Jump to content

hsbclinkdcms

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

28 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. My mistake this one; just whenyouthought 5 reviews 2 months ago-Edit Steer clear of these cowboys, avoid at all costs. I'm not the most versed car buyer and should know better but you expect a garage to be helpful not exploitative. I saw an advert on Ebay for a 55 plate silver Honda Civic 1.6 from these and went and test drove it, it appeared to be OK a reasonable silver Honda Civic 55 plate so thought I would go ahead. The sales guy asked what I would be willing to spend (A question you should never answer!) so based on my research on the same model with that mileage I offered a price which they accepted. They MOT'd it and it had an advisory of rusted brake pipes which their guy said would have been done so a week later I picked it up. My wife organised the insurance. Well I found out later 4 things. 1. They had used the just washed/water beading method to cover up marks to the body work. 2. It was not a 1.6 it was a 1.4 a model that was worth considerably less than I paid. 3. It is now January nearly a year after I bought it so MOT time, you know with the years MOT that they gave it and the printed copy that they gave to me.....well guess what ? Since October I have been driving that car illegally as there was NO MOT DONE despite the 'certificate' that they gave me. The work on the advisory number 4 was not carried out! So in summary they mislead and exploited an inexperienced buyer sold a deficient car with a potentially dangerous fault and lied about MOT work. Trading standards next! Do your research, see all the 1 star reviews, google their past history and avoid like the plague! Weird those reviews don't show up on mine ???
  2. Thanks for the reply. The firms involved are Autopoint in York and the letter came from Legal solutions4u, the review is the latest Google review on Autopoint. https://www.google.com/search?q=autopoint+york&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB842GB842&oq=au&aqs=chrome.1.69i60j35i39j69i57j69i59j69i60j69i61l2j69i60.2471j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#lrd=0x487931034e872a7f:0xeef26ee63d0e66e2,1,,, Legal Solutions 4u state that I've made false statements and that they expect costs and injunctive relief to be in the region of £7000-10000, all pretty much standard threatening stuff. They have asked me to remove the post. They go on to state and this is a direct quote from their letter " Read my review and you will see that neither of these statements appear in it. In regard to a legitimate interest on the basis this firm has stated they would not appear to have any.
  3. No nothing signed apart from bill of sale , transfer on the log book, I paid cash, no reason to have any such inclusion. I want to hang off posting the details at the moment, I am in the first instance interested in whether their use of my data is lawful and I am aware that these firms are visitors to CAG. I have not decided what to do about it yet. I am confident that the review that I gave was honest and the truth and in any case the 2 quotes that this so called legal firm use within their letter which they say are damaging to their clients business do not appear in my review whatsoever. They are either using scare tactics or they've got the wrong person completely, either way I am not happy that my data has been shared to a third party without my consent and it is that that I am enquiring about.
  4. Hi thanks, I have no issues with the threats this company has made as they've quoted a number of statements within their letter which they state are damaging to their clients business and which are false and malicious, none of which actually appear in my review! They are just taking a punt in a bid to try and scare me into withdrawing a legitimate 1* review. I do not like that my address has been supplied to a third party without my consent though especially as there is no reasonable justification for that action.
  5. I bought a car a year ago for cash from a second hand car dealer who has passed my address and details on to a 'legal' firm (akin to ambulance chasers) in order to get me to remove an online review, with the usual threats of defamation etc. Are they legally allowed to process my data on this basis without informing me or seeking my permission ? Thanks,
  6. Please re read post 10, you still have not said what influence section 24 has upon section 23 and section 21 other than saying that 24(b) is a catch all when the act makes it clear that this is for exceptional cases. The compensatory rest is not accounted for anywhere else. RMT guidance; 47: What are the circumstances in which compensatory rest may be required? In any case where a worker is required to work during a period that would otherwise be a rest period or rest break, the employer should wherever possible grant an equivalent period of compensatory rest. This includes those situations where workers are excluded from full entitlement because they have been designated as "special case" workers, shift workers or by the operation of a collective agreement. Gov.uk 3. Compensatory rest Workers may be entitled to ‘compensatory rest’ if they don’t have the right to specific rest breaks. Compensatory rest breaks are the same length of time as the break (or part of it) that they’ve missed. A worker may be entitled to compensatory rest if: they’re a shift worker and can’t take daily or weekly rest breaks between ending one shift and starting another their workplace is a long way from their home (eg an oil rig) they work in different places which are a reasonable distance from each other they’re doing security and surveillance-based work they’re working in an industry which is very busy at certain times of the year – like agriculture, retail, postal services or tourism they need to work because there’s an exceptional event, an accident or a risk that an accident is about to happen the job needs round-the-clock staffing so there aren’t interruptions to any services or production (eg hospital work) they work in the rail industry on board trains or their job is linked to making sure trains run on time their working day is split up (eg they’re a cleaner and work for part of the morning and the evening) there is an agreement between management, trade unions or the workforce (a ‘collective’ or ‘workforce’ agreement) that has changed or removed rights to these rest breaks for a group of workers There are many others.....
  7. Thank you for your input but I suggest you have missed the point yourself. I have never stated that what my employer has implemented is anything less than lawful, it is that they have not implemented the whole of the law in this case. They implemented section 23 meaning section 24 then applies as the compensatory measure built in to the act for those workers who due to special circumstances can have their rights in law exempted or modified. Are you trying to say that section 24 has no relevance ? 24. Where the application of any provision of these Regulations is excluded by regulation 21 or 22, or is modified or excluded by means of a collective agreement or a workforce agreement under regulation 23(a), and a worker is accordingly required by his employer to work during a period which would otherwise be a rest period or rest break— (a) his employer shall wherever possible allow him to take an equivalent period of compensatory rest, and (b) in exceptional cases in which it is not possible, for objective reasons, to grant such a period of rest, his employer shall afford him such protection as may be appropriate in order to safeguard the worker’s health and safety. 'SHALL' not should and my individual opinion has perfect relevance if as I believe my right in law is not being met.
