Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
  • Our picks

money

Maternity, sick and annual leave problems.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4238 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Just a few basic facts first.

I found out I was pregnant on 18/11/2007.

I started work for my employer on 26/11/2007.

I was signed off sick on 4/1/2008 and am still off sick now.

I start my maternity leave on 11/05/2008 (29 weeks), baby is due 30/07/2008.

I am not entitled to smp as I haven't worked long enough, which is fine as I get full maternity allowance due to also being self employed.

i work from home for a large company.

 

I had a phone call from HR last week and was told I am entitled to 5 weeks holiday and I can take it prior to my maternity leave (holiday entitlement hadn't even crossed my mind until the phone call). I emailed her later when I realised I didn't have 5 weeks before my maternity leave started and she replied stating that as I was signed off sick from 4/1/2008 then I had only accrued holiday from those 4 days (holidays Jan 1st-Dec 31st). I also got an email today saying that I don't accrue holidays while sick but I do while on maternity leave but I can't take them the next year or before I accrue them, so in effect will lose my entitlement from 11/05/2008, when I start my maternity leave.

 

So basically, do I accrue holidays whilst sick?

Do i accrue holidays while on mat leave?

Are they allowed to refuse me the right to take my leave next year?

I am sorry so many questions!

Please ask me anymore questions if I haven't made any of this clear.

Thankyou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump


All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of holidays and maternity pay has become a little clouded as there are cases before the European Court as existing opinion could possibly be affected by the terms of the Working Time Directive.

 

One such case is connected with holiday accrual whilst on long term sick. There is case law to confirm that holidays do not accrue whilst on long term sick leave (as 'leave' by definition means being given leave from work, so how can this be possible if one is not actually 'at work'?). The Appeal Court overturned an earlier ruling and it was concluded that holiday does not accrue whilst an employee is on long term sickness absence, but a further appeal has now gone to ECJ.

 

Holiday used to accrue during the period of Ordinary Maternity Leave but not Extended Maternity Leave (if exercised). Once again there are problems in adopting this principle as all employees are entitled to a minimum period of paid holiday, and as maternity does not alter the status of employment it is a grey area.

 

Untaken holiday. Debatable again - it has always been the case with many employers that there should be a 'use it or lose it' policy laid down by contract, so the contract should be the first thing to check. Again there is a complication with the Working Time Directive which, if tested, could determine that an employer has to grant the statutory minimum holiday entitlement, so if there are unavoidable barriers to taking the holiday then the employer should carry them forward.

 

Basically there are various opinions and cases pending. It isn't just a question of the WTD but also that if found on the wrong side of any interpretation, employers could be accused of Sex Discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy. It may be worth pointing out the problems and putting the ball in the employer's court about how they suggest that the matter be resolved.


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!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...