Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About Tinkerb

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Ah, I see. I'm just looking at enforcing a COT3, if necessary, and it seemed to me like a bit of a 'get out' clause. But that does lead me to another question: if there are 2 respondents, that could mean that each will say the other is responsible for paying, couldn't it?
  2. Can someone explain what this means please? It's taken from ACAS site: I don't understand what is meant about the 'not payable under general contract law'. :-s "How does a declaration by the Respondent affect enforcement of my settlement? It is possible for the Respondent to make a declaration that the money owed to you is not payable by them under the general law of contract. In order to do this they must make a separate application to either the court or the Employment Tribunal. If such an application is made then you cannot continue to enforce your settlement in court until the
  3. Would just like to say thank you to everyone that helped with the various trials and tribulations that Hubs has had to endure this year, and the whole fiasco is now over. Fingers crossed that doesn't turn out to be 'famous last words'
  4. My thoughts exactly! Either someone doesn't know what they're doing (which I believe is the case, as it's only a junior member of staff dealing with it), or they will try and retaliate, which is unlikely.
  5. Good morning, and thank you both. All the usual confidentiality stuff is there, together with a 'basic' reference, which actually only confirms the length of employment, which is disappointing, and they're refusing to move on the wording. There were no issues throughout Hubs employment (love that little name that Emmzzi (?) gave earlier, but their pride is hurt and it must be sticking in their throats to say anything positive. Hubs has been asking around too, and we're both coming up with the same answer, full and final on both sides. The fact they are refusing that wording (because
  6. Thanks Becky. I'm sure they cannot comment or advise, they just act as 'piggy in the middle' so to speak. But they definitely are pushing to for us to accept wording we're not comfortable with. Eg, insisting that the settlement is full and final (which I agree to), for now and the future, but only on my side. I think it should be full and final on BOTH sides. Although I'm not sure if there is some way of them retaliating, but I don't trust them not to.
  7. Why oh why do ACAS appear to be on the respondent's side
  8. Further quick question: can a respondent, after a cot3 settlement, still make an application for costs? I've googled and searched as best I can, but cannot find a definitive answers.
  9. Thank you everyone. The documents are not currently an issue, we know they're fake, and they know that we know, lol
  10. Thank you steampowered, that's very helpful, and echoes my thoughts too.
  11. Quick question please: once an amount has been agreed, what would you suggest is a reasonable "specified time" in which to make payment? 7 days? 14 days? 21 days? More, or less?
  12. Thanks HB. I seem to have made a right pigs ear of things today, my sincere apologies.
  13. Update: application for disclosure in native format was denied as it wasn't explained in the application the importance of the document. Oh well. After a couple of insulting and derisory offers to settle by the respondent, and now being close to the hearing date (fee for which has been paid), there is currently an offer on the table at just below 50% of the statement of claim (which HASN'T been exaggerated). Obviously, there is never any guarantees, but would that percentage be classed as a 'sensible' offer?
  • Create New...