  8. I am not entirely sure as to why this shift was included on the shift pattern. My employer is one who periodically changes profiles and shift patterns to suit business needs. The facts are that as employees they voted for the shift pattern and profile (which would have been imposed in any case) and this was included unnoticed at first. Others have questioned this. As far as having an opinion is concerned I am of the opinion that my employer is not fulfilling their duties in regard to section 24 WTR and in my opinion that is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold bearing in mind the circumstances. What I am looking for is how my opinion translates in to facts. The law states; 21. Subject to regulation 24, regulations 6(1), (2) and (7), 10(1), 11(1) and (2) and 12(1) do not apply in relation to a worker— Section 21 is still subject to section 24 so the exemption due to the type of work that I do is still subject to section 24. 23. A collective agreement or a workforce agreement may— (a)modify or exclude the application of regulations 6(1) to (3) and (7), 10(1), 11(1) and (2) and 12(1), and Section 23 is still subject to section 24 as quoted in the OP. Section 24(b) is for exceptional cases with objective reasons and is not a cover all for a predictable shift or work. For instance the 6.25 hour shift in question is called a late shift, there are other late shifts that are 8.75 hours for which they do give an unpaid break. There is nothing exceptional in either shift and the work completed would be considered the core work of the business in both cases. So why give a break in one case and not in another ? I have contacted the union in this case and they have no opinion as to why there is no break provided, they have been assured by the management team that its implementation is legally correct, make of that what you will. Both section 21 and section 23 enable my employer to exempt section 12(1) as far as I can see. Whichever way they argue both are still subject to section 24 where the law states an employer shall, not should pay a compensatory rest period. Section 24(b) is for exceptional circumstances, this being a shift that I can predict to be working in June 2019 would hardly rank as being exceptional nor would the duties involved. This is my opinion now, my guess is that my employer has included this as it fits a profile and shift pattern and for no other reason than they can.
  9. I work in a residential business as described in section 21 WTR so can be exempted but as section 21 states it is still subject to section 24. I think that my employers realise that so have come back with this workforce agreement reply, but that is still subject to section 24. Examples of shifts are 'all day', lunch given but a further 6.25 hours where there is no further break and 'late' shifts of 6.25 hours where no break is given at all. My working week could involve any number of different shifts but they are all predictable.
  10. Hi, my shift pattern includes shifts which require me to work periods greater than 6 hours. There are no in built breaks within these shifts. I have approached my employer about this issue and their response was that they have a workforce agreement in place and therefore they can exempt section 12 of the WTR under section 23 of the WTR. My guess is that they can also exempt section 12 under section 21 as the job is a special case as described in section 21. What I think they have missed is the effect of section 24 WTR on both sections 21 and 23 and their duties in regard to that; Compensatory rest 24. Where the application of any provision of these Regulations is excluded by regulation 21 or 22, or is modified or excluded by means of a collective agreement or a workforce agreement under regulation 23(a), and a worker is accordingly required by his employer to work during a period which would otherwise be a rest period or rest break— (a) his employer shall wherever possible allow him to take an equivalent period of compensatory rest, and (b) in exceptional cases in which it is not possible, for objective reasons, to grant such a period of rest, his employer shall afford him such protection as may be appropriate in order to safeguard the worker’s health and safety. I may be wrong in this but my opinion is that there should be an in built break on the shifts where I am required to work longer than 6 hours. I don't think that the act allows employers to remove the breaks completely just whether they can be taken at that particular time or not. Regardless of this section 24 overrides sections 21 and 23 and compensatory rest breaks must be provided ? It is a dangerous job 24/7 so breaks are paramount. What is your opinion ? Thanks in advance.
  11. There was an initial investigation (which is an unrelated matter to the question asked in this thread) where the investigating manager was asked to look at my IT. Because of that I'm presuming they will find the pictures previously mentioned and forming the theme of this thread. I have not admitted anything about these pictures as I have not been asked about them (yet) but I will do so if and when asked. The Director made his punishment statement prior to this initial investigation taking place (prior to anything really) from his 'fact finding' interview with myself. I never admitted anything and never would since the cause of the initial investigation was a mistake which even the Operational manager accepted, but evidently I am still going to be found guilty and punished in any case !!
  12. But that's the point I didn't admit to anything, certainly not what they were saying and at the initial fact finding they accepted my version of events. No hearing as of yet and I'm guilty....you're right, not the letter of the law !! My staff book specifically states that I have the right to be accompanied at all stages.
  13. I'm going to go the honest route on this, might be better, might not. On the initial investigation I was dragged to the Operational Managers office where this appeared out of the blue. He did not offer me the help of a friend or a union rep and I was asked many questions which I answered truthfully. I explained the situation to them and after he discussed this with the other manager present he stated that he accepted what I had said about the situation and I was to see them in the morning. The director then came in and said that he would deal with this in the morning. In the morning I went to the directors office where he threatened me with suspension with a view to dismissal, totally out of the blue!! He started the 'investigation' all over again basically asking me the same questions that the OM had asked. Eventually he said that he was putting it to investigation and that he wanted it 'boxed off' in a fortnight and then informed me 'you'll receive a punishment at the end, you will be punished'. Now the handbook for managers involved in investigations is that they must be done with impartiality and integrity, I fail to see if it has already been decided prior to any disciplinary hearing that I am guilty and will be punished how this can be the case ??
  14. But if he did see those would he see them as Gross Misconduct ?
×
×
  • Create New...