Wow, the lengths that people will go to avoid paying money they owe! Reading your post, I can't see any evidence at all to amount to fraud by false representation, it's not exactly something which people get arrested for all the time. However, saying that, I only have your story, which I am not doubting for one minute! I am assuming that you were arrested on suspicion of committing fraud by false representation, and therefore taken to the police station, interviewed and bailed pending further enquiries. Therefore, on attending your bail hearing, you were told that you were being released with no charges. You cannot sue the lady in question for wrongful arrest, as she did not arrest you! You can only sue the police if they acted on information which was out of date, inaccurate, unlawfully obtained etc. Even then, it may cost money as you would have to take it through the civil courts etc.. However, what strikes me is that the police must have had some form of evidence? Granted, it does not need much evidence and the police in this country often arrest based on the statement (and the word) of one person until they can establish what has happened. In theory, I can ring the police and tell them that someone had threatened me, and they will come round and take a statement. They will then go and arrest the person I named and then find out it's not true, but not before some reputation has been damaged and a few people have started their own rumours too! Back to your most important question - can you sue her? Yes you can. Important to note - if you do take this matter to court, you will need to prove that you have given her enough time and notice to pay you prior to going to court. It's the same as if you were claiming back the charges from your bank - registered post and offers are all in writing and will all form part of your case. However, it sounds like you are a sensible person who has kept all documents, receipts etc therefore most of the work and evidence you need you already have. Another avenue to pursue may be slander, however this is difficult to prove and you would need to also evidence that you have suffered personally as a direct result of the rumours spread by the person you are suing. All complicated, but you're on the right track and good luck

The armed forces will normally write into specific contracts the entitlement of the holiday, including any "bound over" period i.e. what you can carry over or receive payment for any unused days etc. However, the problem with armed forces is that there is tons of red tape which apply only to those employed by the armed forces. I put my hands up and admit that I have no in depth knowledge of the legislation surrounding armed forces personnel apart from that which is common with "civilians" in the public/private sectors! However, I would imagine that you have an administrative function who could assist with your query... Sorry I can't help anymore!

Well, in practice, you do have a BT line, as BT own the infrastructure. The only thing which BT do not provide is the line itself. The physical switching of the line is simple - an engineer goes to the cabinet and tweaks a few things and boom - BT are now providing your line! However, there will be a "tag" on your line which will prevent someone else from providing your broadband. So you will need a MAC code to switch internet providers. Contact Sky ASAP with your request and your MAC code, and they should deal with this for you. Word of warning from me on a personal note - I tried to do this with Sky and they had no idea whatsoever on how to do it and ended up just cancelling the order for the phone line - the reason being they did not know how to do it! So I ended up with a fantastic lady from BT helping me (I moved into a new house, hence why I needed a BT line) and she did everything for me. I pay a bit more, but then I had to get the BT line working for broadband. Might just be me, but I have not found Sky to be helpful on the phone line side of things!!

To make things simple: There is no obligation for an employer to pay an employee who is off sick unless the company has such as scheme in the employee's contract. SSP is paid from day 4 of any absence from work due to sickness up to a maximum of 28 weeks. If the employee is off sick for more than 7 calender days (i.e. Monday to Monday) they must obtain a certificate from the doctor, which the employer will use to reclaim the SSP paid. If the employee is off for 4 days or more (called a qualifying period) and is then off again within 8 weeks of that period, then they are paid SSP from the first day of that sickness. If 8 weeks has passed, then the first rule applies with the first 3 days being unpaid. If any of my staff want to find out more, I direct them here: Statutory Sick Pay - telling your employer you are sick and providing evidence : Directgov - Money, tax and benefits as it's more impartial for them. ACAS can also help with any specific questions you might have.

Give the court a call and ask to speak to the Clerk of the Court, and ask if you can request an adjournment. It's at their discretion, and they may say no without any consideration but if you explain your circumstances (i.e. kids not been well, saving for two years, recovering from illness etc) then they may show some compassion. They may hold the hearing in your absence, but that would be risky as you are not there to put your side of the story across. But it's worth calling them, the worst they can say is no.

