It wasn't that I had accepted the situation as in the last year I can prove that I have been constantly contacting asking for updates and this was even referee to at my investagtion meeting and was told that they would start and keep contact with me. They are in process of calling other witnesses now that I have stated could back me up on my defence.

 

 

Yes that is what I would say; sit tight and let them dismiss you then the burden is on them

I would raise the question of if a fair hearing is still possible

The investigation took too long

I personally don't think they would dismiss you again

But you never know, some people would do the most stupid thing

However, if they don't dismiss you I would suggest that you stay with them

You have 16 years there and you have protection

Go somewhere else and you would just be starting

I know you are angry and it is justifiable but also think long term

What is best for you and what is best for your family

Whatever you do, keep asking for updates

Finally, do a little research on Article 6 ECHR and point out that the long delay has prejudice a fair hearing

Do a little research first so that you say the right things

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously dondada I have researched every site on the internet in the past year. The first 9 months was sheer hell as I wasn't been told anything. When I finally got my investagtion meeting 3 weeks ago I would hardly let them take a break as said I had waited to long on this day coming. The only thing about going back is ibwould have to work with my supervisor that made the allegation even though I thought world of her. In fairness id be happy to move on now as in a different star in my life as family grew up now so I can spread my wings.lol..I know folk think I should just walk away but guess it is the stubbornness in me to let let them away with treating the ordinary worker like rubbish and the mental stress this has caused me coming from a small community where folk would be always thinking there's no smoke without fire..Thankyou for your valued sensible non judgemental advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...