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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need to know why that's relevant before disclosing it publicly.

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?

The only paperwork I've had during the entire period was a payslip in November, my final payslip for February and my P45.

The only paperwork I've had during the entire period was a payslip in November, my final payslip for February and my P45.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

In that case, you'll understand the implications of paragraphs 1, 19, 47, 51 and 59 of the judgment, then.

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). 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.

The Supreme Court has not decided what you think it's decided.

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.

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.

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.

That's not what they said. See also the announcement.

If you are finding claims on TV or radio implying that people may not be able to get their money back, contact the broadcaster's Duty Office immeidately to put them right.

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. However, note the nature of the case: 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: The banks have won their defence, but not their counterclaim. In other words, "this far, and no farther". 2. "It's all over." MYTH 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. 3. "That's put an end to that." MYTH 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.