We have asked for emails to be included (that were sent recently) that confirm certain things didnt happen that the companies ET3 say did. Their barrister is complaining about putting them in, as he cant see how an email sent this year is relevant to a dismissal from last year - the point is their ET3 mentions minutes from a meeting, yet the email says there are no minutes (they have only just got round to confirming this) - so surely we can have this included, as it disproves part of their ET3? Many Thanks, Mark Dawes

OK - to keep thread updated - they requested that the hearing be extended to 2 days - which the Judge has done (not sure why they think it will need 2 days as it seems a pretty straight argument) - this was after already requesting a postponement - they also requested a CMD which has not been given. The date has been and gone from when they should have had an index to me, and the one they have sent has a lot of my requested documents missing, as well as some of their documents I havent seen despite requesting, so I still cant agree it. They have offered £2k as a "nuisance" case, stating their barrister sees basically no chance of our success (despite being told we had around 50% before any documents were disclosed when we consulted a solicitor ourselves) - after disclosure of documents - I believe the merits of success have improved greatly (basically - note saying I have undertaken all areas of the new role - which I will argue should therefore mean it was suitable alternate employment). I cant belive how obstructive companies can be over this - I guess you can see why many people pull out - but I know we are right, so there is no way we will get walked over!

OK - seems as though the company may be willing to settle - ACAS asked for a figure from my dad, which the company turned down as too high - so he has asked for the company to come up with a figure... They have asked for a CMD, and also after requesting a postponement of the case, now wish to ask it to be listed for 2 days (not really sure why). Have also found out that they should have held individual consultation meetings for redundancy (according to guidelines, and their own redundancy policy) - which they didnt - so I would imagine this could make it automatically unfair (not too sure on this matter though)? Also - they are playing the trick of requesting costs - which i am not sure they can do - as the solicitor is in-house, so as such, they have no costs, so I believe they can only claim (at most) a preparation time order (again - not entirely sure, as they have legal representation, but they arent paying externally for it)?

Also - WRT losses - my dad had an unemployment insurance cover, which in the event of him being unemployed, paid a set amount to him each month - does this need to be shown on the schedule of losses (it is something he has pad for himself, sos not sure if it needs to be bought up and taken off from the schedule of losses or not?) Thanks again

Now looking at filling out Schedule of losses - not sure what figures to use for loss of company vehicle, Private fuel allowance, mobile phone and pension? ANy pointers? Thanks.

Most of it seems to cover who the company are, and how big the group is, and about redundancies in other areas of the group. It then goes on about how budgets were set between the 2 managers for the dept and these budgets were not met (despite the budget not being what the managers set, and also previous redundancies coming out of this budget) and states a few figures, which are only external sales revenue - most of the work was internal, so this isnt even mentioned. They say they refute the claims on all levels on the basis the redundancies were fair (the 2 managers were made redundant and a new role created that pretty much amalgamated the 2 roles and added external sales onto the description) because of the need to restructure the business. It also mentions the fact my dad put in a computer system for time logging and this showed that the managers were not putting in time - which is incorrect as the system was only used when they were fixing things, otherwise they were not logged into it, and being managerial, the amount of time spent on fixing things was relatively low (My dad was working 45 hour + weeks when only employed for 39). They also have a few dates wrong (i.e. when dad was put on gardening leave etc) It also mentions that no other roles could be considered as further redundancies were being contemplated (despite the fact they were advertising for roles). The thing is, my dad could have done the job, he had sales training from a previous job, so had experience of sales. Also - the job was advertised before my dad's redundancy appeal had been completed - which to me doesnt seem right, as it kind of pre-judges the appeal to be rejected? It appears that they are going to use the figures as an argument that the former managers were not running a profitable division - so is it possible to request the current figures to see if it is any more profitable now, and also to request the internal revenue figures from the time, to show the figures in a true light? The annoying thing is, that a local solicitor said the chances are 50/50 - if it was 51%, then there LEI would have payed up - so not sure if it is worth re-trying a solicitor after documents have been disclosed (as this could bump up the chances, and we appreciate having representation seems to be the best way forward).... Also - not that it makes a difference to the case, but the company has employed an in-house solicitor now, as they have so many tribunals currently against them (i guess it works out far cheaper to have someone who deals with it on the payroll than paying fees each time)

OK - ET1 was accepted, and now have the ET3 response back - Do I need to wait for ACAS to get in touch, or can I go ahead and request disclosure of all relevant documents now? The ET3 mentions the dept coming in under budget (despite setting the budget 80k lower, to which the owners brother said he will make it interesting and increase it by 80k) - but they only list external sales, can I request internal revenue from the dept as part of disclosure? Thanks

The LEI stance was based on the LEI's interpretation of the issue ( I assume it went out to a panel solicitor and they they said it was 50/50 on the facts given - needs to be 51% to be taken on - I think the LEI solicitors could only get paid up to a set figure by LEI, so I assume they want to be fairly certain of winning to get their money) - it wasnt based on the advise from the solicitor my dad contacted before the redundancy - that was all done off my dad's back (through a local company "specialising" in employment law)... The "local" company have said they can see if they can go on the panel for the LEI - but again - if they are saying 50/50, then it is pretty much not worth applying for it, as it needs to be 51% (they did say that disclosure of documents etc could possibly increase the chances greatly)...

