Jump to content

1mper1um

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Are you saying that you would ignore them after one year later or that they would give up chasing after a year? Also, are we sure they don’t have a leg to stand on or are we assuming at this point? I’m grateful for the help – I just want to make sure of my position before I respond. One of the estate agents left a voicemail this morning asking me to call them back. Obviously this is about the outstanding fee - do you advise I respond or ignore? If you recommend I respond, should I ask for a copy of my signed contract to see if I accepted their T&C (particularly this one we’re discussing) or should I flat-out tell them ‘I don’t have the money so do what you must?’
  2. £1800 + VAT and it's their fee for selling the property. As I didn't give them 28 days notice that I wanted to involve (or switch to) another agency they say that the contract states i must pay them their full fee in the event of the house selling even though the 3 month exclusivity contract had expired.
  3. Thanks, all. If I still have the contract it is at the bottom of one of many cardboard boxes of unpacked items in my new property. If they continue to chase I will ask them to resend me a copy of my signed contract. When they chase up, is it worth telling them that I have no money to my name now that the fuel bills and inflation have eaten up the few hundred pounds a month I had left over in each pay packet? Would it make a difference if they knew that even if I acquiesced to pay, they'd be getting £5 a month?
  4. But what about their contract stating even if the contract expires I’ve got to give 14 (or maybe it was 28) days notice? The point I’m making is: where do I and they stand legally - what steps could they take to enforce payment?
  5. So there’s no legal basis for the estate agent to sue me, take me to court or whatever?
  6. apologies if this is posted in the wrong place - admins please move if required. Last year I signed up with an estate agent on a 3 month exclusive contract to sell my house. After 4 months I brought in another agency who suggested co-listing on a ‘winner takes all’ basis but agency 1 said they would demand their fee even if agency 2 sold my property so I told them that as my contract with them has expired, I’m going solely with agency 2. Agency 1 responded by saying that the contract states that I would have to give them 14 days notice to change agents even though I am out of contract with them and that they would demand their full fee regardless. The property has now sold, agency 2 has been paid and now agency 1 have sent me an invoice. Apart from being (in my opinion) unfair to demand payment when I stopped using their services, I am actually in. I position to pay. My solicitor fees ended up being higher than initially quoted and the cost of living crisis has put me in a perilous predicament as petrol alone has jumped £200pm and gas/electricity is similar. As I result, I don’t have any option to pay and I’m wondering what are my options are - especially as this is not a credit agreement and they cannot enforce payment or affect my credit rating? I’m hoping their invoice is akin to a privately-operated car park fine whereby they can send me to a DCA but little else. Thx in advance.
  7. I've already conceded that you are the expert and my opinions are irrelevant - I'm just replying to questions and comments (such as the misassumption that I believe that simply having a legal right to work >48 hours means I must be allowed to do so). So to avoid going round in circles, and me appearing stubborn, let's try this from a different angle. 1) My HR officer, manager and ACAS rep that opting out of WTR: a) provides the legal right to work >48 hours (as it's illegal to work >48 hours otherwise) b) cannot be taken advantage of if there's no OT or there are issues (eg: disciplinary or performance issues, welfare concerns, limited OT). Do you agree with that definition? 2) We believe that as I've opted out of WTR and the company cannot get enough OT hours filled (and will suffer a financial penalty as a result), the rationale of ''you can't work >48 hours for no other reason than we just don't want you to' is not valid as it is enforcing WTR restrictions on someone who has opted out. Do you agree? If you don't, can you explain how forcing WTR on someone who's opted out and when there's plenty of OT available, is legal? Because whilst we don't think opting out means an employee must be allowed to work > 48 hours, it is still a legal right to work excess hours and therefore there must be compelling mitigation to deny this right (eg: performance issues, site isn't open, lack of managerial cover) and not just 'because I don't want you to'. 3) Isn't it suspicious that the client's position is based on them not being aware than employees can opt out of WTR? If you would be so kind as to provide clear answers then I won't push back any more.
