CRA file? The only way I can check for sure about what debts are tied to my name, is to do a credit reference check. I did one a couple of years ago, and i noticed half the debts id been paying off, weren't even registered/logged on my files!

At a guess, I would say yes, most probably. I know about the whole 'unenforceable' debt - i.e. if you havent made contact/payment in 6 years. I'm not so much bothered about that, it's more a case of them producing the original CCA. I recently sent a request for a CCA from one of my debts to Lowell's, and they come back to me within a week saying because they dont have the original paper work, the debt will no longer be pursued. So on that basis, I thought i would try the same thing with debt equally as old. I am going to pay those debts off that were incurred within the last say, 7 years, but anything over 9, im going to ask for original CCA. I going back with Payplan, they were great in the past, and they want me to produce a list of my current debts/creditors. They still have on record about 7 of my old debts, but to be honest, i think half of them I have heard absolutely nothing from in the last few years.

Hey Over the last 14 years, ive sporadically paid scraps of money to various DCA's through Payplan. The last time I paid anything to Payplan was a few years ago, now i'm looking to start paying my debts off - well - the ones I can track anyway. One of them was a HFC debt (loan ), i took out in 2000. The last record I have in terms of the debt existing, the debt was with TBI Financial Services, although I am not sure they are still operating judging by a Google search? One of my current DCA's recently agreed not to pursue an old debt because I asked for a CCA and they couldnt present it - I am hoping to do the same with HFC debt. Problem is, how do I go about finding out who currently has the debt if it's not TBI? I am in the process of asking for original copies of CCA's from those debts which are older than 6 years old, as the likelihood is, they won't have it. What should I do about the HFC debt? Shall I contact HFC directly and ask who they sold the debt to? Then again, it's probably been sold on several times to varies DCA's that they probably won't know. Any advice would be appreciated - thanks

Sidewinder - thanks so much for taking the time to respond, i am very grateful!! In response to your questions raised: So this role is an equivalent role to that which he was performing? The issue of TUPE is a factor in terms of a change to salary, benefits, seniority etc, but not necessarily an issue where none of these have changed. Where it is being done for an Economic, Technical or Organisational reason, the employer will always have a valid defence, but it does sound as though Chris's T&Cs have not changed, nor has his salary or seniority - just the level of job satisfaction? The job role he has been changed to is not equivalent to his previous one. His previous job was more technical and better paid than the admin role he is doing now. The TUPE reg's state from Taylor & Emir:505 - "[...] it is not only express terms of the contract which transfer with employees (hours, pay, holiday entitlement, job title, etc) but also generally job descriptions, notice periods, bonus schemes, discretionary rights, benefits etc [...]" This clearly states that under TUPE reg's, his job title and description should remain in place after the transfer has taken place, AND, are even in place a number of years down the road (pg 506, 2nd para). The seniority HAS changed. The job he did do (Logisitcs Controller) was a senior position of which he on a daily basis made regular decisions that an Admin Assistant does NOT have the authority to do (of which the admin assistant job is where he has been forced to now). and whilst not rubbishing his feelings in any way, is there actually anything wrong with his current role? There can be a reasonable expectation on the part of the employer for an employee to perform 'reasonable' duties in return for wages. Have his workplace benefits changed? Does the new role make him suffer any detriment? Has his job title changed? His current role is of an Admin Assistant level - there is no seniority within this position and he is basically dealing with incoming and outgoing emails all day (general queries). His job role was to allocate bookings to drivers, resolve any queries to do with bookings, and make decisions that an admin assistant couldn't do. Now this is a very reputible company dealing with VIPs from MD's to multi-national companies and even other high profile clients who are in the media, so it's a role which is of a senior position because you are dealing with an array of high profile people. I know and he feels that when you are removed from a position like this, to a lower grade (it is demotion), then it is undermining that person's position within the workplace. The manager made a decision to move him for what reason he doesn't know as the management hasn't provided a credible reason via email yet. He was committed, loyal, never answered anyone back, always worked over time - the issue is CLEARLY to do with pay, because the other controller had a massive issue with being paid alot less than Chris - but why should Chris take the flack?...... Yes, he