Hours of work are rarely an implied term, and more usually an express term - this means that the hours of work are set (i.e. 37.5) but there is normally a clause within the contract which stipulate some form of flexibility - a common example is one which states that "at certain times, you may be requested to work at an alternative location or other duties as required with short notice" or something similar. However, if your partner had worked the same hours over a significant period of time, you should be able to argue that this is an implied term of employment - although 'significant' is open to interpretation - the longer the better! The change in shifts could be a complete co-incidence - or not. However, most companies are perfectly entitled to amend shifts/hours to fit in with the business, depending on the industry, nature of the job. However, if an employee subsequent has or develops a disability, then the employer has a duty to make arrangements (where possible and reasonable) to ensure that the employee is not exposed to unneccessary risks or challenges based on that disability - nor to be treated any different. However, the discrimination will only normally apply if the disability has been diagnosed and confirmed. Of course, many people could claim discrimination based on a self diagnosis or a "google" search of a few symptoms. Therefore, the tests and/or subsequent investigations into your partners health may have no bearing on their leniency. Employee handbooks normally ask that medical or dental appointments are made outside of work (wherever possible) - however, usually impossible due to the NHS! However, there is not usually anything within the contract due to the possibility of a breach or indeed discrimination, and normally refers to the handbook/guidelines - these are normally viewed as implied terms as they cannot always be used as the letter of the law when it comes to disputes or guidance. Discovering an illness at work is always a tricky problem, especially if it is one which requires tests, scans, waiting around, time off and a lot of worry on top of that - could be nothing, could be something, and I sympathise. In face, I think most employers would as they care about their staff. But then companies are running a business, and sometimes emotions have no part in their decisions therefore they oblige only their legal duty to employees. I'd start with an informal discussion to see if any mutually agreeable arrangements can be made, and if not then to possible generate a more formal meeting or conversation to try and boost up your partners influence with these discussions.

Above is very true, it sounds like you were just stopped by an officer who chose to give a caution, many officers don't but some do purely to drive a point home or to ensure that they are following procedures correctly - if you get a really nice one, they will tell you that you are not under arrest but they will read you a caution. They should also explain that you do not have to accept the FPN, but you do have to physically accept it at the roadside, and on the back it will have instructions on how you can appeal it if you wish to, or accept it and pay the fine and let the matter go. However, if you feel that you have been treated unfairly or improperly by a police officer, you have every right to make a complaint and have it looked into, and you have every right for it not to prejudice the FPN should you wish to accept or contest it. However, you will need to produce the facts, and use them if you wish to contest the FPN, which is separate from making a complaint about an officers conduct. However, if his conduct resulted in the incorrect issuing of it...well, it speaks for itself.

Of course, that's due to my dodgy cut and paste!!

Hmm, if you mean that AOL provide broadband on the one phone line, then no other ISP will be able to run an ADSL signal until AOL release the line fully. Normally, to shift, you need a MAC code which then gives the new company the authority to put their product on the line. However, BT can force the line in extreme circumstances (i.e. if you move into a line where there is a "tag" on the line from a previous ISP).

It's probably due to the fact that the laptop was supplied as a "gift" for taking out the mobile broadband, and one goes in hand with the other - you need the laptop to access the internet. But if the contract with Vodafone is cancelled, there isn't any contract in place governing your possession of the laptop - and I suspect the laptop is only free if you take out mobile broadband. In another example, if you buy a new car you may get a free accessory - but if the car has multiple faults in the first month, you would (usually) want a replacement - but the accessory would have to go back as well. Many terms and conditions state that if a product is returned or cancelled, then all associated "gifts" would have to be returned as well. To be honest, if you add up the price over the minimum term that you would have paid for mobile broadband, it will more than likely be a good way to getting a nice spec laptop with no contract and no problems.

By law, if she has been working for at least one month but less than a year, then she must be given at least a week's notice. Some contracts will write in a notice period of longer in the event of redundancy. However, it has been seen that the law can override a contract in some cases. Anyhow, with regards to the redundant position, here is something which might be useful. If your job is re-advertised two months later, you almost certainly have a claim for unfair dismissal. An employer can't make an individual employee redundant as such - they can only make their job redundant, eg 'We do not need a widget-maker any more so Mr Jones will have to go.' Re-advertising the same job shortly afterwards is a strong indication that you were moved out of the company under the guise of redundancy. If you are made redundant make sure you get a written explanation stating that your position is surplus to requirements, then if it is re-advertised up to three months later, consult a solicitor specialising in employment law. If you are even considering taking your employer to an employment tribunal, don't waste time. There is a time limit of three months for bringing claims and you will need time to prepare your case. If you think that your being made redundant is unfair and possibly illegal, you should, first of all, write a clear letter to the firm noting your concerns and seeking clarification of the reasons for/circumstances of your dismissal. Under English law, the firm will (generally) have a legal obligation to respond within 14 days. Failure of the employer to respond should prompt you to complain to an industrial tribunal. When in doubt, consult a solicitor specialising in employment law - it nearly always saves you money in the long term. Many will take on these cases on a 'no win - no fee' basis.

