Jump to content

Sidewinder

Site Team
  • Content Count

    5,829
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    1.3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Sidewinder last won the day on December 27 2016

Sidewinder had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,748 Excellent

About Sidewinder

  • Rank
    Site Team

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Whilst it may be true that any person can arrest and detain a suspected offender - that person using 'reasonable force' would be extremely unwise unless they have absolute certainty that a relevant offence has been committed. In the circumstances outlined in Post #2, it would be extremely foolish to detain somebody revisiting a store where an offence was merely suspected of taking place at some previous time, and no proof existed that it actually had
  2. Different outfit, but the same fleecing method as got my father. He had hired a car in Rome and unknowingly racked up half a dozen or so infringements of a controlled traffic zone during his stay. It took almost four years for the fleecers - a UK based DCA - to write threatening hell and damnation unless he paid them well over £1600. In father's case he paid up believing the threats to be legitimate, before owning up to me, and with very little research we discovered that he is not alone and many have been subjected to the same threats. With further research it also became clear that the DCA has absolutely no purpose other than to threaten (and rake off a tidy share of anything recovered) and only IF the local authority in Italy sought to take action they would only have jurisdiction in Italy and providing that you have no intention to return (and even then there would only be a small chance of finding trouble) then there is nothing that they can do. Father later had another letter demanding further payment for another infringement not previously included and rightly that time completely ignored them. He has not heard from them since! As a subnote, the legal system in Italy allows 360 days after establishing the identity of the driver (or hirer) in which to contact you. You should therefore have had a charge to your credit card (presumably) from the hire company, and then a notification and demand for payment from the Italian authorities - which in my father's case was by email and looked like a foreign s*c*a*m so it was deleted and only three years later did he get a letter from the UK DCA
  3. You appear to be suggesting that a ban would be preferable to you than Points? I think it highly unlikely that with a clean licence, and your occupation you would be looking at a ban - certainly with remorse expressed, previously clean licence and needing to be able to drive for work. The amount of the fine could be high as it is based on income at that level, but I can't understand why you would want a ban rather than the likely 6 points? The offence code (so far as I am aware) would be SP50 irrespective of whether that results in a ban or not. If action was taken through the Mags Court then this would be classed as a criminal conviction but surely your professional body would not view that in the same way as, say, a criminal conviction for violence, and maybe even disclosure would not be required for straightforward motoring offences? Yes you would need to disclose the offence to your insurer or any future potential insurers, but as an SP50 whether a ban or fine resulted - this would only be different if a ban was ordered under totting up Others may well be much more clued up on this subject, but I don't see it being any more complicated than in needs to be - other than the likely fine where a professional would have a sufficiently high income for it to be quite punitive As above, admit the offence, show remorse and disappointment in yourself for your actions, offer to take whatever the court awards and plea for consideration to be given to a previously good driving history and the need for you to drive in your employment
  4. If it is a disciplinary hearing then you have a right to be accompanied by a Union rep or work colleague. Have you been advised of this? How long have you had to prepare for the meeting? What would be the case if your Union Rep or colleague was not available on that day. A 'reasonable' employer should postpone the meeting to allow you to have everything in place. Of course it may depend what your 'plans' are - a medical appointment might be one thing but it it is just meeting up with friends of going shopping then it may be that attending a meeting to decide your future employment might reasonably be seen as more of a priority
  5. Sadly the CCJ will remain there until August 2020 whether settled or not and paying it off at this stage will not drastically improve your credit rating, if at all
  6. As above - completely ignore CRS - they will make all kinds of threats but it is extremely unlikely that it will go any further than threats. It is not a criminal matter at all, so they would have to sue in the civil court which would cost far more than they could hope to recover - and even if it did go that far they would need to prove that you deliberately intended to steal rather than this being a genuine mistake. Of course the CR order relies on an admission of guilt in order to be issued, but as above this remains a civil matter and will not involve the police any further The CR order remains a private agreement between you and B&Q - the police have no powers to enforce it. The CR is not a criminal conviction so would not go on a criminal record although it might be stored as 'local information'.
  7. The Wescot and Cabot ones stick out like a sore thumb - they only usually buy debts that have no hope of being enforced via the courts. Have any of the debts actually been through a court in the past?
  8. Wow! I bet very few if any will have adequate CCA agreements for those accounts. Get some CCA requests off and don't pay a penny more to those who cannot come up with the relevant paperwork