I think the figure is closer to £800 but there you go.... The LEI have already said no, as solicitors said chances are 50/50 - Problem was that my dad went to the solictors before being made redundant to make sure he was doing everything he should - LEI will only cover AFTER he was made redundant (no idea why however). Presumably once the ET1 is lodged, you cannot then decide to get legal representation (as you have not paid the £465 fee mentioned for being represented) if for example disclosure of documents revealed the job was same salary, and ultimately the same roles?

Funnily enough - when it all happened, my dad went to see the solicitors, and they agreed he had a strong case, when he was made redundant, they agreed and said again he had a strong case, then all of a sudden they back tracked, said 50/50 which meant LEI wouldnt cover it - had they have said 50/50 from the start, my dad wouldnt have spent the money on their further advice (which alone I believe stands him out of pocket of around £1k....) I think the solicitor dealing with the case at the time was PQE of 3 or 4 years, so I guess not that experienced) - and the Law Society page listed her areas as IT and Employment, so it could be it was then reviewed by someone higher up who disagreed with her initial findings.... My Wife is a solicitor herself (albeit in an entirely different area, so has only knowledge of employment from initial training etc), so we have a few employment books kicking around somewhere, although it sounds as if they wont really be needed, as they will not expect my dad to be quoting case law etc? Presumably we can now await threats to cover legal costs etc from the other side? I have no doubt I will be back for further questions if the claim "takes off" - but again - thanks for you time so far - it really is invaluable!

Excellent - many thanks for your help - it is very much appreciated. We will send in the ET1 and go from there. The quote for £7k was for filling in ET1 (£465) then legal costs on top, including counsel fees of ~£3k so from beginning to end of the tribunal... You have basically confirmed what I was thinking RE the solictiors he used - seems they dont know what they are quite on about

Is it possible to find out (if the ET1 is accepted) what the pay grade awarded for the new role is - he has been informed it is a difference of ~£700 per annum (by a friend within the company) - as it sounds like his case may rely on this? Also - the extra responsibilities were to report to the board, which he already did! The thing is - we KNOW the company did the dirty - seems a bit of a joke if they can just say the job was at a higher level/pay (when we know it wasnt), and that gets them off! They have quite a few other tribunals against them at the moment for further unfair dismissal claims (not that it makes a difference, but it is sickening that companies can act like this and get away with it)... The Legal Expense insurance soicitors (I assume based on above) said the chance is around 50/50 of success, so the insurers wont take it on - however, they also said that if they can get documents based on disclosure proving the roles etc the new guy fits are less than my dad, and pay level is similar, then the chances would rocket.... So they seemed to imply that you could request this information - however, this would dhave to be paid for and I think the total they quoted was around £7k - FAR too much for someone out of work to even consider paying (I guess this is the reason why companies get away with it) - however, if we can get similar information by self representation, then it must be worth a go? Also - another thing to add - my dad had to apply for the new role despite asking (and not being given) the roles and responsibilities of it (as they hadnt been drawn up) - in the end, he was given these on the day of his interview (5 minutes before initial interview with agency) The agency couldnt advise Salary range, as they didnt know. When invited for the 2nd interview - the details were sent to his home email address at 6pm the day before the interview - so he spent most of the night looking at these (details of questions and presentations he had to make) Basically throughout the whole affair, he feels the company has been obstructive, and unfair - and knowing that the new role was taken on at not much more than he was paid undermines the reason for it not being suitable...

Che, the work is still being done, the new role is the same title plus one extra word... Pretty much 2 roles were amalgamated to 1 new post, so the 2 guys were made redundant, and the job not offered to either before being advertised externally. As my dad got an interview, and then a second one, I can only presume the company thought he could fill the role?

