About the 'required' standards, most people are not able to meet them. I honestly believe that my PIP objectives have been set so that I would fail. The real reason for all this that I've been too outspoken. I'm simply not the right cultural fit. But you're right, it's not the right job for me.

Thank you for your reply. May I just please clarify what the error rate means in this case. 30% not rlight first time doesn't mean that there would be 30% errors within a single document. It means that 30% of the documents worked wouldn't be spotless. There could be just one instance of straight quotes instead of curly quotes. Most documents we worked on are quite lengthy. I've been mostly marked down for very minor errors such as the example I gave. Not everyone's work is being checkle. Majority of documents that are not checked contain similar errors. In most cases these aren't picked up by fee earners. People make small mistakes because we are all humans but, more importantly, we are constanty having to deal with unrealistic deadlines. We have also been losing staff recently. Many have gone to the rival firms. And you are absolutely right. They aren't the employer for me. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to move on right now though a couple of coleagues have managed to do just that.

've been working for a well-known law firm for over four years. My role is within business services so I'm not a legal professional. Things were running fairly smoothly until some management changes about two years ago. The department head was demoted and now works in a different department in a less senior role. It was clear from the very start that the new manager would take a much tougher approach. A couple of people were sacked, either by failing their probation or just called in to a meeting if they had passed their probation but had less than two years of service. My problems started with my new line manager (who at the time reported to the new department manager) when I asked a question in a team meeting. I was told that my question wasn't 'constructive' and therefore not appreciated. I was also told that I was generally too vocal etc. It was then decided that my behaviour would be monitored in an informal basis. In February 2019 I was put on a PIP (performance improvement plan). This happened when another manager had reported that I had said that one of my colleagues tend to be 'picky' when checking work. This happened out of the blue. I received a shot message, asking me to come to a meeting room to discuss a flexible working request. No mention of a PIP or anything. My first question is that should I not have been invited to the PIP meeting in a formal way, giving an opportunity to be accompanied etc? The firm claims that this was not part of a disciplinary process. However, if you are put on a PIP you will automatically lose any pay rise and/or bonus others are awarded. I mentioned this to a former union rep who was in the opinion of that 'employment laws may have been broken due to the fact that there was a sanction involved'. PIP objectives included some behavioural ones as well as issues with my work (which I hadn't had before). It was also decided that all my work would be quality-checked. PIP was for a period of three months. A week before my PIP was due to end I was told that everything was on the track. However, my line manager then decided to extend it by four weeks due to 'quality issues'. This was when I mentioned to her that I wasn't happy and said that we could commence protected conversation (yes, probably a big mistake). I requested a meeting with HR. I was then signed off by a Dr.. I was off for a stress related condition but also a physical health issue was detected following some routine blood tests. I returned to work a well over a month later. HR made it crystal clear that they would not enter into protected conversation. I then decided to agree to the PIP extension. Again, a week before my PIP was due to end everything was on the track. My line manager even told how pleased she was about my effort and would notify HR accordingly. She did mention that she would double-check some of my work but couldn't see there being a problem. A week later I was told that I had failed my PIP due to 'quality issues'. I was told that I would be invited to a formal disciplinary meeting and a written warning was the likely outcome. I said that I would not