Jump to content

badback2

Banned
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-100

About badback2

  • Rank
    Banned
  1. Having read threads I have to empathise with Happy Hlelper. OP ; intriguing post and so glad to hear that Sidewinder and Happy Helper have so expertly guided you. Keep us updated.
  2. This appears to be an opportunity that CAGGERS should not overlook. If anybody , or relatives / friends can attend then it will prove that we are willing to stand up to ATOs's alleged unfair treatment. If we stay silent, then for the main part we may have to accept that ATOS are merely carrying out their contractual duties. Words do little, positive lawful action may be a step in the right direction.
  3. Hi Kevin G. I t have minimal experience in law re alleged benefit fraud. That said, I can suggest the following based on a real life case. Based on your statements it would appear that your solicitor may over time be able to plead to the DWP/ CPS that due to your apparent chronic mental impairment that it is not in the public interest to continue with your case. I helped a friend with a similar matter and after making 6 such "fair and reasonable" requests the CPS elected to submit no evidence and thus by default the case was acquitted. My friend also got all their out of pocket expenses repaid by HMCTS via a defendants costs order - circa £300. Re attending court. I advised my friend to get a "fit note" from their GP which stated that their patient was in no fit state to attend court on a scheduled date. This happened on 5 separate occasions and said "stand off" continued over a period of 8 months. Such lawful delays frustrated the prosecutors, and this in part meant that they were (eventually) more inclined to drop the case. I have no clue re your detailed facts and circumstances and that offer no assurance that the above approach would bear fruit in your case, but it did work for my friend. In any event, may we enquire what benefit(s) are you are currently receiving as this may well have a bearing on the prospects for a successful defence ?
  4. Hopefully this will make some CAGGERS laugh. I asked for clarification re point 1) and 2) of my post by calling ET helpline in Bury St Edmunds. Was eventually put through to a senior person. Guess what, I was right and local ET centre were wrong. The cutoff is and always has been 1700hrs for ET1 delivery in person ...and midnight for online ET1's. My legitimate concerns were noted and the local ET office is to be "re-trained" !! The senior ET official also confirmed that the number of new ET1 claims is in terminal decline and HMCTS jobs are at risk. Further, I am now aware of the following anecdote from my "ET contacts". Post introduction of the ET fee regime, "in time" ET1 claims are now being received by employers up to 5-6 months after the claimants effective dates of termination (EDT's). In former times employers typically received an ET3 request within one week of an ET1 being filed and could thus prepare for the worst ! Now it can take ages for an employer to be made aware of a claim because of the time and bureaucracy involved in dealing with the new fee regime and the related processing of fee remission applications (EX-160A's) for certain claimants. It is understood that employers are becoming increasingly frustrated in respect of such delays. If that it is true then maybe the UK's disgruntled employers should wholeheartedly support UNISON's on-going campaign to have the ET fee regime abolished ! FYI UNISON's case may well end up in the European court, where the abolishment of said fees could be upheld. You see the EU ain't all bad !
  5. ET1 FILING DEADLINE > SUMMER 2013 FEE IMPOSITION & 90% REDUCTION IN NEW ET CLAIMS SINCE LATE JULY 2013 1) ET filing deadline - Prior to Summer 2013 (ie when filing fees etc were introduced) it was lawful to submit a claim to the ET by 2359hrs on the day before 3 months after one's effective date of termination. This differed from the customary 1600hrs county court cut off. Has this rule changed ? I ask because today (13 Feb) I submitted an ET1 and fee remission form (EX160A) by hand to my local ET (Manchester). I handed it in at 1645. Although it was in fact "in time" it was still suggested that it would only be dated tomorrow (ie 14 Feb). The reason given was that all claims are now processed in Leicester. In my case it did not matter, but if this had been a last minute filing then I would have been aggrieved because the Tribunal offices are open till 1700 hrs Monday to Friday and thus if the ET1 is received at a local ET office "on time" then surely it's in the HMCTS system on time and on that day !? 2) Reduction in ET claims post introduction of fees - I was shocked to hear that my local ET has seen a 90% reduction in claims since the introduction of allegedly punitive fees. Even allowing for the peak of claims pre August 2103, this is a dramatic reduction. The ET staff and judiciary are concerned that a major proportion of them may be made redundant, Justice !?
  6. Sorry to post this query here .but I had been trying to reply to a PM from an administrator , but my mail box wiill currently not allow me to send any more msgs via PM .... when I try to send a reply the following message pops up : "You have reached your stored private message quota and cannot send any further messages until space has been created." I am at a loss to understand how I create more space. I've deleted some msgs and that has made no difference !? If a member knows how to fix this please let me know in simple (non techy) english on a step by step basis ! Thank you.
  7. Again i think some members may be missing the emerging point of the thread. I agree that the OP has no hope of an in time ET claim. I was merely passing on some of my own experiences to counter some member replies which appeared to infer that I was away with the fairies lol As far as I am aware the OP is no longer seeking UD . He just wants a reference . End of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe a new thread and topic is required as this post may turn into a member's point scoring farce which may regrettably be unhelpful to the OP for whom we are meant to, if at all possible, support !
  8. Aah ok ... well the simple answer is yes, Forgery is a criminal offence and if proven an employee may well risk summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
