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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1856 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

Having been of work for 2 months with depression (GP sick note states this) following a work OH assessment, I've been called in for a capability meeting.

 

The OH Dr believed due to "depression" I'd be better off back in work, therefore, he stated to my employer I'm fit for work.

 

I've spoken to my GP about this, my GP disagrees, currently, my GP advice, I'm still not fit for work.

 

Who takes precedence with my employer, the OH Dr who stated I'm fit for work, or my GP who states I'm not fit for work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you authorise OH to discuss with your GP?

 

Your GP's sign off takes precedence in the sense of entitlement to statutory sick pay, but being signed off doesn't stop your employer starting sickness capability proceedings in line with their sickness absence policy. And ultimately they could dismiss you although it sounds as if there's a way to go before it got to that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically your employer can ignore both as its advice. The test is when it gets to ET but action to avoid that is good. Have you been for a chat with your boss?

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 for all the replies, no, as yet, I've not been called in for a chat

 

 

you are allowed to suggest it yourself!

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Has your GP referred you to any specialist? I might be inclined to ask the Employer for a list of the qualifications of the OH advisor to see how they stack up.

 

Also, is your depression caused by work or work related? Or completely independent? (not asking for specifics of course).

 

Then the question is how far do you wish to take it? You could remind your employer that if they cause you harm acting against the advice of your GP they will be liable....

Edited by JasJules
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has your GP referred you to any specialist?

 

 

Yes, MH team

 

 

Also, is your depression caused by work or work related?

 

 

It's personal issues within the workforce based on assumption.

 

You could remind your employer that if they cause you harm acting against the advice of your GP they will be liable....?

 

 

Can I ask out of curiosity, what can they be liable for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Following ET proceedings with my previous emoployer, I accepted an out of court settlemet, part of that my employer will provide a reference if requested

I'm unsure what reason to give on future applications, "reason for leaving"

Clearly, being honest and disclosing why I left, is not going to place me favourable.

Any advice please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Provided you don't lie about anything when asked (like amounts off sick leave), a settlement agreement is a "mutually agreed termination". The terms of your agreement may state that you can't disclose anything else- that's a common term, but not always included. I wouldn't strongly advise saying anything else anyway. As you have stated, the more information you give, the more it may detract from your employment prospects. Unfortunately, even a mutually agreed termination is a give away - it means there was a dispute, but not what the dispute was. 

I presume you were not advised on this - the majority of negotiated settlements would include the actual wording of the agreed reference, and you don't seem to suggest this was the case. So the employer could very easily disclose anything true, including matters to your detriment. So you may need to be prepared for questions about your sick leave or reasons for leaving anyway. That does depend on the potential employer and how they take what would be, to many, red flags. 

Some people go through a period of agency working to cover the termination and build a new reference base. But that doesn't suit everyone. 

But the one thing is always say is never tell a lie or mislead. Inevitably they find out, and that is never a good thing to happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Why don't you want to tell future employers about your health issues, or is it something else?

The health issues I experienced was instigated due to the issues I was experiencing at work, as my employer failed to find in my favour following the grievance procedure, the end result being I took my employer to an ET, I'm concerned this may put off any potential employer

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sangie595 said:

I presume you were not advised on this - No I wasn't

I had an emploment solicitor paid for at my own expense, Ii didn't feel was best supported or advised.

But the one thing is always say is never tell a lie or mislead. Inevitably they find out, and that is never a good thing to happen - I wouldn't lie, I'd like the chance to explain why I left, however, I'm just not sure what to state as reson for leaving when applying for a position.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not going to want to hear this, but I'm going to tell you anyway because it's important that you understand the position you are in. You should have been told this by your solicitor. 

The health issues you have had, officially, have nothing whatsoever to do with your former employment. That they do is your allegation. It is an unproven allegation. A settlement agreement is not an admission of guilt. It is a neutral (unless the agreement says otherwise) settlement on economic grounds ( it's cheaper to pay you off than go to a tribunal). If the agreement states that you cannot disclose circumstances (and I don't know whether it does or not) then you cannot explain anything other than that you left. If it does not, then you can say whatever you like, but there can be consequences. 