Hmm, Distance Selling Regulations state: The right to cancel allows the consumer time to examine the goods or services, as they would have when buying in a shop. The cooling off period starts when the contract is concluded and ends 7 working days after the day the goods are received (for services, 7 working days after the order is placed) Therefore, you are entitled to a refund - but then you are stuck on the part with regards to worn/scuffed/marked shoe comment which they are claiming. Ask them to advise you on their refusal for a refund. Throw into general conversation that you received some advice (from Trading Standards, Consumer Direct, Citizen's Advice etc) on Distant Selling Regulations and that you are legally entitled to a refund, and consequently not receiving one is a breach of contract. Normally, if you keep up the rant, they'll give in to you just to get you off the phone. Persistence pays sometimes!!

Just checked it out. Some photographs surfaced of the defendant engaged in hardcore bondage scenes, and his employer was shown them. He was dismissed and he appealed. However, the judge in the ET upheld his dismissal, saying: "The Tribunal accept that for a probation officer there must be some limitation on that person's 'freedom of expression'. … the Tribunal accept that the activities of the applicant (taken in the round) were such as to have the possibility of damaging the Probation Service and its reputation and that it is reasonable that such activities should be curbed so far as the applicant's freedom of expression is concerned."

As for being involved in S&M, I think (from memory) they found links to website on his PC, and that's when it came out. As for police officers being exempted, well it's not really just them - it's all employees (regardless of status) of a police force or a profession. However, just because someone works in the private sector doesn't mean they do not owe some duty to their employer... As for the guy being sacked, well he placed a comment about his boss being "evil" and also renamed his workplace as "W*nkerstones". Similar events occurred with a number of Virgin Atlantic members of staff being suspended last year as well. Anyhow, it's getting off track now. I just wanted to make the point that it IS possible to commit an "offence" (for want of a better word) whilst not at work. Although here the OP claims complete innocence, the truth is that very few people are suspended without any form of evidence or invalid reason - therefore, it is only fair for there to be some form of control from the employer to safeguard their commercial interest. This mirrors in some form bail conditions which criminals agree to in order to go about their business whilst the police are dealing with whatever it is that has been done. Although, granted, that is much more severe and extreme, but has some similarities. Anyhow, to the OP - hope it resolves itself soon!

Depends on the judge as well! I know a JP who really is on the side of the employees and will therefore be more lenient on certain circumstances given by the employee, but then there are others who believe that the great commerce of the UK is more favoured!!

Pay vs Lancashire Probation Services In a few ways - Pay vs Lancashire Probation Services created case law, as it was found that his interest in S&M was incompatible with being a probation officer. Similarly, it was held in court that a Waterstones employee who was suspended and then wrote on a well known blogging site that his boss was "evil" was subsequently dismissed without the original matter being dealt with, as it was found he brought the company into disrepute. Similarly, it's clearer if you are talking about police officers - even when off duty, sick or annual leave, they are still bound by their contract, as every employee is. However, dismissal would only be fair if it was found your actions conflicted with your work. So the OP can bring the company into disrepute. Making comments on a blogging site is one example. Being photographed holding a beer on a beach whilst off sick is another ( Human rights prevail, but common sense comes first.

They're not all bad.......! ACAS are free and offer binding legal advice and deal only with employment. They can also mediate, but they are impartial and will give you honest advice free of charge. http://www.acas.org.uk As above, home insurance normally has legal helpline which have a rota of on call solicitors who, if they are REALLY greedy, make money from the insurance company by speaking to people outside of office hours on their specialist area.

1) Depends on what they were dismissed for and your argument against it 2) No case law, very tricky to find in tribunals as they are not usually recorded very publicly unless transferred to higher court. 3) Depends on what they are contesting and why. They will need a good and valid reason for the delay in lodging the claim - normal excuses are family death, being in hospital etc. Whether or not police investigation is a good enough one may depend on the outcome? If they take no further action or decide no crime existed, you could use that to show there was no valid reason for delay. As long as the proper grievance rules were followed and there was evidence beyond doubt that they were guilty of the accusations, then there isn't really a claim at all.

In all of this, you haven't made your negative feelings clear enough by a statutory process, i.e. a grievance. The first question to be asked is more than likely whether or not you went down that route -that's why it's there and the whole point of it. The points you raised I would say (in my own opinion) do not amount to constructive dismissal, the evidence points to you actively choosing to leave and not being forced to, which is the prerequisite for constructive dismissal. Although it sounds like bad management and not the best company in the world, there doesn't look like any basis for you to ask the company to discharge your duty to pay the money back. But I can't see any valid reason as to why you will be excused from paying this. It's an exact term of the contract and they will enforce it. I could be wrong though - ACAS may be able to provide a better resolve if you get in touch with them and see what they have to say.

demoralising, but still as said above - same money, less responsibility! Personally, I would walk as I went in to do a job, and would feel too demoralised to work in a lower position. Saying that, depending how much you want to get on with the company, accepting and showing willing may help you advance in the future. However, they could remember this event and use it to your disadvantage. Saying that, we are in recession and it's not the ideal time to change jobs...