  9. Re forgery - what has this got to do with your post !? It's easy to resolve, may need to start a new thread as you may confuse the issue. Re your post feedback . A) Civil court is risky. At best you'll have a 50/50 chance of succeeding with a DD claim. if you lose in county court you may well face a massive legal bill from ur employer. Safer to lodge claim in ET as costs are in 99% of cases borne by each party. B) Unscrupulous solicitors and LEI providers are the norm. For proof ask the law society why in a recent poll only 40% of their regulated members were trusted by the public.
  10. Hugely - the case is a recent European judgement. You are allowed to choose your own solicitor. Better still you should ( I think) be able to choose your own barrister ( often called "counsel") . Again , all things being equal, I would always choose an employment barrister over an employment solicitor. Who is your actual Legal Expenses Insurance (LEI) provider ? Is it DAS ? I have had dealings with most of them. They pay solicitors approx £100 per hr whilst solicitors want to be paid extortionate fee rates such as £175 - £250 per hr plus VAT. Many solicitors eventually get de-motivated if they have to work for a pitifully low rate of only £100 per hour ... poor them lol . An LEI provider's valuation of a solicitor's worth is one area re which I agree with their approach to business ! However, many LEI providers play tricks and invariably punish law firms, and often the insured can suffer as a result. Most LEI provider's will at the end of the day not even pay your solicitor's fees in full as they argue re the # of hours it takes a solicitor to represent the insured party. To some extent I agree with the punitive manner in which LEI's treat solicitors. However, they are hard on non panel solicitors because they want you to use their panel solicitors who are under their control and are in effect forced to work for £70 per hr based on a virtually guaranteed volume of case work. One possible problem for you hugely may be that with LEI you end up getting what you pay for. LEI typically costs less than £40 per annum. In return you can get up to £50K cover for legal fees. It sounds good to be true. It usually is. In my experience LEI providers will act in the background to apply pressure to have a case settle once say £3-4K of legal fees have been incurred. That may get you nowhere with a disability discrimination claim and does not necessarily serve your best interests. Your employer may well realise that your claim (if any) is LEI funded and may then try and protract the case in the hope that you or your funder caves in. Solicitors should act in a clients best interests , but in my experience they put their own interests first and many allow themselves to be brow beaten by LEI providers. Apologies if all this sounds overly negative. I try to help many people with disability issues and I hate to see them be let down. A tribunal claim can be very stressful and can take many months, if not years, to be resolved, in particular when disability discm'n issues arise. I feel you need to know the possible downside before you commit and make sure you have support workers in place to help you cope. Final suggestion. Before allowing a solicitor to issue a claim, if you have the time to do so before 3 month time limit expires, try ACAS pre-claim conciliation service. It's free and your employer may be willing to compromise because it could easily cost them £3K-£7K to defend your claim - better that you have that money ! ..and better still you can get a positive written reference to pass onto future employers. Don't tell ACAS you have a solicitor on board (if you have). Anyhow, hope this helps !
  11. Glad to hear that hugely. Again, be wary of solicitors who do legal aid work. In my experience they will abandon you when their government funded allowance of money runs out, which typically is insufficient to even prepare a half decent ET1, never mind represent you thereafter. The EHRC represent some disabled folk, but its rare. They are good ; very good. Becky - glad to hear you prefer claimant work. You are an exception and i applaud you. Shame i do not know where you practice as i currently have 40 claimants with counsel on board for a case with with 75% prospects of success. Most law firms aren't interested as it's a complex case and it means they will have to work to earn some fees. Pl do not patronise me by inferring that i do not know that LEI cover now allows you to choose your solicitor rather than a panel solicitor. OP look at this link below , it's a well known case http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/law-history-and-diversity/5038668.article Anyhow, if you get frustrated by the legal advice you receive (sadly a distinct likelihood) then repost and keep us updated. Apologies if I appear cynical of employment solicitors. It's based on my own terrible experiences and those of many others. I now advice folk to by pass solicitors all together and go to barristers direct via direct access. Generally far better and more cost effective solution. I compare solicitors to GP's. Nice, but not specialists. Barristers are more like consultant surgeons .. i.e focus on the specific problem and they are usually far better academically qualified .
  12. With respect i think members may be missing the point of what the OP is truly seeking. A reference. You are correct re ET claim prospects ... close to zero. ... and without an EX160A fee exemption it would be a waste of at least £250 filing fee. Re Becky's comments- They seem to be unusually harsh and disproportionate. Re comment 1 - the six month extension is not false. I applied after 5 months as a disabled person, and got claim accepted. I also think Disability discrimination can still be lodged in time in civil courts. Again, a long shot, but a letter before action may lead to a compromise ....ie a reference. Re comment 2 . Technically the OP may well not be disabled. BUT, that does not mean the OP may not be able to make an argument re disability ..possibly a compelling one. You do not need to have had a mental illness for 12 months to pass the test ... the test is either 12 months...or has potential to last 12 months or more. OP's condition could re-occur. I have dealt first hand with many mental health sufferers who have had condition for less than 12 months and yet been categorised as being disabled. Anyhow, as I correctly stated to OP, try ESAS . Their guidance is accurate.
  13. Aah forgot it was your post superdry. It's worth a shot. Be confident and speak to EHRC as per link above. I think you can get them to compromise. Be tenacious.
  14. ... and as a minimum call these guys - they are public body who help out with discrimination issues - they are excellent and better than any solicitor ive ever encountered : http://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com/
×
×
  • Create New...