Jump to content

Derwent

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About Derwent

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Does your condition meet the requirements of the 2010 Equality Act ? In order for your employer to be obliged to make reasonable adjustments you must meet the legal definition of what is a disability. The act says "a disability is a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
  2. Yes I am aware of that. But it seems to me that they now have no defence. The only defence in their ET3 was a denial of the documents' existence. Then they admitted the existence of them at the Preliminary Hearing. So surely their ET3 defence is no longer valid ?
  3. The settlement puts it in the top end of the lower band of Vento scale. I would argue in court it should be at least middle range of the middle band, possibly higher. The proposed agreement says that neither side will pursue the other for costs. I am self-represented so don't have any costs. My issue is that the fact that they have gone from "won't pay a penny" to actively wanting to settle makes me think I'd be selling myself short if I did accept. Such a big turnaround in their attitude surely means they think they can't win in tribunal ?
  4. I am taking ex-employer to an Employment Tribunal for age and disability discrimination. Up until 2 weeks ago they were adamant that I was not going to get a penny from them and they have engaged a very expensive lawyer. They had denied all allegations of the existence of documents that contained discriminatory and offensive remarks, documents which I had seen and knew existed. However, at the Preliminary Hearing in December their lawyer was put under pressure by the judge and eventually conceded that the respondent did not deny the existence or contents of such documents. The judge subsequently issued the Case Orders and Case Management Summary document. Within that he has put on record that the respondent, via their lawyer, does not deny the existence of the offending documents. Which obviously means they'd have to disclose them as they can't now say they don't exist. I have applied for the respondent's defence to be struck out on the grounds that it is vexatious and completely contrary to what they have subsequently conceded at the Preliminary Hearing. I have not yet had a response to this request from the tribunal. Following the tribunal issuing the Case Management Orders and Summary the respondent's lawyer has suddenly made approaches to settle the case. However, even after negotiation the amount offered is probably only 50% of what a tribunal would award (they started at around 15% of claim value). Therefore, should I settle now or should I wait to see if the Tribunal strikes out their defence ? It is difficult to see how they can defend their case anyhow even if it is not struck out. If they disclose the documents then they are bound to lose, if they don't disclose then how can they justify that to the tribunal having already admitted they exist ?
  5. Yes I think I might have to that for her. We did submit a SAR back in 2012 but they replied saying that they had no records to give us ! I also submitted a complaint through their own system which was upheld.
  6. Hi It seems plain wrong that they can do that under the circumstances. Also, with it being a mortgage debt will it not stay on record for 12 years rather than the normal 6 ? The lender was Mortgage Express who by their own admission don't have the required information to pursue the debt but won't write it off or close the file.
  7. Hi All, I'm hoping one of the very knowledgable people on here can help with this. Back in 2012 my sister was forced to surrender possession of her house as she simply couldn't afford it any longer and it was only a matter of time until the lender took possession. The lender subsequently sold the house for £115k and made a demand for the payment of a shortfall of just over £30k. I disputed this on her behalf on the basis that the lender had sold the house way under its true value, not just the fact that the exact same house next door sold 3 weeks later for £163k but also that a few weeks before she gave the house up another creditor was trying to get a charge on the house and had it valued at between £160k and £165k for court purposes. Notably, the estate agent who did that valuation report was the same one who subsequently sold it on behalf of the lender - the exact same branch in fact. After she received the demand from the lender I wrote to them requesting all the details of sale and the usual information such as marketing details, offers received, initial valuation report etc etc. After 3 months they wrote back saying they were unable to provide any of the information requested, to which I responded with a letter saying the debt was disputed until such time that they met their statutory duty to provide the requested information. She has never heard from them since in the last 5 years, and they have not issued any court proceedings or even passed it to a DCA. The debt is officially in dispute and they can't provide any proof of selling the property for the best possible price. she recently had to get credit checked as she needs to move to new privately rented accommodation and failed it. After registering with Noddle she was surprised to see that the lender had been registering a default every month since she handed back the house. I was under the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that creditors couldn't register defaults against disputed debts ? Not only is it disputed but it is totally unproven, especially given their admission that they can't provide any evidence re the sale and therefore haven't taken any recovery action whatsoever. 1. Are they allowed to register defaults in these circumstances ? 2. If not, how can she get them removed ? Thanks.
  8. Could be a possible benefits fraud case though, depending on what the OP means by working "on the side".
  9. The £20k cap doesn't apply to wasted costs orders where the claimant has behaved vexatiously or conducted themselves inappropriately, which appears to be the case here. Under those circumstances the ET can award the whole amount of wasted costs.
  10. What is the basis of your appeal ? ET appeals are notoriously difficult as they can only be made on points of law or procedural errors. You can't appeal on the basis of "I can't afford it", you have to be able to demonstrate where the Tribunal has made an error under the law.
  11. Aside from the obvious less than 2 years service issue, there is also the fact that while you may think it is a "his word against mine" case the harsh reality is that you will be surprised how quickly and readily his "colleagues" will give a witness statement to say they have witnessed warnings etc. Its not fair and its not just but you'd be foolish to think it doesn't happen in reality. Then it becomes his word against several others which is a different scenario altogether. Some of the allegations should be able to be proven or disproven quite easily. For example, the internet usage one is a cut and dried issue in most companies as the vast majority record the internet history of their employees and, unless you have IT administrator rights, you can't even delete the browsing history on your PC. If they do record the usage then they will have all the evidence they need - and it doesn't matter if someone else in the office was doing the same thing, that isn't a defence.
  12. You can actually get your employment history by contacting HMRC, as they have records of which employers have been paying your NI contributions.
  13. Actually, Manpower's TSA scheme takes 10% of whatever your total allowance is as a fee. The higher the figure, the higher their fee.
  14. Surely they can not apply a levy against the motability car as she does not own it ? Motability cars are leased and ownership is retained by the Motability scheme, hence the lessee does not get given the V5 for the vehicle and all maintenance, tax and insurance costs are paid for by Motability. I'd be tempted to let them take the car and then report it as stolen.
×
×
  • Create New...