Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, firstly thank you for reading this. I know no one wants a long winded back story. So I’ll be breif. I entered a local store to buy some paint (which I did pay for) I am honestly not a bad person or a theif.   Didn’t have a basket or trolly as was on my lunch break. Whilst picking up the three tubs of paint placed some masking tape in my pocket (it was hanging out of so I had every intention to pay) just didn’t have a hand free. Paid for my goods (forgot about the £4.39 masking tape) I’ve got so much going on and im not well at all (like I say no one cares I get that) also have autism so wasn’t thinking particularly like others do maybe (who knows my minds going around and around) I left the store after paying, was pulled back in by security. Asked for the tape which I gave immediately  shook up. Gave them my ID and details. I was given some paper and told to expect a large fine in the post for their time and the tape and sent on my way. my questions are: I hardly ever go out without support so the ban I guess I can’t go there now for anything (their loss) - ok but is my photo going to be all over with my name? how much am I expecting in the post as a fine? I have sent them cash in the post recorded signed for delivery to arrive tomorrow (incident happened today) for my error. Their Address was on the bit of paper. i have read two posts on this page but they were from many many years ago so I hoped for updated advise please? 
    • V important you read lots of BMW threads too !  
    • So should I send them a new SAR and put my date of birth on it? Or do I need to send them some proof? Driving license? 
    • Thanks so much for your help!! I've emailed them, and when they reply saying they can't do it I'll reply and state my rights. I'm so glad I found this forum, and will read all of the posts I can find and help guides available for the future. Really can't thank you enough.
    • utter BS, doesn't matter you signed it. pers i'd be writing as per the other threads here rejecting the car as not as described under CRA etc and be done with it. as its a debit card you could also do a full chargeback within 120 days to your bank and simply dump the car back to BMW. 100's of like threads to read here. get your ducks inline. make sure you know what you are doing and off you go. dont take any BS from BMW, no matter what you sign it does NOT remove your consumer rights. p'haps it might be on the off chance you are a good manager , a quick phonecall tomorrow saying you dont want it because (no bla bla fitted) it might be resolved in 5 mins..i will guess to date you not tried
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Under duress and without prejudice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5990 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

No protection at all. Do not sign anything that gives up your rights. This has to be negotiated and they can not force you to sign these sorts of things.

Are you a member of a trade union? If not then may i suggest you join one and ask them to look into this. In the mean time, tell your employer that you will sign after and only after you have consulted a legal adviser.

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally wouldn't mark anything as being 'Without Prejudice' as in the event of legal action it may result in the document not being admissible as evidence. The note that the document has been signed under duress will make a point, but why sign it at all if you disagree? You cannot be disciplined unless you act unreasonably, and it is not unreasonable to ask 'why' or to ask for more information about exactly what you are signing.

 

You are probably better off in raising a formal grievance that you are worried that the changes to your contract may constitute a loss of rights and seek clarification in writing. For example, you will need to know exactly what websites might be taken as the 'wrong' ones, highlighting your need for research and expressing anxiety that such a sanction might affect your ability to do your job. Many companies have a clause in the employment handbook relating to inappropriate use of IT facilities, and it is reasonable to seek further information as to exactly what might be seen as 'inappropriate'. You cannot agree to instant dismissal, whether under duress or otherwise as an employer cannot lawfully dismiss an employee without due process, and misuse of IT facilities would have to be more specifically described as to what would constitute 'misconduct' and more seriously 'gross misconduct'. An employer might invoke disciplinary action resulting in a formal warning for staff spending work time looking at their football club's website, but treat the use of MSN Messenger resulting in a virus being brought onto the network, or looking at pornography online far more seriously and we would certainly classify the latter as Gross Misconduct which could result in demotion or dismissal. One has to know the boundaries before knowing what is acceptable however.

 

Similarly your employer is entitled to revise disciplinary procedures as potential problems present themselves, but such changes have to be reasonable and if neccessary negotiated. The clause about the pay rise looks a little strange, but then again a pay rise is not a right, and can be witheld has the employer sees fit unless it is a stated term in your contract that you will receive an annual increment. He does though have to be even handed in his treatment and act reasonably, so would again have to have a clearly defined policy and disciplinary guidelines to state that a particular breach of the rules could result in suspension of a pay increment. Do you have a Union? Do these changes affect all members of staff doing a similar job?

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your Trade Union is recognised by the company then any negotiations should be carried out with them and in turn they will consult you as members. Do you have a Rep on site? If not contact your local office for help and insist that they approach the company about these fundamental changes. If the Union is not recognised and these proposals affect everyone it might be a good time for your colleagues to join. If 50% plus 1 join you could force recognition so long as there are at least 20 employees.

 

I hope this is useful.

 

Regards,

 

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken to signing anything I do sign with the header of this thread above my signature, but does this offer any real protection to me?

 

No, of course not.

 

How could it offer protection? You are intending a statement to never be read by anybody other than your employer yet it is your employer who appears to be making unreasonable work rules.

 

Your actions are actually protecting the employer.

 

However, even if you did sign letters 'without prejudice' in response to your employer reducing your rights then the letters would still be admissable at a tribunal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...