Jump to content

resources

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by resources

  1. 1. Not all members of this forum think to click on the button “new posts”. I was myself even not aware that this button existed. Moreover when I click on it several threads appear except mine which is evidence that having put all my threads together has somehow messed up the things 2. The fact that I have maybe or maybe not ramble in some of my previous threads does not mean that I will do the same in this new thread because each thread has its particularities. The consequence of putting all my threads together is that some members of this forum will be pushed off from responding to my new thread because as you say they will think wrongly that they are wasting their time which will deprive the others members of this forum and me from important information that we can get from my new thread if it was properly processed 3. My claim was struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2). My claim concerns the non-compliance of several laws. The judge has dismissed my claim because my claim concerning the non-compliance of these laws was hopeless except for one law but for this law he says that my case is not properly pleaded because I make reference only to facts but not to this law in my claim form and in my particular of claims. Therefore if I can prove that the judge is wrong at least concerning this point I can hope to have his decision to strike out my claim cancelled. I order to do so I think that it will be good we concentrate on the interpretation of paragraph 8.14 of the document “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person" and its link with CPR 16.2 and 16.4 which say that we have to provide a concise statement of facts
  2. It is also a question of accessibility because by putting all my threads together you force me and the other members of this forum to go through all my threads and their numerous posts to access my new thread which is not convenient
  3. It is the way I do the things. When there is still some doubts I do my best to find a solution to a problem. And to do this I have to follow all possible leads even though those which could look like being only details but which could nevertheless contain important information. I notice that some members of this forum have difficulties to accept when I am right and this leads to endless conversation. For example concerning the interpretation of paragraph 8.14 of the document “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person" if I am right I would like to be told that I am right or to be explained why I am wrong There is no need to put together all my threads to have enough background to understand my new thread because it has nothing to do with the other threads people could get confused if you for example mix up threads about employment with threads like my new thread about Civil Litigations
  4. This is a new thread which has nothing to do with my thread of three and half years ago. This is the problem with having put together all my threads. People get confused and mix up in their mind all my threads. Obviously this affects their replies to my threads I would have preferred to have my new thread kept separate
  5. There is plenty of confidential information in my claim form and if I want to blank all the contents of my claim form will not make any sense. The summary I gave to you is better. I did not know paragraph 8.14 when I issued my claim so it could not have been struck out because I relied on it. However it was struck out because I did not put forward the law which was broken and paragraph 8.14 says that I did not need to do so. Hence I would like to know if the judge erred in law but only concerning this issue because even if my claim was struck out for several reasons I am interested only in this reason?
  6. All this is too complicated I would have to buy tipex to blank some information and now the shops are closed and tomorrow is Sunday. You can believe me what is stated in my claim form is not so important. It will be something like A told bad things to B about me and B did bad things to me following the bad things A told him about me..etc i.e. only facts but no law I am more interested in knowing whether or not I am right concerning the interpretation of paragraph 8.14 of the document called “A_Handbook_for_Litigants _in_Person” and about any authorities linked to the issue raised by this document about law and/or facts in the claim form
  7. I queried about these three appendices because they could contain important information I am not aware of You make reference to appendix A and Y but not to appendix X which is this which interests me particularly because it concerns directly the drafting of pleadings which is relevant to the striking out of my claim. I would like to know its contents in case it has important information Maybe Appendix X and the other two Appendices are in a separate document but I do not know which The foreword says that this handbook is specifically aimed to the multi-track because it is very big and some information on it could be relevant only to the multi-track but this does not mean that some information on it which are general information cannot apply also to the small track. This is confirmed because it is made several references to the small claims in this handbook My claim has been issued as a small claim but the judge in his judgement said that it should go to the multi-track because it is too complex Yes this document is only guidance but it is confirmed by CPR 16.2 and 16.4 which says that the claimant should provide a concise statement of facts and not of the law in the claim form and in the particulars of claim. It is also confirmed by the Oxford definition of a cause of action I cannot copy and paste the contents of my claim form because it contains confidential information. However it does not make any reference to the law and the defendant in his application to strike out queried about what my claim could be and he put some assumptions about which law could be concerned by my claim and in my witness statement in reply to this application to strike out I put forward which laws I considered have been broken but the judge told me that it was too late because this information should have been set out in my claim form