Firstly, your previous employer can find out what you are saying and accuse you of lying - there are two sides to this story and both are equally valid because there is no finding of evidence in the matter. That could result in just a slanging match. It might result in legal action against you, depending on what you say. It not uncommonly results in untraceable and unevidenced telephone conversations between former employers and potential or new employers; and nothing that will be said in those telephone calls that haven't happened will be complimentary about you.

Secondly, most employers don't relish hearing you criticise your last employer and painting yourself the victim. They especially don't want to hear that you put in a claim to a tribunal. Many will wonder if you are the employee from hell. Just as there are employers from hell, there are employees from hell. You don't want to be viewed as potentially being one of them. It doesn't matter what the truth is. They don't really wish to know. 

The bottom line is that unless you are exceptional, a much sought after skill set, and vastly experienced over and above everyone else in your line of work, there will be other candidates who come with no question marks and no baggage. A great many employers prefer those candidates. Not all. But a great many. 

So your options are that you say you resigned (I assume that you did), that there was a mutually agreed termination (which is the common term used to explain a settlement agreement), or you provide a long and convoluted self-justification for your circumstances. Assuming every word of the latter is true (and I'm assuming that you will tell the truth, at least from your perspective) the chances are high that you are shooting yourself in the foot with potential employers. I'd strongly recommend that the least said is the better option. You can simply add "for personal reasons" and leave it at that if you wish. 

Unfortunately, what you won't be able to do is to exert any control over what your former employers say. Provided what they (officially) say is true, then they have a wide degree of latitude to disclose your sickness record, the fact that you made a tribunal claim, or anything else that they wish. I would therefore suggest that the fewer question they might be asked by a potential employer, the better it is for you. It's too late to change the circumstances, but I'd never let someone enter into a settlement agreement without an agreed reference and binding agreement that that would be the only thing an employer says. It's not foolproof, but it usually works. 

Of course, I said, the other option is to find a (legitimate) way of having a new reference. The most common way of doing that is to do agency work, since agencies are often less pedantic about former employers saying nice things about you, and telling them the truth is less risky- they have less at risk when taking you on so they care less. 

There no advice anyone could give you that's foolproof. That's the problem. You could luckily trip over the greatest employer in the world who is fine with everything you tell them, doesn't hold it against you, and wants to give you a chance. They exist. Regrettably, they don't have badges, so you might kiss a lot of toads before you find one of them. So the best I can really come up with is don't mislead or lie, and I'd advise keeping it as short  and sweet as possible, disclosing as little as possible, and certainly not discussing how bad your former employers were or how you had to make a tribunal claim. Without an actual tribunal finding, all of that is nothing more than hearsay.

 

Edited by sangie5952
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your honesty.

What took place with my former employer is personal to me, I'd rather not elaborate on the issues to any potential employer, I’ve recovered, departed with them and moved on.

I had over 10 years service with my previous employer, and had an explanatory record; issues only arose in the last 12 months due to my personal circumstances changing (not affecting my role or requirements)

I signed an agreement not to disclose the contents or details of the agreement, I believe this was binding on both sides.

As I mentioned earlier, the "employment solicitor" I hired, didn't fulfil me with confidence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have to disclose the details of the agreement. They can disclose your sickness record, your claim to tribunal, and anything that isn't part of the agreement.

I don't know what had happened here, and it's probably too late to make a difference. I think you should either go with agency working, and/ or you resigned for personal  reasons but are no longer in the same situation. That is true. But it leaves a door open for the employer to interpret it as needing to give up working for some other reason that is in the past. Assuming your reference is ok, they probably won't think much more of it. I can't guarantee that, obviously. But it's probably the best you  can get. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Thank you, I think stating "I resigned for personal reasons but are no longer in the same situation" is a good reason for why I left.

I'm currently doing agency work, the role I'm currently doing is basic, and doesn't equate to the senior position I held with my previous employer,  I took agency work to get myself back into a work routine.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a response prepared though if an employer asks you to expand on what you mean by "personal reasons". Interviewers know well that it's a phrase that can cover - and hide - a whole range of things and they will often what to know more. "Personal reasons" ultimately means little - everyone who has chosen to leave their job voluntarily has left for "personal reasons".

Edited by Ethel Street
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...