Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

green_and_mean

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,541

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by green_and_mean

  1. green_and_mean
    I agree that the person carrying out the investigation has a duty of confidentiality as do any persons interviewed once the allegation has been revealed to them. What I am having trouble with is the duty of the accused not to discuss the matter. If for example today I got letter stating I was going to be disciplined for being late and as a result became upset and was asked by a close colleague if I was ok, I could not tell them the reason I was upset despite the fact it was me being disciplined? Looking at their 'rules' if I even told my wife it would be taken as misconduct as it states 'do not reveal the contents of this case to ANYONE'? If I was to tell my line manager I had HIV or a criminal record for example they have a duty of confidentiality to keep the fact 'secret' however I would not be in breach of confidence if I told a colleague myself, so surely the same would apply here? It is quite common for high profile cases of misconduct to be in the press, surely that is a breach of confidence? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24552905 .....for example? It would be clear to any of his colleagues who the un-named driver was and therefore a breach of confidence surely. It seems rather perverse that the employer can tell the press he has been dismissed but he could not reveal he hadn't been if the reverse outcome was the result.
  2. green_and_mean
    In one scenario the line manager investigating claimed witness 'a' had made a statement in the favour of the employer ie the alledged offence happened, having spoken to the witness informally she has made it clear no such statement was made. If the employee now comes forward and says that the witness has denied making such a statement, it has been made clear that speaking to any witnesses is gross misconduct and they will be guilty of the new offence. That hardly seems fair in Court you are free to challenge any evidence.
  3. green_and_mean
    Its a disciplinary, who is neutral? Why should the employer be able to speak to people and gather evidence against the accused but the accused just sit by and do nothing? Why would you assume the employee is a bully and not the employer.....very odd attitude?
  4. green_and_mean
    I have attended a few disciplinary hearings as a 'friend' of the accused and they always state 'you cannot discuss this matter with anyone'. Is this true? It seems a bit odd that you cannot seek advice or gather evidence from witnesses particularly as they threaten gross misconduct if they find out the accused has disclosed anything that happened in their own hearing. Surely the only duty of holding a confidence lies with those conducting the hearing not the accused?
  5. green_and_mean
    Its not in a car park so 06 is correct the wrong code argument was over meter feeding 07 not that it was in a car park.
  6. green_and_mean
    What has the wrong code got to do with it? He is alledged to have failed to display a valid ticket that is the only contravention that needs to be addressed.
  7. green_and_mean
    Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Why should you be anymore entitled to 'enjoy' you insured car than you would a gun? If you think the police should be powerless to prevent you from driving an uninsured car what should they do if a gun owner started walking around town 'enjoying' an unregistered gun he possesed? Quoting human rights doesn't exempt you from obeying democratically introduced laws, if it were that simple I would be able to enjoy the bike I posess whilst cycling around the M25.
  8. green_and_mean
    you are allowed to stop to pick up a passenger, its waiting that is prohibited.
  9. green_and_mean
    Most Councils employ enough staff to read letters when they arrive, if they Council you worked for just had piles of unopened mail sitting around for days on end its probably best you left.
  10. green_and_mean
    A charge certificate can only be issued after the deadline for making an appeal, so what would be the point of waiting for him to view the evidence when its too late to appeal anyway? Its quite simple, if he asked to see the evidence and it was not dealt with in time thaty should have been the basis of his 'in time' appeal (which he failed to make). He failed to stick to the dealine which is there for a reason. You cannot for example wait 27 days and then request to see the cctv and expect to hold up the process, you have 28 days to view the footage and appeal its as simple as that.
  11. green_and_mean
    Its not errant, its correctly issued as the reps were made too late and disregarded.They won the previous case because the adjudicator agreed with them and decided that the Council were wrong to consider a request for evidence as an appeal so they can hardly argue the opposite now for this PCN and claim it should have been considered.
  12. green_and_mean
    A request for footage is NOT a representation, its a request for footage it cannot be both unless you include a challenge with it, eg I was loading at the time of the offence if you do not cancel the PCN please can I view the cctv. Even the Adjudicator confirms this in the previous case when he stated that a notice of rejection had been sent prematurely in response to a request for footage.
  13. green_and_mean
    Asking for footage is either a 'representation' or it isn't! You do not get a letter of rejection normally if you ask for cctv footage so it clearly isn't, you cannot have cake and eat it. I would also point out its a criminal offence to lie on a declaration so stating he made reps within time is not exactly true.
  14. green_and_mean
    He appealled out of time so there is no grounds for a statutory declaration, he should have appealled within the 28 days on the grounds of PI which he failed to do.
  15. green_and_mean
    Refusing to pay for parking on the grounds you pay council tax seems a bit of a false economy if it costs you the same in penalties everytime you get caught!
  16. green_and_mean
    If thats the case you have good grounds for appeal as the bay is not correctly marked and the sign should be placed on the dividing line pointing either way to show the restrictions change.
  17. green_and_mean
    I cannot see where you are parked on google but at first glance the bay markings do not comply with the law, bays that you can park facing the kerb can only be used if they are individually marked if you are meant to park along to the kerb the bay looks too wide max permitted is 2.7 metres. If you are parked where the white van is on google then the sign is also wrong at the changeover point there should be signs to show this clearly.
  18. green_and_mean
    location on google maps?
  19. green_and_mean
    It might be a nice thing to do if it were not for a big yellow sign stating 'no stopping'.
  20. green_and_mean
    I guess it must be legal then! http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/images/uksi_20023113_en_132
  21. green_and_mean
    Not true I'm afraid.
  22. green_and_mean
    The rules for moving traffic are covered by different legislation to parking so there is no obligation to hold the discount whilst you have your appeal considered so it would depend on the policy set by Tfl which isn't stated on the PCN.
  23. green_and_mean
    Without seeing the cctv is impossible to comment on the scenario that led to the PCN as it stands you did enter (the photo shows you in the box) and you did stop (the photo shows you apparently stopped) due to cars stationary in front of you. You can argue that as you had right of way you should have had a clear exit hence the reason you entered the box only to be blocked by the car that failed to give way exiting Clarendon rise. Without seeing the film its impossible to tell and its your money so you can either pay at the discount or gample the full amount on an appeal.
  24. green_and_mean
    Absolute rubbish if you cannot even cope with a Police vehicle using a bus lane without causing an accident you shouldn't really be driving! The best advice is just drive normally and within the law, blue light drivers are trained to get around you. Hoards of untrained 'do gooders' swerving all over the road at the first glimpse of a blue light helps nobody! http://www.bluelightaware.org.uk/
  25. green_and_mean
    Why would there be more chance of an accident, thousands of vehicles travel down bus lanes every day without causing confusion.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...