is on the same pay - but it's a matter of principle. Having a job which is highly rewarding/making regular business decisions/dealing with clients who are VIP to basically a person who is dealing with emails coming in and out of an inbox all day (which subsequently is no where near as busy as the Controller role he had) making no decisions, and undertaking a role which is very robotic in nature thus consequently resulting in a demotivated, undervalued, dehumanized and unhappy employee (Weber and Herzburg theories apply). And this is what happens because i have been in the same boat as him and this is what an employee within an organisation feels when they have been mistreated/demoted. A Grievance by all means, but not a good idea to raise the subject of CD - they might just call his bluff! He should complain that his old job still exists, ask on what basis his role has been changed, and how long before he may return to his contracted position. Spot on - you're right. I mentioned CD because i thought that he was affectively dismissed from his previous role, you know.....demoted. I think he need to get a copy of the company handbook, but my concern is because it's a private ltd company run by a family, they won't have a company guide book in place stating what the roles are within the company and their respective duties. It could also be claimed that your although your friend was being asked to perform a lesser role, he was continuing to receive the same salary and benefits, and this would almost certainly be taken as a 'reasonable' action by the employer. Even in a successful action, damages would be limited to actual losses sustained, so unless your friend has seen his salary cut, what precisely would these be? As far as he is aware (upto now, because there has been no explanation/consultation from management), he remains on the same pay, but i have a very strong gut feeling (aswell as he), that they will somepoint down the line say to Chris 'listen, you're on too much money for an Admin Assistant' and subsequently reduce his salary. This is what they are hoping to do because the other admin assistants are on about £13k a year, and my friend's salary is nearly double that. It may be appropriate to claim unfair constructive dismissal on the basis that he has effectively been unfairly dismissed from his contracted role, and on those grounds he simply cannot stay, but he would still need to resign. Once again though, a reorganisation might be a potentially fair reason for the change. Yes, i've pointed out to him that he'd need to resign to raise a case, he is aware of that. There has been not re-organisational changes that have occured in the business - just Chris's role. And the fact that someone else has taken over Chris's role just goes to show the management decision made was a personal one. I am being completely honest here - Chris is the most loyal, committed, hard-working and has incredibly work ethics and yet it feels like he's been victimized for some reason - he doesnt deserve it. Fair enough. I have a great deal of sympathy for your friend's position, and he should indeed raise an objection if he is unhappy with the new role, but as far as I can see there has been only minimal (if any) effect on his rights, and this is negated by an organisational reason for the employer moving him. It does not seem to be bullying, and there appears to be no element of discrimination. Tread very carefully if he is relying on you for 'legal' advice, as it is not at all clear that there are any legal grounds to take action - certainly at this stage. RE: the rights issue. He's objecting to the change in his job role, which i can completely understand because that is what his exisiting contract states. He has effectively been demoted without any consulation or consent from him, so I can understand how he feels 'screwed over' (excuse the term). It will be interesting to see what credible reasons the management present for moving/demoting chris to the position he is in now. I can't stress to him enough that he needs to get in writing that if he can't revert back to his old job, then the salary must remain the same and a new contract drawn up perhaps?.... I really need to stress that to him - to get management to agree all this on paper, otherwise they'll reduce his pay and he'll be screwed basically. I want him to send this email citing the reasons for his objection and the breach in TUPE reg's and that a consultation must take place to discuss the business need for the job role change etc, but what if they don't agree to it?..... He hasn't got any trade union representation?! I am really very grateful for your help, i really am because i'd be lost without your support! Emma