  9. A couple of things Has he been with the same employer for those 20 years? Has your husband contracted out of the Working Time Regulations? If he hasn't then he cannot be forced to work an average of more than 48 hours per week.If he has opted out in the past, then he can opt back in by giving the relevant written notice. Also, he should be having the rest breaks allowed by law and uninterrupted periods of at least 11 hours between shifts - is he getting adequate rest? Regarding the working conditions this sounds like more of a H&S issue. I am not familiar with the catering industry but would suspect that many kitchens are similarly uncomfortable to work in. I probably already know the answer, but is there a H&S rep at the workplace? There should be a risk assessment relating to extraction systems and a schedule of work completed to clean them and keep them effective. It would be interesting to see whether this is the case. Would fellow workers back your husband up in raising a complaint? Ultimately it may be that your husband has to raise concerns directly with the employer in a formal manner by raising a grievance. This is not likely to make him popular and unfortunately may mark him out as a troublemaker so he will need to watch his back, but once genuine grievances have been raised, especially in connection with H&S or potential breaches of WT regs, then they should take this seriously and respond appropriately
  10. Agree with the above - Superdrug are basically saying that as you were all together they are not trusting any of you to not be the next ones to try stealing so will not be prepapred to have you on the premises in future - just in case RLP are well known for sending their spurious bill for security costs to each of those who were detained so that hopefully one of you cracks and pays - effectively on behalf of all of you. You can confidently ignore anything that might be sent to you - and tell your friends to do the same, as RLP are not entitled to anything, and all they will do is send letters. They will send increasingly threatening demands though, hence why it would be better if parents were aware of the situation in case a letter gets opened or seen by them in error. If they have any intention to speak to RLP or worse still, pay them, then send them here to ask questions and we will happily put their minds at rest. Ignoring RLP is essential and nothing bad will happen if you do
  11. I deal with security guards and others on an almost daily basis and they all use the word 'fine' It isn't however, but is merely an offer to pay an amount in settlement of the retailer's option to sue you in the County Court for what they deem to be a contribution to the costs of security. They will rarely, if ever, take that option as it has been proven in the past to not represent any genuine loss to the store, so you can safely ignore any demand for payment - and there will be several such demands, using increasingly alarming language, and maybe ultimately a letter from a debt collector, however since no debt actually exists they are even more toothless than RLP. Stand firm, do not pay a penny and ignore all letters and you will be fine
  12. The Working Time Directive is clear that holiday pay should be paid at the time that an employee takes holiday. Rolled up holiday pay is considered unlawful under the WTD however the UK implementation of the Directive was not (nor is) quite so specific. Although the Government guidance is that holiday pay is unlawful, and that holiday pay should be paid based on hours worked at the time of taking leave, any employer still using the practice of rolled up holiday pay will have a defence to any claim for non-payment of holiday pay so long as the 'rolled up' element of pay is clearly separated and documented as such on the payslip. There is also a recommendation that any contracts still in place where rolled up holiday pay is used should be renegotiated So the shortened version of the above is that yes, it is unlawful, but in terms of what can happen as a result is very little so long as the contract and payslips make it transparent that there is one rate of pay for the job (which cannot be below NLW/NMW) and a separate pay element representing the rolled up holiday pay. The employee must also be free to book (and should be made to take) the statutory minimum annual leave entitlement. The contract does though need to be renegotiated so that leave is paid at the time it is taken EDIT - crossed posts with Sangie - sorry
  13. No - definitely not a conviction or a caution. A CR is an opportunity for first time low level offences to be dealt with outside of the court process and to avoid staining an otherwise clean record with a criminal record for something trivial and (hopefully) unlikely to happen again. Should there be further events, then the CR can be taken into account as 'history' of committing offences, but as per my previous, you can genuinely and honestly say that you have no convictions or cautions, as you don't. All that there may be is a record held locally that you were investigated for a matter of shoplifting and that this was dealt with by CR, not a criminal marker on the PNC
  14. As above - NEVER pay RLP a penny. They are not entitled to it and there is no lawful reason why they should receive it. They will write and tell you that 'their client' reserves the right to take legal action, but that will never ever happen as the matter was dealt with at the time, the goods were recovered and Primark suffered no loss. RLP will claim that 'their client' is entitled to a contribution towards security costs - there are no costs applicable over and above what they would have paid the security guard(s) on that day had you not even entered the store, so again they have suffered no recoverable loss - and this was proven the last time that RLP encouraged a client to try to recover such amounts in court - over 6 years ago and they lost so heavily that none of their clients have gone near court since, so forget all about that. RLP may well even copy and paste bits of this thread into any letters to you and tell you that we know nothing and give bad advice. Simply read other threads here and try to find one where court action has resulted from such poor advice...you won't find anything either here or elsewhere The potentially sticky point for you 'might' be the involvement of the police and for your career and voluntary activities requiring enhanced DBS checks. A Community Resolution requires an admission of guilt, and will have been recorded on local police records but not the Police National Computer. As such it 'may' be disclosed in a DBS check but only if it is considered relevant to the position requiring the DBS check, even though you can honestly state that you have no criminal convictions or cautions if asked that question. This is a possibility, although unlikely but it is best to know, so you may want to get a SAR from the police which should give you an idea of what, if anything has been recorded on the police information system Please try not to let this get you down even further, and hopefully you are getting help to deal with the root causes of this issue. Health and family are what matters most at the moment
×
×
  • Create New...