Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 19/09/11 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    You are worried about the store taking your son to court? The store found out, then let your son carry on working there, then sacked him without notice. Sooo... the offence was not bad enough to sack him at the time, but then it was that bad months later? From my memory of employment law, instant dismissal, months after the employer has found out about the offence, is frowned on by employment tribunals. I am assuming that your son had not been there long enough to claim unfair dismissal, but I am hoping they at least paid him his notice, outstanding holiday pay, etc? Then there is the issue of their actual losses. Their potential loss is the wholesale value of the clothing - which may well have been less than your son charged. They cannot claim for "profit we might have got if someone had decided to pay full price". To claim for the loss, they would, off course, have to reveal the wholesale price of the item. They also cannot charge for management time, as the managers would have been employed anyway - unless the employer can produce evidence of extra costs, for instance, if they worked overtime. If they take your son to court, on the one hand we have a silly teenager who did what teenagers do - gave in to peer pressure. On the other side, we have a large company, who kept the kid working rather than suspend him, then decided to sack him months down the line; who had him arrested when he turned up for work; and then demanded large amounts of money, taking advantage of the teenagers lack of worldly experience to try to scare him into paying random amounts which, to him, may well be weeks of earnings. Quite frankly, the company would do itself an awful lot of damage risking this story going public.
  2. 1 point
    Yes, the tenant only rents their individual room, and so they only have exclusive occupation of that room. The landlord has legal obligations with regard to communal areas, so access is required. Landlord could sleep on the stairs if he wanted too (well he couldn't - it would be a health & safety issue!)
  3. 1 point
    Bevvyboy Your amended defence will have to go on the grounds that HSBC have not produced a signed copy of credit agreement which contains the terms required by the Act. The case of Carey v HSBC only applies where a cardholder (debtor) requests a copy of the agreement from the lender under the conditions laid out in S78 of the Act. It does NOT apply where a lender is taking legal action to recover a debt. The lender still have to prove there was an agreement [the Proof Propose as outlined by HHJ Waksman in the Carey case]. If the agreement was entered into prior to 6 April 2007 S127(3) of the Act clearly states the court cannot enforce a credit agreement unless a document containing the prescribed terms was signed. If there is no signed agreement pre April 2007, then HSBC cannot win. That said, our District Judges are not expert in all areas of the law (Deputy Disrict Judges can be even worse.) Where they are not familiar with the law, judges tend to follow the 'advice' from the barristers enganged by creditors. Not surprisingly, these barristers tend to lead judges to believe that the Carey judgment allows a 'reconstruction' in place of a signed agreement. Where HSBC required to file an Amended Particulars of Claim? If so, can you post up what they are now claiming. If not, can you type out the words from the original Particulars of Claim? Doc
  4. 0 points
    Hi No, the end date of the claim is now. The sheet has a formula in that cell "=Today()" so every day you open the sheet the interest will increase. They have had your money right up to now so they owe you interest right up to now. Going back as far as you are, this is going to be a very significant sum of money so don't be surprised by the size of the figures that the sheet produces Regards ims
  5. 0 points
    What ever the situation with the SB date the default remains for the full 6 years, unless (and I have done this) you appeal to the creditor who has posted the entry stating that now the debt is stat barred it's unfair to keep the default on file, it is worth a try but is not always successful. Brig.
  6. 0 points
    Lol, I'd probably get the hump and chin someone........ my temperament isnt consistent with courtroom behaviour Really not sure how this will turn out for you today, so many if, buts and maybes when this sort of thing goes before a DJ..... the other side may bring a signed undertaking between Natwest/Rbs and the DJ may let this stand in substitution. On the other hand he/she may stamp down hard on them and question their behaviour. Best of luck Gez
  7. 0 points
    I think that might be me! What a roundabout I'm on! David, the process is remarkably simple - if not a little frustrated. You apply for ESA. You have your ATOSH assessment. Don't score 15 points. Immediately appeal. During the appeal process continue to submit unfit notes. ESA continues at assessment rate. Up to 8/9/10 months later, Tribunal. Fail that, immediately reapply for ESA as more than 6 months has elapsed / you're feeling worse. Then repeat the entire process. I'm in the middle of my third consecutive go on the DWP ride of a lifetime ...
  8. 0 points
    Hi Ellie, I don't think it matters about you having used the gym for 3 months or not. You can argue using CPUTR in the same way as on the other thread, on the basis that you were coerced into making a decision which you would otherwise NOT have made because of the wrong information and advice that you were given by the gym. Use the letter from the other thread adapted, as always, to reflect your own case. Stand your ground and don't be intimidated by the threat of what action they may take.
  9. 0 points
    Hi. You seem to be caught in a situation from which there is no easy resolution.
  • Create New...