Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Disciplinary Hearing and Occupational Health


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5793 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

I am off work and attended an initial investigatory meeting some time ago at which stage my employers called in Occupational Health.

 

I have been receiving treatment for severe anxiety and depression under the care of a Psychiatrist and Clinical Psychologist through my private medical insurance.

 

I had a medical with Occupational Health in April who interpreted that I was not fit to attend a hearing. I have been having suicidal ideation.

 

I gave my consent for my Medical team to provide any medical reports to OH, however as at May they still didn't think I was fit to attend a hearing.

 

It is a Catch 22, as I am agitated and hanging in there, but the waiting is not helpful. The only plus point is that I am still getting paid and my medical treatment is too.

 

Has anyone any experience here. It cannot go on indefinately.

 

I'm sure my employers are covering themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gross misconduct. I admitted what I have done, there was no denial of my guilt.

 

My medical Team have concerns about my mental state and continue to have treatment.

 

Not sure my head will be sorted until this is moved on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My medical report submitted to the Bank confirms what I did was in all probability stress related.

 

Theres a painful lesson here, if you are in trouble, get professional help. I directed my anger and resentment at my employers [not a good move].

 

They are probably waiting for me to get better before throwing the book at me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if its not too personal what did you do that they said was gross misconduct? for something to be classed as gross misconduct it must have been intentional, IE things like theft , mis- appropriation of company funds, false expenses claims are all examples of gross misconduct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be most helpful if you could indicate the precise nature of the charges your employer has broght against you. Additionally, could you answer the following questions:

 

1. Have you yet made an admission of guilt? If so, have you stated you feel that your disability was a contributing factor to your action/inaction?

 

2. Are you represented by a trade union?

 

 

If you have a disability under the DDA, which at first look at the information provided this is likely to be the case, your employer must not, amongst other things, provide less favourable treatment for a reason relating to your disability. You may therefore have an argument that in instituting any disciplinary punishment they would be treating you less favourably, if it is your position that your disability contributed to your actions. There is a statutory defence that the less favourable treatment is reasonable in the circumstances. Allow me to give a circumstancial example:

 

A has comitted an act of violence against B, his manager, whilst at work. When disciplinary charges are brought it transpires that A is suffering from a psychotic disorder, and committed the attack as a result of a command hallucination. A is summarily dismissed.

 

The employer could argue that the dismissal was reasonable in the circumstances because there is a risk of the violence recurring. This defence however may fail under certain circumstances. If A could show that his psychosis is controlled by medication, it would perhaps be reasonable to require A to take medication under medical supervision and for his employer to have active involvement in planning of emergency treatment contingencies. This would overcome the risk of violence due to disability, this meaning that dismissal on a safety ground is not appropriate. It would also be less favourable treatment to discipline on a punishment basis.

 

Once I know a little better the circumstances, I can provide further information.

Here to help!

 

Good with employment, disability and welfare/benefit questions :rolleyes:

Just ask!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Embezzlement and yes I am represented by a Trade Union.

What I did was wrong and I have admitted the same and my personal failings at the initial investigatory hearing, although what I did not feel wrong at the time. I lost both my parents through cancer in recent years and my office lost 70% of its staff through redundancy. I withheld my emotions and did not deal with bullying by management assertively [who incidently ruled by fear given the lack of resources through cutbacks]. There were staff off with stress related illnesses but I soldiered on [my downfall, when I probably needed professional help / support]. If I had received support from my employers this probably would not have happened as I had money following the death of my parents. I was working 20 hours plus unpaid over time per week just to try and cope with my workloads. Basically 2 hours at the office and took work home to do in the evening. Perhaps subconsciously my mind felt what I was doing was justified. But theft is theft and a crime. The police are not yet involved.

Painful lesson, as I should have resigned although when you have been with a Company for 20 years that is not always easy.

I don't know yet whether I will be prosecuted as we have yet to agree on what I need to pay back. Matters are on hold since Occupational Health got involved. Returning the monies is not a problem, although a prosecution will be. This has already gone on 3 months. My strength ended up being my weakness.

It is difficult proving something like this falls under the DDA, what I did is too severe and absolutely stupid and I did not consider the consequences of my actions at all.

Edited by Imploded13
Link to post
Share on other sites

My Union Rep is proving more difficult to get hold of, I guess he is very busy. I was trying to get some sort of update on the case. If there is a positive my treatment and salary is still being paid although that will end soon. Difficult to move on.

Edited by Imploded13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...