But you are still an employee and therefore bound by any terms and conditions of your contract. People can be suspended and still bring the company into disrepute and therefore create further problems. However, I would ring ACAS and ask for them to advise -they'll tell you straight and you can go from there. In addition, any correspondence or advise from ACAS is normally binding and respected by companies and therefore can prevent you from worrying unnecessarily and to let you know where you stand which, unfortunately, many companies do not do.

Sounds like the company's insurer for liability has changed its terms and conditions, or they have renewed the policy with someone else. Sounds genuine, although the fact they are doing it so long after you started is a bit odd. Would they not have taken references when you started? No harm in asking why - they are asking for personal information, so you are entitled to ask why they are asking, for what purpose is it serving (i.e. due to new policy/ts and cs). Could be they made an error in not getting one when you started. But I'd ask the question, can't do any harm.

It needs to be clarified if a bonus is an integral part of your contract. However, this looks like a "discretionary bonus", i.e. one which is not regular (i.e sales volume, profit sharing) and simply one which required you to complete a task and be rewarded for it with an extra payment. Therefore, it doesn't sound like a contractual issue, although if an agreement was made for you to be paid a bonus, then by not paying it they are, in effect, in breach of contract (just not your employment contract). There have been similar cases which have gone to a tribunal, and the JP has communicated the difficulty in proving a contract or agreement existed if evidence is purely verbal, and that written evidence would be much more valuable. Verbal bonus payments are extremely difficult to enforce, but that's not to say impossible. Because grievance processes are statutory, it may all get ironed out. Simply say that you would not have taken on extra tasks if you were not to be rewarded for them, therefore the only reason you did it was due to the agreement you would be paid a bonus for it. However, the e-mails which have been sent to back up your various conversations would be good, especially if you received a response to them. For example, if you e-mailed something like "Thanks for the conversation, just to confirm that I would be paid £xxx for doing X,Y and Z..." etc, and they responded "No problem, thanks" and did not refute the fact that you would be paid, then it could be said they had accepted the contents of your e-mail, therefore unconditionally creating a verbal (and legally binding) contract.

They don't have to pay you - in basic terms, you are paid to work and you didn't go to work, therefore they won't if they don't want to. Now, I'm NOT saying that they are in the right!! About 3 years ago, I was snowed in and the police placed a cordon on each end of my road in rural Buckinghamshire and advised all of us to go home as they were not allowing any vehicles to pass through as it was on a hill, and the gritters could not get up. They also had 3 accidents within 30 mins and therefore closed off any way of getting out of the road at all. In addition, the snow had taken out a telephone pole, so I had no internet to work from home either! However, on returning to work, I was told I would have to take a day's annual leave or not be paid for the day. I was livid as I had got up, got dressed, walked dog and gone to my car - didn't really care about the snow, but the POLICE would not let me! Grrr... Anyhow, after a long wrangle with various people, I was about to give up when I realised that a senior manager and a director of the company lived on the same road (the road is 4 miles long on a sloping incline through fields and farms). I enquired with them if they had been deducted pay or taken annual leave. No? Not even come into conversation? WTF? Well, not having any of that. Will you assist me in sticking to them? Thanks! Luckily, they were on my side and assisted in my challenge and I was paid. Hurrah! But what a pain!!! By the way, the company I was working for is (or possibly, as it's the credit crunch, was) the world's fourth largest company....multi billion pounds in revenue, and they still quibble about a day's pay... Out of interest, about 6% of my workforce turned up on that dreaded Monday last week. Every employee still got paid though, because we value them

Well, to put it simply, your probation period can be extended for any number of reasons, but I would have thought it bad practice if they cannot elaborate on why it's been extended. There are a whole host of reasons, not all of them negative, as to why this might happen but usually to give you and the company an opportunity to review and rectify anything which may have gone wrong during that period. But, in basic terms, no they don't have to give you a reason, but would look incredibly stupid if they didn't have one? As for removing you from the post, yes they can demote you but any company can do this to anyone, regardless of whether or not you are in the "official" capacity of a role. However, again, as per the above, it would be very unprofessional for them to do so without giving a valid reason for doing so. However, it does sound like you're being slightly victimised by the company though. Is there anyone at the company who you can take up a grievance with? This is a route you are legally entitled to take if you have an issue with your company or an individual and feel that a confidential one to one meeting would help to resolve matters in order for you to move forward. Employees are protected by law against any further recourse being taken against yourself for raising these issues, and they cannot be held against you in any way. If they do, then a tribunal will swiftly kick them into shape. You are protected by unfair dismissal, therefore they cannot dismiss you without good reason, or they risk being sued. Although there isn't technically wrong with what they are doing, it's hugely unprofessional and they are running the risk of further action being taken against them in the future should something else transpire. However, I would take it slightly further so that it can be documented in case anything did happen.