hesitate to take this to the Employment Tribunal should it all progress to dismissal. My line manager looked quite uncomfortable and said that it was my prerogative and that she wouldn't expect anything less from me! Again, I got signed off and ended up being away for about six weeks. On my return my line manager and HR were going to go ahead with the disciplinary. I then contacted ACAS who said that they couldn't really advise what to do but, nevertheless, I had two options: to contact an employment lawyer to discuss whether there would be any grounds of resigning and claiming constructive dismissal or raising a formal grievance. ACAS did say that it would be far easier to argue an unfair dismissal case than taking a constructive dismissal route. I was invited to a 'mediation' meeting with HR and my line manager. I felt that this wasn't impartial at all as HR made it clear that they felt I was underperforming. I felt that HR should have listened to both sides of the story before making such comments. In the end, we were not getting anywhere and HR terminated the meeting. I then raised a formal grievance on my line manager. I had quite a lot of going on as i had a large benign tumour and an organ removed in December. My grievance was looked at when I was signed off, recovering from my operation. i had made several points. Unsurprisingly, apart from a couple of points which were partially upheld, my grievance generally was mostly not upheld. However, it was then decided not to proceed with the disciplinary but to extend the PIP for six weeks and offer me some training. I wasn't entirely happy with my new PIP content. Previous PIP had stated that 'a majority of jobs' had to be right first time. To get a perspective, if you have a 60 slide presentation and you are using double quotes when they should be using single quotes just once, this would be marked as an error. However, my new PIP put a figure at 80%. I mentioned this but the line manager said that it was what was expected from everyone and non-negotiable. I also requested further training once my formal (which I felt was quite basic) training had been completed. Due to the current COVID-19 situation, this never happened. Again, shortly before my PIP was due to finish I was told it was all looking good. In the end, my PIP was failed once again due to achieving just over 70% right first time score instead of the 'agreed' 80% and a behavioural incident. I was now invited to a formal disciplinary meeting. My chosen companion was not acceptable to the firm as they were neither a colleague nor a union representative, so I had to attend alone. I felt that it wan't going to make any difference of what I was saying but, nevertheless, did my best. Unfortunately, I was right and a written warning was issues. I have now appealed the decision and I'm due to have an appeal meeting. I have declined it because it will be heard by my line manager's manager, which I feel will not be entirely impartial. Also, I declined the invitation because my chosen companion won't be acceptable. I do not wish to involve any of my colleagues. Furthermore, I don't think that any of my colleagues would agree to accompany me. They would simply be too worried about getting involved. I have enquired about a possibility of hiring a union rep. However, that would costs hundreds of pounds which I simply can't afford. I had an occupational health assessment. The Dr wrote that I have a long-term health condition that is likely to affect my performance and disability discrimination laws should be considered when making decisions. The Dr also mentioned that I should be allowed to have an 'appropriate' companion in formal meetings. The firm insists that either a colleague or a union rep is appropriate and they are not willing to accommodate anyone else. My argument here is that in my situation neither of those are appropriate. They are basically sticking with it as that's all that the law requires. Furthermore, I made a DSAR request. I found some interesting skype conversation where (I assume) my line manager was talking about me either with HR or another manager. HR/other manager says 'simply tell him to bog off'! My final question is what should I do next? I feel that should this end up in dismissal (which I think it will), I will have no other option than claiming unfair dismissal. Of course, my question then would be how strong would my case be?

