Jump to content

meagain

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by meagain

  1. This topic was closed on 11 March 2019.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  2. This topic was closed on 10 March 2019.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  3. This topic was closed on 10 March 2019.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  4. This topic was closed on 10 March 2019.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  5. This has become far to complicated, and people on here are only trying to help

    Then I would appreciate it if people would stop telling me stuff that I already know. You'll find these choice words in my original post:

    After some discussion with the lovely folk at ACAS, and a family member who holds a position in the local branch of their union, I figure I'm owed whatever my notice period would be, and whatever leave is outstanding.

    I have already dealt with most of the legal aspects, so I don't need to be told about the length of service. What I'm focused on here is getting the money I'm owed - it may only be in three digits but in my current circumstances that's something I can't afford to be without.

     

    My suggestion is to write to whoever you believe your last employer was and firmly ask for your statutory rights to be honoured.

    So, in other words, your advice is to write a letter. Which is the very thing I came here to get help with.

  6. Given the legal position, it's not certain you'd qualify for an ET, is it?

    How do you come to that conclusion? Unless what you're suggesting is that I might have to go through the County Court instead. My understanding from the advice I've already received is that there's little if any doubt that I've been dismissed unlawfully (not the same as an unfair dismissal - which I definitely have no claim to).

     

    2. I guess you can name who you like. Is there an HR department or someone responsible for HR? That could be a good place to start, then you could ask them to pass it to the relevant person asap if they can't deal with it.

    I'm referring to the potential legal proceedings - i.e. bringing the claim in ET/CC against the director as a co-defendant.

     

    4. Don't understand Event for Limitation, sorry.

    There's a limitation period of "three months less a day" at ET, rather less generous than the six years in CC. The three weeks from being told I'm done and actually getting paid would put a serious dent in this if the period starts at the former.

     

    5. I think you should know how much to expect, but you don't need to tell them what you think the figure is. But if they make you an offer, you'll want to check it anyway, won't you? I would also ask them how they arrived at the figure.

    I've already figured out roughly how much I'm short by, just wanted to know whether or not to tell them or let them make an offer first.

     

    My first draft at a letter is this:

     

    I notice from the recent payslip provided that there is a significant shortfall in the final salary payment made to be at the end of February 2010. I was dismissed on xx February, however, you have only paid be up to xx February (the day before) - you have not paid me for my notice period or any outstanding leave. In the absence of a written agreement specifying a greater amount, this would be period of one week commencing the day after it was delivered, and the outstanding leave from the pro rata entitlement of 7 days.

     

    I now require you to pay the outstanding amount within 14 days. If you fail to do so, I will not hesitate in taking further action to secure the payment of this money via County Court or Employment Tribunal.

     

    Thoughts?

  7. While this is all well and good, mostly I'm hearing the same things the folk at ACAS told me, and almost none of it is answering questions that I need answered to make any progress towards getting the money that I'm owed.

     

    1. Should be approach be pleasant, or should I be threatening to go to ET straight away?

     

    2. Can I name the director in addition to the various company names?

     

    3. Is it worth negotiating with that director directly to achieve the result outlined in the first post? (He's seemed reasonable the entire time - I suspect incompetence rather than malice)

     

    Additionally:

     

    4. I am working on the basis that since I don't qualify for any assessment of fairness, the relevant event for limitation is the payment at the end of the month (being the first point as which I would notice that something was wrong). Right?

     

    5. Should I figure out how much I'm owed, or leave them to do it and push forward if they get it wrong?

  8. My concern there is that they may push things to the 3m-1d point, and the constant reorganisation leaves me wondering exactly which company I should be addressing. Presumably I can call it "3 months continuous" and take on "the company or its apparent successor", and name the director responsible citing phoenix concerns? (I was effectively paid by three different companies during those three months)

     

    If the "chat" was had on a Tuesday morning, on what day does the period actually start? I was paid up to the Monday, and I am assuming that the notice would not start until the Wednesday, ending the following Wednesday.

     

    The most important thing, should I make the written approach brief and polite, or should I be threatening the ET from the outset?