  8. Another problem that I have in that in this document “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person" that we can find in the website https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person.pdf it is made reference to Appendix A, X and Y. However when I use the 'Find' facility of my computer to find them I cannot find them. I would like to know if you can explain me how to find these three appendixes
  9. Yes I will put forward all the things you say but this would not be enough if I do not succeed to prove that the judge was wrong in law when he considered that my case was not properly pleaded because in my claim form I make reference only to the facts and not to the laws This document A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person” comes from the website https://www.judiciary.gov.uk which seems to come from the Government but I do not know if it comes from the Ministry of Justice and if it is the law or simple guidance. We can appeal only on a point of law. Moreover I need to be sure that I interpret paragraph 8.14 of this document properly It will be good also if I can strengthen my ground of appeal with some authorities which confirm this paragraph 8.14 Hence the issue is to clarify if whether or not in the claim form we need to put forward only the facts and not the law and the evidence. The law along with the evidence being put forward later in witness statements for the full hearing or in witness statements in reply to applications to strike out.
  10. I have already make an application for permission to appeal which was refused on papers and I have renewed it an an oral hearing and I am preparing this hearing. What the judge told me is certainly relevant but he told me nothing more than I already told you. Moreover my only ground of appeal is paragraph 8.14 of this document called “A_Handbook_for_Litigants _in_Person” in particular the passage which says “The old adage ‘Facts not law; Facts not evidence’ remains as true today as ever. It means that you do not have to set out the legal basis of your claim in your pleading, simply the facts that go to make up your claim”
  11. In my claim form I did not make any reference to a particular law being broken and the defendant has taken advantage of this to make an application to strike out. In my reply to this application I say that the facts to which I made reference in my claim form related to breaches of a particular of law. However the judge says that my claim as pleaded does not concern breach of this particular law because I did not make any reference to this particular law in my claim form and as a consequence he has struck out my claim Irrespectively of what the judge says the issue is whether or not what is stated in 8.14 is correct or not i.e. whether or not the following passage is correct? “The old adage ‘Facts not law; Facts not evidence’ remains as true today as ever. It means that you do not have to set out the legal basis of your claim in your pleading, simply the facts that go to make up your claim” I would like to know also if you know authorities which confirm this passage because I need evidence if I want to appeal against the decision to strike out my claim because after all this document called “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person” seems to be only guidance and not the law?
  12. I would be grateful to you if you put back my thread as a new thread and separate thread in the General Legal Issue subforum because this thread has nothing to do with my previous threads. Otherwise people will get confused This new thread has nothing to do with Employment Law
  13. A small claim against a public body for harassment. It was struck out not because the claim itself but because I explained the facts in the claim form but not the law which has been broken even though according to me these facts related to the law which was broken. I explained the law which was broken in a witness statement that I filed later but the judge told me that it was too late and I should have put this explanation in the claim form itself. However this Handbook for Litigants in Person says in its chapter 8.4 that to put forward in the claim form the facts only suffices
  14. I have found in the following website https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person.pdf a document called “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person” This seems a useful document. However in chapter 8.4 of this document I have found something strange because it is stated “8.14 Provided you set out your case on all the facts necessary to prove your claim your pleading will pass muster. Make sure that the facts are set out in chronological order and that you do no more than summarise them. The full details of the relevant facts will be set out later in your witness statements. The old adage ‘Facts not law; Facts not evidence’ remains as true today as ever. It means that you do not have to set out the legal basis of your claim in your pleading, simply the facts that go to make up your claim. Further, you do not set out the evidence, ie the details, just the basic facts that go to make up your claim Note down the elements of your cause of action, and make sure that you are in a position to prove the facts necessary to make good each element” We can notice the passage “The old adage ‘Facts not law; Facts not evidence’ remains as true today as ever. It means that you do not have to set out the legal basis of your claim in your pleading, simply the facts that go to make up your claim” Which is very strange because it says that I do not have to set out the legal basis of my claim in my pleading simply the facts that go to make up my claim. However I did like this and my claim was struck out because the judge says that it was not properly pleaded because I put forward the facts but not the law in my claim form. Therefore I would like to know if this documents which has been written by six circuit judges is accurate?
