Jump to content

joesweetsllm

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About joesweetsllm

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Simply not the case. The insurance can get cancelled without notice in instances of the bank not paying on time or taking the customer over their limits by rolling charges. Where appropriate anyone who is prosecuted should set out from the outset of their case that they are seeking an Absolute Discharge. Driving without Insurance is a strict liability offence with good reason however, Absolute Discharge is rarely used and is certainly appropriate for effectively retrospective withdraw of cover. If anything cover is not withdrawn until there is Notice ( a ) sent ( b ) delivered ( c ) rece
  2. I agree and even where there is a formal request there be objective and reasonable grounds to decline. There should always be an attempt to try and find a win win solution. Poor communication can sometimes be the source or cause of problems. However, the issue that is brought into the open appears to be one of Status, between someone who is self-employed and someone who might well be Employed. If employed, certain benefits and protection may well not have been applied. Speaking as an ex HMCE bod - there are other issues. Pension Auto Enrolment is a typical issue where she may miss out. My wide
  3. which is good commonsense but also highlights that lip service is paid to the relevant legal protection for workers and the health of the business - because of slack process and procedure that results in avoidable conflict.
  4. Best put in application citing the Regulations which then it puts onus on them to comply and also refuse. If they refuse because they you are self employed then you can check that with HMCE on a Status inquiry - although it would be best to check before submitting your application. If you are employed, then it follows that the refusal on the grounds of not applying to self employed was invalid and misconceived. As ever one has to assess risk of being pushed aside for daring to ask, but frankly, now you have these threads it ought to be evident that if you are dismissed, i
  5. I am interested to hear from anyone who has experienced any of the following or like events in Employment Tribunals:- 1. Rudeness, or conduct of any Panel Member that was not to a standard that the normal employer or employee is entitled to expect 2. Witnesses being called into the hearings to hear other witness evidence or any part of the trial. 3. Legal Representatives having conversations with Panel Members before the the case is started 4. Failure of Panel Members with the appearance of a connection or interest in the case not st
  6. Flexible Working Regulations - that is correct. The real question in issue may be - are you self employed ? Who said that you are ? Do you do a Self Assessment Tax Return ? Weightwatchers had to pay a large amount to HMCE as their self employed demonstration staff were actually employers. Tell told their employees that they were self employed but they were not. Look at a Status Check - it is only likely to benefit you - with holiday pay, pension rights, etc et al
  7. I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO HAS HAD PROBLEMS WITH TESCO HOUSEHOLD INSURANCE AND THE LEGAL EXPENSES POLICY WHICH THEY SEEM KEEN TO REJECT. THIS STORY IS ALSO A WARNING AS IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY ARE MISSELLING. I DECIDED NOT TO RENEW MY INSURANCE WHICH HAD LEGAL EXPENSES COVER IN FEBRUARY 2012. WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED AFTER FEBRUARY THAT SOMEONE HAD BREACHED A CONTRACT BY DECEIT A FULL CLAIM WAS MADE. TESCO'S THEN SOUGHT TO AVOID PROVIDING LEGAL EXPENSES COVER BY REFERENCE TO THE PAGE 55 THAT A CLAIM IS ( a ) Is reported to us ( b ) During the Period of
  8. Hmmm best do it via Consent Order which states That upon Plaintiff filing a Notice of Discontinuence, each party has agreed to bear its Own Costs. In that way you avoid would certainly avoid a Bill of Costs although the shark may well leave you alone. On the other hand a DDJ DJ might want to inquire why if he or she sees merit in the claim, why you are withdrawing which would give you the opportunity to explain [ plus they may have seen claims against the shark before or even made awards ] Good luck anyway - no point in getting annoyed with the wifve - atleast she
  9. You must not get side tracked by the issue with the Solicitor. If you have a copy of the Consent Order that ought to be proof of entitlement - and sufficient proof for the Solicitor to supply you with an affidavit confirming their recollection. You could also send a SAR to the Insurance Company. The Court file may still remain if you are lucky but the point is no one applied TO carry out the terms of the Settlement due to default as the terms appear to have been carried out as far as you are aware. It is very unwise to sue a solicitor for as of and yet there is no fixed loss. You
  10. A very good idea - then you get to see if they really think they have a claim if you are slick best to tell them it is statute barred then see what they say. Then you can always put in a subject access request as in answering your letter - any doubts they have may be exposed by the sar when you get disclosure. If you dont get disclosure you have them over a barrel for non-compliance
  11. This is poorly thought through. If someone relies on EU Law in their case, they ought to put on their Application, as a Preliminary point, that the fee ought to be waived as it is incompatible with the EU law provision that they rely on and that if it is not waived, then their position is reserved, as the fee cannot be objectively justified against the attainment of the EU legal provisions objective. Whilst this point will not succeed if you are a millionaire, the imposition of fees to limit the number of claimants, irrespective of the merits of their case, is a breach by the
  12. Transfer of proceedings is likely to be own Defendants own local court. See Court Rules or ask Court Office to explain. It may have been automatic. Depending on distance and issues involved Court may take different view and allow a hearing elsewhere - however it could be cheaper if costs are involved to not object to transfer. If you object you may have to do it on application and that involves court fees and potentially the other side looking at their costs for travel etc including solicitor costs. Generally costs can always be used as a weapon; and usually are. The Defence may look the
  13. Durant v FSA EWCA Civ 1746. Full judgment at www.bailii then type into search the case name. Why is it an important case ? It demonstrates the complexity of getting any result under the DPA and how a secondary issue can overtake and cost far more than the subject matter of any claim. Secondly it shows that the judiciary are split as to the correct way to apply EU directives that you and I may rely upon. On the one hand there is the school of thought that says one relies upon the DPA and only looks to a Directive for guidance. The other, says one goes direct to the Directive. I prefer th
  14. Halsburys Laws of England Vol 28 4th Edition: Para 25 at page 14. " Companies and Corporations: A corporate body may maintain an action for libel or slander in the same way as an individual". Remember the McDonalds case and Virgin v British Airways ? Whether or not a corporation would issue or not may be an entirely different matter. Best to tred carefully and keep the object and overriding objective of any litigation to the forefront of one's mind - to whit - the resolution of the dispute without recourse to litigation or unnecessary steps in litigation !
×
×
  • Create New...