There are no recent cases as these store to credit card cases never reach the court. First Credit could issue a claim, hoping that you don't defend. Once the defence goes in, they are likely to discontinue. Ms Mayhew recently beat another creditor (MKDP) in court so mentioning her name works magic!

I know someone who is in the same boat ie his alleged M&S store to credit card debt (over £10k) was sold First Credit. Apparently, they sent a couple of letters so he told them about his dispute - which has been going on for a few years now - and made a CCJ request. He hasn't heard from First Credit since March this year. The last letter simply stated that they were still waiting for information from their client. He also mentioned the Santander vs Mayhew case in his letters. That seemed to have put First Credit off!

What about the housing benefit or housing element of UC?

I can only assume that DWP would average out the settlement over the claim period. Universal Credit, however, seems to work on a monthly basis but my guess is they would still take the monthly average, resulting a massive overpayment. I think it might be worth getting off benefits a few weeks before the settlement. Take some temp work or something. Then again, how would DWP react to that is anyone's guess.

I had my first UC meeting today. So is it any different from starting your JSA claim? Yes and no. Yes in a sense that IDS has decided that anyone daring to claim it should be treated like a criminal. Not so different as you are still dealing with your local job centre which should really be re branded as 'The Social'. My claim consisted of about a dozen printed pages. I had to sign every single page separately and also write down my national insurance number on each page. Then I was asked to wait for my 'work coach' to arrive. The coach arrived but she seemed to be still waking up. In fact, most staff at the Social seemed to be doing very little or nothing. There were lots of staff but just a few customers as they call the claimants nowadays. After waiting for 20 minutes or so, my work coach finally saw me. The interview started by her asking me what I knew about Universal Credit. I think I said something like it combined six benefits. Once again (third time by now if you include the Capita employee who rang me last week) my claim was discussed point by point, followed by drafting a claimant's commitment. Yes, you must agree to work for a national minimum wage (regardless of your previous job or pay) for up to 48 hours per week and commute up to 90 minutes each way. You have to be prepared to spend 35 hours per week on searching for jobs and preparing for your next job. I'm not sure what this means practically. Apparently recording your job search activities on Universal Jobmatch is fine, or you can use a separate spreadsheet. My next appointment was scheduled for next week. Now the plus point. I was assured that taking short-term or ad hoc temp work would be much easier under Universal Credit! I got mixed feelings about all this. Anyone who knows me is aware of the fact that I'd much rather work than claim Universal Credit or any benefits. I believe most claimants are the same. If anyone thinks that the UK benefits are generous I challenge them to try and live on them without turning to the Bank of Mum and Dad, family or payday (social day) lenders. This is the case at least if you are single. You will always come across a few people who quite like life on the Social and IDS is right to do something about it. However, these changes should have been made during the boom years. Whatever Tory minded papers like Daily Mail claim, employment just isn't booming. Oh, I forgot that people on zero hour contracts and part-timers count as fully employed...

I just looked at how they do this in Finland. Like in other Nordic countries, taxes are higher and benefits more generous than here. The Finnish equivalent of JSA is around 705 euros per month. Like here, housing benefit is separate, but not necessarily any more generous. Council tax is collected via PAYE system and not linked to the property you live in, hence irrelevant. In Finland, you are allowed to earn 300 per month (or 279 euros per a four week period) before you lose anything, then you lose 50c per euro. Sounds like the UK benefits aren't that generous after all! I for one would love to get a full time job and not having to claim any benefits.

I have been unfortunate enough having to sign on due to lack of work in my industry (niche IT-related). Most work I have been offered recently tends to be ad hoc, short-term temp bookings. I have taken most of these bookings because I'm keen to keep my skills up to date. Also, sometimes short-term bookings may lead to something longer-term, though not quite as often as in the past. Unfortunately, the JobcentrePlus (or the Social as it's still sometimes referred to) seems to be doing everything to discourage this. They now have those Universal Credit posters, saying "making work pay". Certainly the JSA (which I'm on) doesn't. Say, you have a few hours of ad hoc work paying £70. You wouldn't pay any tax or employee's national insurance on that one, so far so good. However, your weekly JSA is £73.10. Now you go to work for a few hours and earn £70. The first five pounds is disregarded so you end up earning just a couple of quid more. Moreover, unless you are working from home you'd have some travel expenses. In a nutshell you are instantly worse off. As I said before, I'd still be happy to take even a couple of hours booking in the hope it could result in more, longer-term booking. Now, the main reason why this is almost impossible to do is how the current system works. If you work less than 16 hours per week you can still keep your claim open. You simply declare your hours and show your payslip and that should be it. The main problem is that the system assumes that you will be earning the same amount from thereon every week, hence your claim will be affected even when you are no longer working because your booking was just for a few hours in the first place. Once you try to deal with this, most Jobcentre staff don't seem to know what to do. You are then asked to provide more payslips. However, most agencies don't issue you with a zero payslip when they don't have any work for you. Ironically, my current one actually does but we'll see if that is going to make a difference. Once you know that your claim has been stuffed up you are likely to call the call centre. You'll be none the wiser in most cases. After more calls and some statements your benefits are finally reinstated. Universal Credit is said to be designed to deal with these issues. But is it? To start with, you can now earn £700 per annum before losing your full benefit. After that they deduct 65p in every pound you earn until your benefit stops altogether. From a financial point of view, this is hardly an improvement. £700 per annum equals to less than £15 per week. Of course, if this is calculated on an annual basis it will certainly make a huge difference to those who are lucky enough to find a job quickly and only do a couple of temp bookings. We'll have to wait and see whether the Universal Credit implementation is going to make a real difference and cut bureaucracy. Idea of Universal Credit is good but I feel that it's not going to make that much difference. If the Government really wants to make work pay, there should not be any deductions until you earn £40-50 a week, and deductions should be gentle to start with. They should also upgrade the system so that the Jobcentre staff, their computers and DWP management understand that people's circumstances may vary from one week to another. At the moment, for the reasons above, work doesn't pay for many claimants. My biggest frustration is the fact that short-term (less than 16 hours) temp bookings just mess up your claim!