He was basically told that the job would be advertised externally through a recruitment agency, and he was encouraged to apply for this (externally) - his grounds of appeal against redundancy were: The role was suitable employment for me and should be offered. Also if the (other guy made redundant) was interested it should be offered to us both, to be selected by fair criteria, It was a role I was interested in and capable of delivering as it closely mirrored my existing post and also should not be offered out internally or externally if a redundancy situation existed. I also questioned an alternative vacancy which was not offered thereby reducing the redundancy situation (another job was being advertised within the company at the same time, albeit in a different dept - but training to fit in with this would again be minimal). They rejected this (saying that the new role was more than the sum of the 2 being made redundant at a higher grade/pay level, and they were advertising externally to ensure the best applicants), and continued with advertising externally (which they had started before the appeal was heard). Also - the closing date for the application of the job (externally) was a week before the appeal decision was given...

Thanks for your input - it is much appreciated. From the roles and responsibilities of the new job, the bits that my father didnt do, were basically pretty easy to get training for (sales based items I believe) - he did actually do sales in a job some time ago... My dad applied for the job (as requested, externally), and got through to an interview first with the employment agency, and was then shortlisted and attended an interview with the company - would it be reasonable to argue that he must have been deemed suitable to get chosen for an interview by the company?

should also add that My dad contacted ACAS who said he had to lodge an appeal - this was heard, and he was still made redundant - so he contacted ACAS again, and they said he needs to lodge for unfair dismissal.

Basically - my Dad was put on notice of being made redundant, as the company were combining his and another guys roles, in the end, they got someone external (despite my dad doing 75% of the new job anyway, and the new guy meeting less criteria than my dad). The company seemed to mess around with missing bits off meeting minutes etc, then changing the minutes when asked to include the bits they missed before, and also not getting a copy of the roles and responsibilities of the new job until the day of his interview for it (had to apply externally for it - and he got shortlisted for it, so presumably both the recruitment agency and the company agreed he could do the work) We are in the middle of filling in the ET1 form, but not sure how to structure section 5.2 - we have basically dated each stage that an interview or notice etc takes place, and finished off saying that the new job role is 75% of my dads old role, and hence, he could have filled the post, rather than redundancies being made..... Also - he has been told by his former colleagues that the replacement doesnt actually have a clue on what he is doing, and would definitely meet less criteria than my dad did - is it possible (if it gets to that stage) to get a SAR on what qualifications and criteria the new guy has? Many Thanks.

Defence takes precedence I'm afraid

What do you think, should I continue, and make reference that the FOS have recently fined an institution for similar retaliatory tactics, or have they got me by the short and curlies? Cheers.

Full of Spiel as to why they believe they are working lawfully and their charges are correct. The last part of the letter mentions that where they see the customer/bank relationship breaking down (i.e. in legal proceedings), they will close the account. Now I am a little worried about the last line! I assume it is bully-boy scare tactics, and I am considering writing back with mention to the recent case where the FOS fined the bank for closing someones account in retaliation. They have taken £320 in charges from me, and my CC is fairly high with themselves (although I do not use it any more), as well as a loan I have with them, so if they did close the account, I assume they couldnt demand full settlement straight away (why would they want to when they can keep charging interest on my outstanding balances) Thanks in anticipation

Got a chance to call the number above today, they are sending a cheque out for th £205 interest! I will of course make a donation when I have cashed the cheques! Many Thanks For your help (now if only Egg were as easy to crack, and Barclays for the ongoing claim my brother has with them, he will be green as I have had Smile and MBNA pay out fairly promptly )

I can see some stickies, but I cant see the number for the advocates office?

I assume I can decline the offer and push for the contractual interest? Charges are £383 and Contractual Interest is £205 - so deffo worth pushing for if I can Date for MCOL is next Friday, so I called their customer satisfaction line and said I am not accepting the offer, and if not resolved by next Friday I will take them to small claims, he mentioned he would get someone who deals with it to call me back.

Its quite funny, as the various institutions seem to have a choice of 2 tactics. Tactic one (from my experience), includes Co-op/smile and now Egg, and they will stall for as long as they can, which doesnt help as it will only delay the inevitable (unless they can get their solicitors etc to find a loop-hole or such like - I am guessing this is what they asked Father Christmas for). Tactic two (from my experience), includes MBNA, who will offer a settlement immediately (before I even asked fro any amount), I guess in the vain hope that people cannot wait for the money, and will bank the cheque as they dont have any choice.

Cheers for your help. I sent the prelim letter last week which totalled £370 in charges, which amounted to £580 when I added Contractual interest onto the charges. I called their customer line the other day to say I will not accept a payment of £180 in full and final settlement, and if they could speak to me it could stop it getting "messy", and they said they would not be willing to do any more for me, So I advised I will be writing some letters, and that if I have not been paid back my £580 within 28 days, then I will file a small claim against them!