Hi Honeybee - thanks for your email. I had to laugh at your comment 'when i was your age' (im 30 not 18)- how old are you? haha. SarlE - wow, where do i start?! First of all, thank you for taking the time, it is very much appreciated. I am admittedly in too deep with this situation - and I do belive it's unfair what management have done without consulting him first. Ok, your point - Yes - but that does not mean it can't be changed. Adter two years the protections offered by TUPE are pretty much dead, and anything in the contract is fair game for variation. So this isn't a TUPE case - it's a breach of contract case. Forget TUPE - you are complicating matters. Re: 'after 2 years' point you raised. Well, in a law book I read 'Employment Law: An Introduction' by Taylor & Emir (page 506) it says the following: "It is commonly believed by employers that they are 'safe' to force through contractual changes to bring about harminisation two years or so after the TUPE transfer has taken place. In fact this is most definately not the case. TUPE specifically exists to prevent transferees from doing this." So i am therefore confused why you mentioned the 'after two years the protections offered by TUPE are pretty much dead' when this Law book says the contrary?....... Is Chris male or female. Because you can't make a claim of discrimination unless the comparator is the opposite gender. And the other person can't make a claim under the Equality Act at all - the operational legislation is the Act that applied when the course of conduct complained about was in operation, which predates the Equalities Act. Chris is male. So it is the operational legislation that is being breached then? Discrimination against Chris doesn't come into it - they may have breached contract, but they haven't discriminated. So basically even though Chris's job still exists and someone else is now fulfilling that role, that is not discrimination? Why not? His job description probably isn't contractual, but even if it is - it can be varied. Whether this constitutes a breach of contract is immensely more complicated if nothing else has changed, since it's hard to argue that a demotion has taken place Why isn't it contractual? It's clearly stated in his Contract of Employment what his job role is - even after the transfer has taken place under TUPE reg's? A job evaluation could be carried out - and it's pretty evident to see that Chris was doing a technical role and now isn't. I fear they may at some point re-value the job role and say that earning that much money as an admin assistant is unjustifiable. As for the union situation - Ok, i do understand your point regarding membership allowances. So what is he to do in terms of union representation?......... Why? he has not been dismissed, and he hasn't resigned. If anything this is simple breach of contract and nothing else Apologies, i have clearly misunderstood the term Constructive dismissal. I thought that because he was dismissed from this previous role without consultation, this could be deemed as construtive dismissal. So in this situation, it would be just a grievance case? True. But it is a hard case to win, and so far you haven't satisfied the requirement to attempt to resolve with the employer first (and it is still subject to the problems of burden of proof and low win rates) - and nor is there an absolute certainty that the employer has breached contractual terms. You will require more than a verbal (deniable) phone call. A lot more. How can Chris prove that certainty that contractual terms have been breached? When Chris received the phonecall, shortly afterwards, he sent an email to the CE, MD and his immediate Manager explaining the phonecall, and that he wasn't happy with it, and that his existing Contract of Employment states he was employed as a 'Logistics Controller' and not as an admin assistant. He has had no response from that email, or indeed even a further email that Chris sent seeking clarification as to why another person has taken over his role (this case i feel is discriminatory because it wasn't a financial decision to move Chris, as Chris was replaced with someone else). How can he get his manager to confirm what was said on an email and the legitimate business reasons for that decision? Is he entitled to, by law, to receive a valid and credible explanation? "The first thing that Chris needs is evidence - none of which he currently has! There's a lot of guessing about what has been done and why - but no evidence. So he needs to (a) clarify what changes management are proposing and why, then, if he disagrees (b) submit a grievance about the change of his job description, preferably saying that he is not agreeing to such a change and is working only under protest (not duress!), and then see what happens. More than likely, if the employer maintains his pay and benefits, and is only changing his job description, then this will result in a consultation after which, if he doesn't agree, they will enforce the change citing business reasons, and he will almost certainly have no case at all. Evidence - well, he has had nothing back from the management explaining their business decision to move him - absolutely nothing atall. The main owner of the company is on holiday for a week (how appropriate) and the other senior managers haven't responded in his absence. There's no proposals, as the proposals have alread been forced through. "citing business reasons", how can they justify the move which has taken place? For what reason? As it is not financially motivated (although i suspect at some point down the line, they will say that Chris is on too much money for an admin assistant and subsequently change it................for all Chris knows they may be already planning this in this month's wages!). There is no credible reason to move chris, other