  8. That same contract could state an hourly rate of £5 an hour but it would not be enforceable due to being against the law. So how is ‘we signed a contract to limit everyone to WTR hours’ legal when employees can invoke their legal right to opt out of WTR? Also, did you see where I stated that the client was unaware that opting out was possible? This implies that they only stated adherence to WTR because they thought it was non-negotiable. You asked if I understood what was being said in post #18 but that was mine so which were you referring to?
  9. I have repeatedly admitted they are obliged to offer me more hours or that I can force them to however I believe that I cannot be denied OT if the hours are there for the taking. ACAS agree with me. I don't want to divulge the protected characteristic as that makes me identifiable.
  10. My position is that opting out provides a legal right to work > an average of 48 hours a week. The main reason why people do is to earn extra money. No one can be forced to opt out of WTR and work >48 hours but also no one can be forced to opt in to WTR and work <48 hours a week. Therefore I don't understand how forcing someone to comply to WTR when there's plenty of OT available is legal. To me it's negating my legal right to work more hours. However, you and Emmzzi are the experts so my opinion is irrelevant.
  11. Guys/gals, There's been a misunderstanding and for that I apologise. I didn't answer the initial questions because my appeal was just a couple of days away and didn't want to get bogged down with extraneous things that were not factors. I also - perhaps erroneously - got the impression that the questions were stabs in the dark hence my "if you don't know just say" response. Plus I thought my OP answered the questions however upon re-reading it I can see it may not to non-employees. Finally, didn't want to make myself identifiable if my employer is reading (hence my redacted OP). I wasn't intending to seem difficult. Short version: My employee has limitless OT to spare - it just wants to restrict people to WTR limits because that's what the client wants. They're happy for me to work OT once I'm under the 17 week WTR average. My appeal has been delayed from to this week so any help is appreciated. I am one of the protected characteristics as stated in post #14. Longer version (including answers to questions/points raised) Why do you think other employees are able to work paid overtime hours without prior approval from the employers? Because they're not at risk of >48 hours. I am and that's why I've been told that I must have my OT pre-authorised so that I don't >48 hours. They were happy for me to work 60+ hours a week until I did so for 3 months in a row and hit the WTR limit. That's when it came to light that the client we work for states that employees must stick to WTR and my employer appears to not want to upset the client. Ironically, when I checked their relevant HR page everything was factual in relation to WTR, it just assumed everyone would stay in WTR and didn't mention the right to opt-out. Also, when my employer took up the fight for me with the client and explained that I'd opted out, the client reportedly said they were unaware that employees can opt out. Have you picked arguments with the company managers previously about any issues? Are you in a more senior position and thus more expensive? No to both. It's simply because they don't want me to exceed WTR limitations on working hours. We work on a contract for another company who stipulate their own employees must abide by WTR and therefore we must too. My employer was initially happy for me to log as many hours as I want and only changed their mind when the client pushed back. They're happy for me to work OT just as long as I stay under the WTR limit of no more than an average of 48 hours across 17 weeks. The company may be doing it for your welfare - do they think you are stressed, taking too much on? They may not think your output justifies doing so many hours so can refuse. They may want to free up some OT hours so others can do a few. None of these reasons apply and there is limitless OT on offer so it's not a case of wanting to share it around. About 10% of employees do OT and the company would be delighted if it was 100%. They just don't want any one person working >48 hours. Anyone can work any hours they wish outside of their normal schedule as long as they don't breach WTR. So last week we had the situation of my employer desperately begging people to work OT as they had a massive shortfall on hours and were not going to meet their commitments to the client and everyone was eligible except me. As much as they wanted to include me, as much as they would have gleefully accepted my 20 hours of OT, they felt that they couldn't and it was lose-lose for both of us. In summary I felt it was discriminatory because: 1) The site is open 120+ hours a week and has an open-door policy on OT - the more the better and the company constantly begs for it and falls short of client requirements for number of logged hours. 