Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. MONX

    MONX

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      727


  2. crispybacon

    crispybacon

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      37


  3. kennythecelt

    kennythecelt

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      3,291


  4. Sunfl0wer

    Sunfl0wer

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      23


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 18/08/10 in all areas

  1. Those much reviled debt collectors, Lowell t/a Red Debt Collection, just shelled out thousands to an innocent person they harassed who told them they were chasing the wrong debtor. When the harassment continued, their 'victim' sued and won. Read the full judgment here: www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/docs/lowell_judgment.pdf Get the free DIY template so you can sue too: www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/docs/Lowell_Claim.pdf ... and get a big fat cheque like this: [LINK REMOVED - PLEASE BLOCK OUT SIGNATURES WHEN POSTING PICTURES OF CHEQUES]
  2. Hello If you requested the reduction from full time to part time (4 day-week), then there may be valid reasons for your employer changing the basic terms / responsibilities of your role. However, these should certainly have been discussed with you and not imposed upon you. If the employer imposed the 4 -day week, then, that's a completely different issue, and is a breach of contract. Even is an employee is held on the same pay, but they have reduced responsibilities (loss of status), then this loss of status is very certainly grounds for constructive dismissal, or in your case, bei
  3. Hi Booky and Monx, hope you are both well. Some folk like conspiracy and sell out theories, but that ain't the case, as I hope the following explains. I might be entirely wrong here, as I have not discussed it with the site team, but here are my thoughts. We all probably have CAG link as a favourite in Explorer, which takes us straight to the consumer forums, bypassing the home page. If however, you do a google on Consumer Action Group and take the link for home page, you will see some "google generated ads", which as they are generated by Google relate to hot topics that a
  4. As Bookie says, dont give them the satisfaction! I would prefer it if they werent there but hey, even hedgeborn harlots like them have the right to say what they want. If we give validity to their bile is our choice.
  5. Hi All I've been a long time lurker on this forum and thought I would post my own experience for any other lurkers out there who are in a similar position. We all have our own different reasons for falling into debt, the important thing to me is that the why doesn't really matter, you are in debt and need to deal with it. It certainly didn't seem to matter to my creditors who acted like a shark smelling blood in the water and circled in to bite the biggest chunks out they could before anyone else got in there. I made some rather basic mistakes (and I know seasoned CAGGERS will b
  6. Spam advertising removed by BankFodder --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This post has been edited to remove a spamming advertisement post onto this site by someone who is apparently called Kevin Maynard posting on behalf of a company called solicitor-pages. Maynard came onto ths site in the middle of the night to post his spam advertisement without any consultation with us and without an approval. We would not recomend that anyone uses the services of any organisation which has to ope
  7. you need to start your own thread. do some reading in the welcome forum too they are the biggest leechers ever and i would suspect they owe you! if you're getting 13 calls a day, thats 13*£25 they are charging you. you can claim EVERYONE of those call charges back & the letters charges and a whole lot more +++++interest on top. 90% of the time welcome owe you!! ... that is if the agreement is not pants as well!! start your own thread and do some reading dx
  8. Hi there, I can help you with the N244 - Q 10 is the most important part. Would you be able to get to the court on Monday morning first thing - if you can do that you should be able to get an emergency hearing before the 26th. I'm at work at the moment, but will be back on line tonight.
  9. Because "James", as far as I can see, apart from being his inept "self" (selves? One rather suspects a team, but one could be wrong) hasn't actually broken any of the forum rules? He hasn't insulted other users, hasn't heaped abuse on them, flamed them or anything like that. Because freedom of speech (which doesn't exist on private forums, btw, that's a fallacy) as granted to us as guests on any forum, should apply to ANYONE who won't resort to insults? Yes, you're right, I am personally aware of many threads/posts which have been moderated in the past. Your point being? I don't thi
  10. sorry i missed the fact that your claim exceeded theirs- so i would just carry on as you were- dont bother waiting for them to proceed against you
  11. Your posts are here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?268296-barclaycard-ppi http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?177335-ppi-cliam-for-mbna You can find which threads or posts you've made by clicking your user name and then clicking posts or threads started on the left hand column in your profile.
  12. Hand it in on the 19th if by hand.Have you received a copy of the Claimants AQ and do you intend to file a copy of yours to them? Regards Andy
  13. Problem is many 'benefit cheats' are not actually cheats at all. Many have simply claimed the wrong benefit. Its a fact that some, had they claimed the correct one, would have been financially better off yet even these are often prosecuted by the DWP
  14. Couldnt agree with Jimbo more. Me and the missus have no credit except for mortgage and car loan. And to be honest, we have never had so much money as we have now. The difference is amazing when you get rid of all the weekly/monthly payments that are interest loaded and designed to do nothing more than make it nigh on impossible for you to pay it back with any ease. When you break out of this vicious cycle that the banks/ card companies etc try to shackle you with, life really does become very different. They cannot con you anymore ( because thats all it really is about), they cannot lie
  15. I don't think you need to take them, I'm sure they will find it themselves
  16. Absolutely right, and disgraceful behaviour. If they can't afford the extra £1 an hour, then they should have thought of that before giving him the job, knowing that they would have to increase the rate of pay on turning 18. Get a letter in to them TOMORROW (Saturday) and certainly before he leaves on Sunday, stating that having taken legal advice, he has been assured that the actions of the social club in dismissing him constitute an automatically Unfair Dismissal under the section of the ERA quoted above by Mariefab, and that this will be enforced via an Employment Tribunal should they
  17. Does your son have (or can he get) any evidence that this is the reason for his dismissal? It's an automatically unfair dismissal, so he doesn't need to have worked there for a year in order to make a Tribunal claim. Employment Rights Act section 104A, below: The national minimum wage. (1)An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that— ©the employee qualifies, or will or might qualify, for the national minimum wage or for a particular rate
  18. Being dismissed for becoming 18, and therefore qualifying for the relevant rate of NMW is an automatically unfair reason for dismissal. Your son needs to seek to substantiate that that is the reason for his employer dismissing him - I doubt that his employer would be so foolish as to give him this in writing, it may be necessary for him to resort to recording his manager, either in person or via a phone call, stating this
  19. Reason for doing so aside, as far as I know, you have pretty poor employment rights within the first year and even worse within the first six months. Basically, regardless of whether or not he has a contractual probationary period it is really simple to get rid of someone of that length's service - and unless you can prove he has been discriminated against and take them to a tribunal, where the odds are pretty much stacked against you because of the length of service anyway, sadly there isn't anything much you can do. I guess the reason is tangible - an extra £1 an hour purely because of
  20. Being sacked for such a disgraceful reason should not be held against him if he did need to claim benefits. I take it he has not got this in writing? If not, he could ask the CAB to write to the company concerned and request clarification on why his job has been terminated. He could also, perhaps with your support, writ to the company to say that he is very disappointed to be losing his part-time job which has meant so much to him simply because he turns a year older and would be eligible for increased pay in law. He should ask them to reconsider as the position means a lot to him
×
×
  • Create New...