  9. Last month I was let go, without notice, and without advance indication. Despite asking several times, at no point did I receive a written statement of particulars, and I have still not received any written statement in relation to my dismissal. This was carried out first thing of a morning, and I have been paid only up to the previous day. For what it's worth, prior to dismissal, none of the salary payments were on the expected dates - the first was a couple of days early, the boss's screw-up over a merger had him running around the town paying cheques across bank counters; the second payment "early for Christmas" eventually cleared on Christmas Eve' the third payment went over a week early due to the merger now going in the opposite direction and the "old-new" company wanting to "spend itself out to ease the transition". I worked off a glorified coffee table, and less than a week after two desks finally arrived, both of the people sat at them were gone (I know nothing of the other's departure).

     

    After some discussion with the lovely folk at ACAS, and a family member who holds a position in the local branch of their union, I figure I'm owed whatever my notice period would be, and whatever leave is outstanding.

     

    I remember that with civil claims typically you make the other side aware of your intention to start proceedings in court as early as possible. Do I write a pointed letter demanding a non-specific sum of money with a threat to go to an Employment Tribunal from the outset, or do I omit that and write something smoother?

     

    On a side note, someone has suggested using the threat of costs to get a better settlement - foregoing any uplift that the ET might award, and any costs I might claim, instead getting a statement that there was a "lack of suitable work", which would allow me to gain access to funding for training (and potentially save them from having to get their solicitors involved) - there are opportunities on the horizon that may be beneficial to me, but I don't have a hope of funding them myself (and neither am I interested in approaching the [problematic] that advertise on TV and in the press).

  10. Nope, the OFT case was sound and it certainly is my basis for calling the judgement BENT.

     

    The OFT case was not sound. The banks believed they had an objection under Regulation 6, the court agreed. Not much more to it than that. The OFT have emptied one cartridge, and they've still got another crate of them left.

  11. Oh, where did I say that they had? Bizarre... :confused:

     

    I'm hoping you have a more suitable basis for saying the judgment was "bent" than "the OFT lost". The banks did not get their way - they wanted a declaration that their fees were a commercial matter and were entirely fair and proper, the Court said no.

  12. I understand what they judged on and that the judgement was BENT. It's not hard really.

     

    That answers my question then. You definitely haven't understood the judgment. All that was decided was that Regulation 6(2) does not apply. They have explicitly NOT decided that the banks' charges are fair.

  13. Maybe not, but that`s what has happened, just in different words.

     

    Again, that is not what has happened. Read what I've linked you to above - especially take note of the site announcements in big col *ahem*, big coloured letters. It's not over - people that have followed CAG's advice should still be in good stead, and the Court has made things easier in some respects. From the outset, we were not about getting your money back but fair play - getting your charges back is no good if you're only going to have to pay through the nose again. Some fees had moved by small amounts in the past, and most will remember the £12 débâcle, so to see banks slashing their fees from £38 to £5 is a step in the right direction. If others start following suit, we have definite progress. It's not bad news, and it's not the end for claims (albeit they now need to be more carefully construed).

     

    was this ruling for all charges or just overdraft charges?

     

    Neither. It was for the OFT's ability to take a particular course of action. Won't affect most people using the templates here. Some cases in progress might need to amend Particulars of Claim, and those not started yet might want to wait a couple of days first. Otherwise, water still wet, sky still ... whatever colour it is these days.

     

    Keep calm and carry on.

  14. Media help in our favour would help that tremendously.

     

    Where does one find that sort of cooperation? The Sun, Daily Mail?

     

    Worth a try. One thing we don't have is the BBC. I'm told that the radio bulletins on 1 and 2 have repeatedly stated, without qualification, that the banks won't have to pay up. Not heard them myself, so can't really take it on.

  15. BBC NEWS 24. That was read out verbatim et literatim by a reporter who seemed to be reading from a statement issued by the banks.

     

    If the BBC haven't simply read it out and attributed it to an appropriate source, or if they expand or editorialize on this without correcting it, phone the BBC Duty Office immediately to complain.

  16. I'm shocked at this ruling.

     

    What horse trading shenanigans went on behind the scenes???