  15. I was not able to put forward my new evidence during my initial complaint because it was concealed from me by my educational institution and I have to make a Freedom of Information request to have it. It is why I think that it will be good to have my complaint processed through the three stages and not only two to have this clarified and this is the reason why my educational institution does not want. The issue is not to force my educational institution to do anything that it does not want but to make it understand that it is in its own interest to comply with its own complaint procedure to avoid further complaint to the OIA or litigation
  16. Sangie595 says “- but the employer can slip up to more serious stages of outcomes if they wish to. Emmzzi is correct that you are posting in the wrong place,” I would like to reply that it is not a private employer which does what he wants but a public body which has to comply with its public duty to act in the interest of the public by complying with the three stages of its complaint procedure. Moreover I have not posted in the wrong place it is someone in the forum who has moved my new thread from the student section to the employment section Emmzzi says “Please try your student union. This is where their expertise lies.” I have already talked to the Student Union which told me that the complaint procedure has three stages and not only two and that they do not have the power to force my educational institution to comply with the three stages of the complaint procedure if it does not want Sgtbush says “It does comply. They say under exceptional circumstances they can drop it to 2 A member of staff leaving and not being replaced is exceptional” However the complaint procedure does not make any reference to exceptional circumstances which allow my educational institution to drop one of the three stages of the complaint procedure. I think that my educational institution is simply wrong and I would like to be able to make it understand
  17. Emmzzi says “if you have genuine, critical new evidence raise a new complaint. But be aware that if it is evidence you coud reasonably have had and rasied the first time around, they can refuse to hear it.” I have already made a separate additional complaint about this new evidence because my educational institution did not want to reply to it under stage 3 because it says that the complaint procedure was already completed because stage 2 was stage 3. My educational institution has rejected this additional separate complaint because it says that it is linked to my initial complaint. Hence it does not want to reply to this new evidence at all Emmzzi says “Then we would need to know the exact content of what you are trying to say efficiently” What I want to be able to explained efficiency is “I can put forward about the importance of each stage, the importance to have the complaint procedure entirely exhausted and about the fact that if it does not comply with all the three stages the processing of my complaint will be frustrated and corrupted....etc” Emmzzi says “This is the employment/ minimum wage board. So, not that useful for enquiries relating to students and courses of study. Maybe try your student union?” Emmzzi is right my new thread is about student issues and not employment issues so I would be grateful to you if you can put it back to the student issues section of this forum so that other members of this forum interested in student issue can have a look at it and maybe provide me with important responses to it honeybee13 says “resources, are we allowed to know what this complaint is about please?” I will need to write a post several-page long to explain my complaint and I can be recognised which could make my life difficult. Anyway this new thread is about a procedural issue and not about the substance of my complaint i.e. my educational institution has not complied with the three stages of its complaint procedure. honeybee13 says “Are you sure that your educational institution is going to like you explaining why their complaint procedure is wrong and/or unfair? It might make life difficult for you.” The complaint procedure of my educational institution is not wrong/unfair. The issue is that it simply does not comply with it
  18. ericsbrother says “What you are asking for appears to be a change in the procedure because you didnt like the one they have and you really want a different result. It isnt going to happen. As a student you have many different courses of action to make a complaint but you appear to have either ignored these or failed to tell us that you did follow them and then omitted to tell us the outcome because again, you didnt like that result Did you use the last 2 stages or just come here with your complaint knowing what the result would be and hope to get some sympathy for your supposed victimhood”. However I did nothing wrong. It was only that allegedly one manager has left his position and no-one was yet appointed at his post i.e. the post was vacant. The situation was that there was no level 3 because the existing level 2 was used on level 2 My educational institution