than to satisfy the other logistic controller's gripe about the fact that Chris was on more money than him. Just to clarify - TUPE law does apply, irrespective of how long ago the transfer took place... Chris is to therefore submit a grievance for a breach of contract and is only working under protest and will seek legal representation, is this the way forward then? Its such a real shame that he can't get union representation to present him in any consultations that may arise because I don't think his managers are aware of the TUPE reg's and how this applies to Chris. I am completely aware that you have the best expertise there is in employment law, and I hope you won't take offence to the arguments i have outlined - im just slightly confused by what is being advised and what is written down in a Law text book. Thank you so much once again!!! Emma

Hi Jonesy! I came across your post because you mentioned TUPE? My friend was TUPE'd over to another company a couple of years ago and is having problems at work (he's protected under TUPE Act 2006). but wondered if this issue has ever happened at your place? Ive submitted a post on this form today (Saturday 16th Oct) Hope you sort your problems out though - it's frustrating when the transferee (new employer) feels as though they have the right to impose new T&C without realising your previous contract/terms remains in place!! (It's like a massive finger up to them! lol) GG

Hi there, I'm kind of acting as an unofficial legal representative for a friend of mine who is having problems at work. I study Law myself at Uni, so had the appropriate Employment Law books at hands, but if you can offer any advice that would be great. My friend (Chris for example), joined company A in 2004 and in 2008, was TUPE'd over to a new company called Company B. There were no new contracts formed when he was transferred over to Company B, so under TUPE law 2006, the exisiting contract remains in place. It's now been two years since that transfer and his boss called him up the other day and said to him (it was his day off), "when you come in on friday, you won't be doing your old job anymore, you'll be dealing with the email inbox from now on". Now the previous job he did was a techincal role with a high degree of decision making, and the job he has been transfered to is basically a Admin Assistant job - so he's been de-skilled and effectively de-humanized. On his exisiting CoE which was transferred, it states what his job role is. Just to clarify the situation. There are two positions which have the same level of expertise. Chris filled in one of them positions and another guy filled the other. The other guy was on £6k less than Chris so I presume this other guy had an ongoing issue with this (which Chris has told me) and challenged the owner to say it's unfair under the Equality Act that Chris was on a higher pay than him, doin the same job. So they have moved Chris to prevent a tribunal case from emerging, but they have subsequently created another problem by breaching the TUPE Act 2006 - they did not consult or receive consent from Chris in changing the T&C's of his CoE and they did this for discrimatory reasons, it wasn't financially motivated because Chris remains on the same pay. Now, ok you may argue 'whats the problem, hes on the same pay', but i have first hand experience myself of being effectively demoted for no legitimate, credible business reason.( I'm 30 by the way, and ive worked for Central Goverment for 12 years, dealt with PCS representatives etc, ) So i am kind of being his indirect unoffocial legal representative to get this ball rolling until his has that official representation. His company is not part of a TU, so he has to join one (he's joined UNITE, but apparently you can't get immediate representation until the DD has gone through?! Seems compeltely unjust if this is the case!). I'll have to get him to send an email raising an official grievance and constructive dismissal case and that he is undertaking his new role under duress. He could well resign, but 1. that is what they have been wanting him to do since he started because of the whole pay difference issue, 2. they can't get him on anything because he's a loyal, commited hardworker who's never had a day off sick and works all the overtime there is. 3. He's got a mortgage to pay, so as we all know, its not that easy just giving up a job straight away. Constructive dismissal can be submitted through court of law even if an employee remains employed. In this specfic case, the constructive dismissal is effectively related to the existing post he once fulfilled and this dismissal from this role without any credible business reason and without consultation or consent from employee (Chris). So, on the Union Rep side (clearly I can't represent him), can he get union representation straight away?? Is a case only taken to court if no parties can reach an agreement? In which then an employment law solicitor will have to be sought? I'm only a first year student, but i'm passionate about protecting employee rights having been bullied/discrimated myself in the past and understand how grievance procedures work. Any help would be really appreciated because the clock is ticking and i'm really worried about him. Thanks, GG