2) They're initially happy for agents to work as much OT as they want and for months on end. Until you hit the WTR limit - even if opted-out 3) They insist on forcing employees to stay within WTR limitations despite employees opting out and OT being available - in which case employees are being denied not for valid issues (eg: welfare, performance issues, limited OT hours available) but because they just don't want that particular employee working the OT that a) is available and b) ends up being unfulfilled 4) So to me, it's discrimination to admit they need the hours working, they'd be happy for me (an opted-out employee) to work them if I hadn't hit the 17 week WTR average, and are only enforcing WTR because the client wants it 5) As it stands, they'd accept requests from every employee except me to work 4pm to 11pm on Friday. Likewise, they're canvassing every employee (except me). 6) They say my opting-out of WTR doesn't give me a legal right to work >48 hours but that is exactly what it does. If you have not opted out then it is illegal for you to work >48 hours therefore opting-out absolutely gives the legal right to work >48 hours. That doesn't mean a company is obliged to offer OT when it normally wouldn't or to extend it's opening hours to accommodate an employees demands for OT but it does, by default, give the legal right to work >48 hours if they OT is available. And the OT is available at my work. 7) As far as I know I am the only person of my protected characteristic and I am also the only one prevented from working >48 hours. Maybe there's a link, maybe there isn't.
  12. I’ve not answered the questions asked as they are not relevant (and I say that without meaning any offence). Suffice it to say there are no issues with myself/employer. Yes my employer pays my wages but I do not see how they can restrict people from working OT because it will take them over 48 hours when one of the key reasons of opting out is to work >48 hours. Treating employees differently is discrimination - even my site HR Officer recognises that. The only reason they brought in this rule for myself and not others it’s because they do not work enough OT to risk >48 hours and breach WTR. So they accept I can opt out of the WTO but at the same time want to keep me within WTO – thereby trampling on my right to opt out. if you do not know the answer, that is perfectly fine, I just don’t have the luxury to run with guesswork.
  13. I have been with my employer for 4 years and during this time they’ve aggressively promoted overtime, happy for us to work OT as we please as long as we ensure there’s an 11 hour gap between shifts and at least one full weekend day off. The site is open from early til late so plenty of opportunity for OT. After 3 months of 15 hrs OT a week I opted out of WTR so I could continue and exceed the restriction of 48 hrs a week on average (measured across 17 weeks) but was soon told that I was breaching WTR rand had to stop. I explained I had opted out of WTR but they said it didn’t matter. I raised a grievance and whilst the outcome letter agreed that I can and have opted out of the 48-hour working week and that whilst they respect my right to do so and OR can be refused or accepted at the employee’s discretion. It also made a point of reminding me that my OT requests need to be approved before being worked. I never demanded to work more time and I fully accept a company does not have to offer OT. My point is if OT is available and if I am not on any sanctions that limit my right to work OT then I should be able to work OT that takes me over 48 hours a week as I have opted out of WTR. Therefore a company accepting my right to opt out of WTR so I can work >48 hours is acting illegally in holding me to the WTR restrictions by refusing to let me work >48 hours. TL; DR My office is open 120 hours a week, employees are contracted to 40 per week, and overtime is aggressively promoted. I worked 60-80 hrs OT a month for 3 months and opted out of WTR in order to continue doing so. HR accepted this but Scheduling pushed back, wanting to keep me within WTR limits of 48 hrs per week on average. All OT must now be pre-approved before being worked and I have been told I must stick to WTR (<48 hrs a week) My grievance outcome accepted my right to opt out of the 48 hour working week but that the company can still hold me to it. HR says the company can reject my OT requests to keep me in line with WTR whilst letting other people work those same hours.
  14. So for both parking fines (double dipping nonsense) I have received 'Notice Of Intended Legal Action' letters from DCBL that state they have now referred the issue of unpaid parking tickets back to the client (CP Plus Ltd) 'to review commencing legal action' and signed-off-by inviting me to make immediate payment to avoid legal action. Can you advise what I should do now? Is it still just scare tactics?
×
×
  • Create New...