     

    Refusing them leave to appeal as well, this well and truly stinks of something:mad:

     

    The Court of Appeal denied the banks leave to appeal the case to the House of Lords, but they did so anyway.

     

    In any case, the judgment does not mean what you seem to think it means. Read these first.

    • Haha 1
  17. There is a lot of confusion regarding this, especially given the reporting that's been going on. Here's a brief rundown of where things stand (probably). Fact-check this against the real thing: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_judgmentV2.pdf

     

    TL;DR version: DON'T PANIC

     

    1. "The banks have won the case." FACT, though this probably doesn't mean what you think it means.

     

    51. For these reasons I would allow the appeal.

    90. My conclusions accord with those of Lord Walker and, for the reasons that he gives as well as my own, I would allow this appeal.

    92. For the reasons given by Lord Walker and Lord Mance, I too would allow this appeal and make the declaration proposed by Lord Walker.

    118. I would therefore allow the appeal and grant the relief proposed by Lord Walker in paragraph 51.

    119. I also would allow this appeal for the reasons given by Lord Walker and Lord Mance, and would grant the relief proposed by Lord Walker in paragraph 51.

     

    However, note the nature of the case:

     

    19. ... the OFT on 27 July 2007 issued proceedings in the Commercial Court seeking a declaration that Regulation 6(2) did not apply to the banks’ Relevant Terms then current.

     

    For those not aware, 6(2) puts that the price of something is not in and of itself subject to the test of fairness.

     

    Also:

     

    51. ... The declaration sought by the banks in their counterclaims is inappropriate for the reasons explained by Lord Phillips at the beginning of his judgment.

     

    The banks have won their defence, but not their counterclaim. In other words, "this far, and no farther".

     

    2. "It's all over." MYTH

     

    1. ... It is therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of deciding whether the system ... is fair.

     

    It means the OFT cannot pursue their action on the basis that the term is unfair, which makes sense, because they're not - it has been the way in which the banks have applied the terms which is objectionable. In a roundabout way, the Court has said that the issue is in the amounts, which is something they can't directly regulate in this way.

     

    59. ... In that event, while it would not be open to the OFT to assess the fairness of the price by reference to the adequacy of the goods or services supplied in exchange, it would be open to the OFT to assess the fairness of the price according to other criteria.

     

    3. "That's put an end to that." MYTH

     

    47. ... Charges for unauthorised overdrafts are monetary consideration for the package of banking services supplied to personal current account customers. They are an important part of the banks’ charging structure, amounting to over 30 per cent of their revenue stream from all personal current account customers. The facts that the charges are contingent, and that the majority of customers do not incur them, are irrelevant.

     

    51. ... I would declare that the bank charges levied on personal current account customers in respect of unauthorised overdrafts (including unpaid item charges and other related charges) constitute part of the price or remuneration for the banking services provided ...

     

    This rules some things out, and brings other things in. This case has not (as I understand it, and I could still be wrong) explicitly ruled out the argument that the fees are a remedy for a breach of contract, so the penalty line is potentially still open. Regulation 5(1), the "significant imbalance" test, is still very much live. There may also be a point to be made under the Supply of Goods and Services Act, which requires that a price is "fair and reasonable", though I'll leave it to someone else to sort out the details.

     

    4. "There's a general stay." FACT (sort of)

    5. "This has only set things back further." MYTH

     

    Most stays have been on the basis of waiting until the matter has come to court and been decided, which it now has. The general stay in most local courts likely hasn't been lifted and won't be for a while, but an application to lift it should be allowed (cost reclaimable?). New claims should be able to proceed unhinidered. As I understand it, the Waiver has mattered not in court.

     

    Had the OFT won, this would have dragged on with the investigation itself, and the potential legal challenges to the findings, before anything is done. As a result of this decision, we can all get back to work now.

     

    In summary: KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON

     

    A reminder that this is a brief lay analysis, and any part of this post may be wrong, including this sentence. If it is entirely wrong, a moderator should kill it with fire at the earliest convenience.

×
×
  • Create New...