should amend its complaint procedure to explain very clearly in which exceptional circumstances it can omit a stage of the complaint procedure. However it is important that as it currently stands the complaint procedure does not allow the possibility of omitting one stage of the complaint procedure. And I would like to be able to explain efficiently to my educational institution that it would not be fair that it does not comply with the three stages of its own complaint procedure The excuse put forward by my educational institution not to provide me with three replies is that it complies with the rules because my complaint was escalated to the top of the chain faster. However this is wrong because according to the rules I am entitled to receive three responses by three independent managers and not only two responses by only two managers. The difference is important because I have new evidence that I would like to put forward in a third stage of the complaint procedure and I cannot There is someone above the third manager but my educational institution does not want he replies to my last complaint under stage 3 because it says that he is not involved in the complaint procedure. Before complaining to the OIA I would like to try a last time to convince my educational institution but for this I need to know how properly to say the things in an efficient way. I would like to know which strong arguments I can put forward about the importance of each stage, the importance to have the complaint procedure entirely exhausted and about the fact that if it does not comply with all the three stages the processing of my complaint will be frustrated and corrupted....etc I know what to do. It is how to express what I want to say that I have difficulties with. My thread is not about the strength of my case but about the procedural issue of my educational institution having skipped one of the three stages of its own complaint procedure. It is not advice that I really need but rather to know how to say the things in an efficient way
  19. It is a different thread and I would like you separate it from my other threads. The reason is that ACAS concerns employer and has nothing to do with educational institutions (I am a student and not a teacher). My thread about ACAS concerns old cases and I have moved on since. I would like to provide the following additional information concerning my new thread: The problem that I have is that I have started the complaint procedure but my educational institution has processed it only through two stages even though the complaint procedure has three stages. What has happened if that during stage 2 the manager who should have replied to my complaint was not available and it was the manager which is involved in stage 3 who replied to me under stage 2. The consequence is that there is no manager of a higher seniority to reply to my further complaint under stage 3. Therefore my educational institution refuses to reply to my further complaint under stage 3. I would like to know what to tell to my educational institution to convince it that it has a duty to comply fully with its own complaint procedure by processing my complaint through three stages and not only two if necessary by asking to a manager of another department to reply to my further complaint under stage 2 because there is nobody in my department of a higher seniority than the manager who already replied to my complaint under stage 2. Otherwise my complaint would not be fairly processed
  20. I do not understand why you have put my new thread at the end of my previous old threads. My new thread has not nothing to do with my previous old threads. I would be grateful to you if you can separate my new thread from my old threads otherwise people will get confused
  21. I have seen complaint procedures of educational institutions having up to three or more stages. I would like to know why complaint procedures have so many stages?
  22. Thank you. It was the answer that I needed. This is an extract of a unique document found in the following website http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/c/h/Early-Conciliation-flowchart.pdf
  23. This thread is a different matter that my previous thread. I have submitted an Early Conciliation notification form and an ACAS conciliator has been appointed. However the problem that I have is that I am still negotiating with my employer to find a settlement and I do not want that the ACAS conciliator contacts my employer as long as I am still negotiating with him because I do not want he knows that I have already approached ACAS because this could be considered as hostile. The problem is that we are coming close to the one month deadline after which the ACAS conciliator has to issue a certificate. It is why I would like to know in case my negotiation fails with my employer if I can still ask to my ACAS conciliator to contact my employer to try to find an early conciliation even if this certificate has been issued without the need to issue a claim because to issue a claim even if I withdraw it will cost money and could be seen as hostile by my employer.
×
×
  • Create New...