Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • best to be sure it is a N279. not that they pull any underhand stunts of course   but we have seen it. your bal is now £0 but we'll still attend court as you'll probably not as we've said we've closed the account and we'll get a judgement by default. dx  
    • Sorry, last bit They had ticked that they wanted the application dealt with without a hearing, so is there any relevance that a date and time to attend said hearing has been sent out ?
    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
  • 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

Redundancy while off sick and pregnant??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6015 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

My wife is off sick because of complications with her pregnancy and has just been told by her boss that she’s going to be made redundant. There’s lots of questions we’ve got to see if he can do this so I’ll bullet them below, We have to write a letter as part of the consultation process and I hope someone can help us here so we can put the right info in it

 

 

I’ll just state the facts

  • They were aware she was pregnant, she’s been in hospital twice because of it and has been signed off sick for the past month
  • The claim is they need to save money due to a downturn in business and as she was last in she’s first out
  • She has been with the company 11 months
  • They are making another member of staff redundant, but the part time secretary who works for her is not losing her job. My wife (also part time) does roles that are more specific but also does secretarial duties if required.
  • Her specific tasks have been redistributed while she’s been off ill.
  • The boss said when we had a meeting that “during her last pregnancy she was off long term sick, and I see this one going the same way” He indicated that if she was off sick he wouldn’t be paying her wages as she would be on SSP and he would be saving money, possibly enough to not have to make her redundant
  • She never received a contract or T&C’s when she started last January, it was only created when we asked when she would be going onto SSP and produced in November.
  • Her boss is asking for a letter of representation with suggestions why she should not be made redundant or other ways he could save the money.

Can he make her redundant while she’s pregnant and off sick?

 

Sorry this post is so long, I’m just trying to find out what rights we have if we have a case and if it’s worth it as she’s only part time and been there less than 1 year – it will be 1 year in early January.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your wife's employer seems to be sailing close to a claim of Sex Discrimination. He has to be very careful when making any comment relating to maternity leave or sickness as a result of pregnancy as could be seen as clearly discriminatory under the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Employment Rights Act.

 

She also cannot be made redundant on the grounds of last in - first out. Any decision must solely be based on objective criteria, with the correct period of consultation. If any statement has been made to the contrary then any dismissal (on the grounds of redundancy) could be automatically unfair.

 

When are the redundancies due to become effective? How many employees are there, and how many are to be made redundant?

 

Her contract need not have been written, but she should have received a statement of terms and conditions within 8 weeks of starting.

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

Thanks Sidewinder

 

We had a meeting 2 weeks ago and he wants it all sorted before Christmas. There are 10 staff in the firm (including the partners) and he's making two people redundant.

 

My main concern is that Citizens Advice told us we don't have a leg to stand on because she's been there less than a year and he would just say that it was nothing to do with her pregnancy (BTW He's a solicitor!!)

 

In the meeting he did acknowledge that he hadn't provided any T&C's and he actually said that we could take him to tribunal - I don't know if it would be worth it, as my wife is only part time and I'm not sure if we could afford it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tribunal is free - ordinary people can do it without a solicitor - go for it.

 

He can do last in first out IF he can objectively justify this - which with the Age Discrimination legislation he may not be able to.

 

He can select your wife for redundancy during her pregnancy/maternity leave IF he can show that the pregnancy has no bearing on this.

 

Your paragraph "The boss said when we had a meeting that “during her last pregnancy she was off long term sick, and I see this one going the same way” He indicated that if she was off sick he wouldn’t be paying her wages as she would be on SSP and he would be saving money, possibly enough to not have to make her redundant" shouts out Disability Discrimination and Sex Discrimination to me.

 

Potentially the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 also assist you.

 

If he has already made up his mind, the best you can do is to negotiate the best settlement possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...