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

not been paid holidays and confidential information leaked


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1924 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 started over a year ago with the company and i was told not entitled to holiday pay as casual and 0 hours, so got not holiday pay at all,

 

recently had someone i know who use to work at a union and they asked about my job and i told them everything and they said no you're entitled to holiday pay

 

they showed me how to work it out and turns out I'm owed £300, told my manager who informed wages, had half my payment. rest next week.

 

But I'm wondering if i can get last years holiday pay owed to me as it works out at £100 owed?

 

also When I started a few days later i received a message of someone who I had not heard of in a long time, asking if I had started working for them,

 

I asked how they know, and they said they had a call from someone at the company asking about me! but yet no one knew i was working for this company that knew this person, (this person use to work for the company many years ago)

 

I've mentioned it to my manager who told me to ignore it, I kind of have but it really plays on my mind wondering what else is said to this person as we do not communicate, or to anyone else.

 

Since I raised my holiday entitlement Ive since been told that my Sunday shifts are voluntary and that should not be taken into account, (I mainly work Sundays as no other shifts during week, so no wages if I don't),

 

Ive been told my hair needs to be different in how I put it up (never had issues before) been made to feel guilty if don't take overtime, not had an expenses traveling to other shops like i was told at start i would but then they took it away as they found out I drive,

 

I've had £271 in expenses for parking alone and bus tickets, this would never have occurred as my contracted place is just around the corner.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are always entitled to Holiday Pay - If you are 0 hours - I believe it might be worked out Pro Rata

So they are making life particularly difficult? Is looking for another job an option with your location?

 

It seems they might be taking advantage of you - What does you contract say?

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are certainly entitled to holiday - not holiday pay! There is an important difference. Payment instead of holiday is unlawful, although obviously it takes someone to complain about it and you aren't likely to do that! The only time that payment instead of paid holiday is lawful is when you are finishing a job.

 

That distinction is important, because it impacts on your question about recovering the previous years money. You weren't entitled to the money. You were entitled to the paid holiday. And paid holiday is "use it or lose it" - if you don't take it, then it is lost. Now I know you didn't know you could get paid holiday, but unfortunately, the law says that not knowing your rights is your fault- you have rights and its your responsibility to know them. So you can ask for payment, but you can't enforce payment.

 

As for the rest, well I think the writing is on the wall. You've worked there a year - even if you are an employee (which I can't be certain about), you have no employment protection. If you are truly casual, then you have even less! If they wish to tell you how to do your hair, then that's how you do your hair. Since you are casual don't have to accept any shifts, so if you don't want to work certain hours or locations, that's up to you. But they don't have to pay for you to go to those locations either. But I cannot see the basis for their argument about Sundays - that appears to be incorrect since all your shifts are voluntary! A casual worker doesn't have to accept any shifts!

 

I'm sure that they are being akward because you have realised that you are entitled to paid holiday. But I'm afraid that "being awkward" is unpleasant, not unlawful. I'd suggest that you get another job as soon as possible. I don't see this resolving happily, and much of what you want - the travel expenses in particular - you have no legal right to. So if you wish to refuse the shifts at other locations because of cost, that is up to you. But you'll be without a shift, and I suspect that is the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ps, sorry I missed one point. Where you work, even if you could prove what you are saying, isn't confidential information. I'm entitled to phone anyone I like about you. It's up to them whether they answer or not! I frequently call people and ask about other people - it's part of my job! There's nothing illegal about that. Although I understand that it's the bigger picture you are really unsettled by. And you are probably right to be. Unfortunately, as I said, that's almost certainly intentional on the employers part, but not obviously unlawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

deffo taking advantage of me, but i'm looking for other work need something with set hours, was offered it at another side and said yes, but my manager at contract job said no as i need them here for cover, but i was eager for the other one, and i tried to make it clear would be better for me, my area manager then said that i had sent a message to my contracted manager to say i didn't want it but i proof of other stating i do.

 

I'm upset as I feel as i was taken advantage of due to the situation at the time of taking employment.

 

thanks for the advice guys, hopefully new job soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are describing isn't unheard of.

 

Unfortunately, within a single employer, even if another manager wants you, there's no legal redress if the employer says no.

 

In the end, it comes down to the luck of the draw.

Another employer, the more senior managers might support you. In this case they don't.

 

Given the circumstances, a new start would probably be preferable. It sounds like the kind of place that isn't going to hand out any awards for knowing (or learning of) your rights. That kind of thing can follow you anyway.

 

Given that your holiday is a pitiful amount (i'm sure that you don't see it that way, but in the grand scheme of things it is!) then any reasonable employer, and even a fair few unreasonable ones, would put their hands up and admit it was a mistake and sort it out without any fuss.

 

The fact they won't should tell you a lot about how they'd react over something more important than a small amount of money.

Edited by sangie5952
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree about union membership, if I am understanding the OP correctly, they pretty much only work one day a week. Unless they are on a lot more money than I think they are, even part time union fees may be more than they are willing to pay. It might be a false economy, but only they can decide that. Personally, I'd always pay the union and save on something else, but that's me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

basically paid leave is 12% of your hours worked for the year. Work it out and send them a demand they pay up. Shift pattern irrelevant. I disagree with Sangie on this point if you were denied the leave or told you werent entitled, tyou are entitled to the money in lieu

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree about union membership, if I am understanding the OP correctly, they pretty much only work one day a week. Unless they are on a lot more money than I think they are, even part time union fees may be more than they are willing to pay. It might be a false economy, but only they can decide that. Personally, I'd always pay the union and save on something else, but that's me.

 

Good points, Sangie.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

basically paid leave is 12% of your hours worked for the year. Work it out and send them a demand they pay up. Shift pattern irrelevant. I disagree with Sangie on this point if you were denied the leave or told you werent entitled, tyou are entitled to the money in lieu

 

Sorry but you are incorrect. Legally. The OP is expected to know the law. It's maybe not fair, but life isn't. This relates to annual leave which should have been taken last year - the law is also clear that leave not taken is lost unless there is a legal agreement to the contrary. And such an agreement can only relate to extrastatutory leave, not statutory leave.

 

And I will also repeat. Nobody is entitled to pay instead of annual leave unless there is an untaken amount of accrued holiday when the relationship is terminated.

 

That said, as I said, I agree that the OP can demand it. What they cannot do is enforce that demand. What you are suggesting is "fair" - but it isn't "legal". Sometimes you can get away with things. Sometimes you can't. But the OP would lose a court/tribunal on legal grounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...