Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please accept my apologies for the delayed update, but i have been trawling through emails for supporting evidence, you see we are in the consultation phase and there will be three meetings during the process. So as i have said  my role is at risk due to the scoring and mine being low. As explained i never received my report as my line manager left during December and i was on leave. So i was not afforded any meeting, i received no feedback at all, so how am i meant to know any areas to improve or to attain a higher grade. So with this in mind i gathered my supporting evidence, i found the email from my then line manager and the objectives that he set out and we agreed.   I then supplied 20 emails that  showed that not only did i reach the targets, i smashed them, highlighting areas that i had saved the company a considerable amount of money, idented issues  implemented process and solutions with ongoing support. All emails are verified and prove that i should have received the highest possible grade going by their criteria. I also included the email from HR when i challenged  the score and they replied with " the outgoing manager supplied thorough feedback to the incoming interim manager who should have provided this (this was never received, and report i received was blank with just a score. Highlighted was the email from HR stating " a two is not a concerning grade"  well clearly it is as less than a month later it is what was used to decide i was at risk. I have supplied this information to the line manager and the external HR rep that was on the call as i have 48 hours to supply this. Had i had a proper and fair review like everyone else had then i would have been able to provide this evidence when he issued the score, he could not argue with the sheer volume of evidence that i had. This proves what was said to me when i took this position, " there was some politics in me getting the role, their line manager had promised the role to one of his guys, they cant really do anything but watch your back" He should not have promised this anyway as two interviews were required in the process *which i sat) so i earned the right to the role. This was because the three of them knew there was a lot that would be uncovered and they wanted it covering, i started to see this after two weeks, had i not said anything then it would have looked as though i was incompetent or stupid. I did try to work with them on this to remedy but sadly they went the other rout instead.    
    • He'll be asking Truss for advice and help next ... or maybe go straight to a lettuce He already asked Swella How do you survive all those breaches of ministerial code etc She is rumored to have replied - dunno - if the positions were reversed, I'd have sacked me in without a seconds thought
    • Dear Stu. I have been very annoyed that they put this fee on my account right now, as you said the court might rule that i have to pay it further on. This sounds like a dodgy practice. Below is what the account manager sent to me when i asked her why this was getting added to my account right now. Is this legal what they are doing i.e. pre-empting the judges decision it seems. 'Thank you for the email.  The court fees have been added to your account as you have not vacated the property. If the court decide that the landlord is not able to recoup the costs, we would remove the charge from your account.  At present, the court costs have not been deducted from the payment you made towards the rent.'
    • Yay!! Plan to submit tomorrow. Thanks for all the support. I'm so out of my comfort zone. Will keep thread updated and continue reading. Just want them gone!   
  • 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

Are counterclaims for charges stayed at the moment ?


scorterooney
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5577 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

Just a quicky - i owe bank 1k in overdraft charges - they owe me over 5k in charges - at this point i have gone no further than issuing bank with LBA.

 

If they take me to court for there 1 k and i counterclaim with the 5k will it get stayed due to the OFT case or would it go through ?

 

Thanks, scort

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you need to counterclaim for the amount owed in charges and I suspect the bank would then apply or it would automatically be stayed. Have you look at the hardship root and do you believe yourself to be in financial hardship?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you need to counterclaim for the amount owed in charges and I suspect the bank would then apply or it would automatically be stayed. Have you look at the hardship root and do you believe yourself to be in financial hardship?

 

Hi nope i wouldnt imagine im classed as a hardship route and my intention at the mo is just to issue thm with a letter stating what they owe me and how it vastly offsets what i allegedl owe them. Therefore it may be wise of them to write of the alleged 1k ish debt or take me to court and ill counterclaim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi nope i wouldnt imagine im classed as a hardship route and my intention at the mo is just to issue thm with a letter stating what they owe me and how it vastly offsets what i allegedl owe them. Therefore it may be wise of them to write of the alleged 1k ish debt or take me to court and ill counterclaim.

I still think you should put in a claim. Remember, they shouldn't take you to court if they have acknowledged that.

I don't think you can use that leverage to write the debt off(they do owe you £4000.00 ;) )

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI, thanks for the reply,

 

Thing is , and granted i may be VERY wrong in my thinking here lol, If I put in a claim in against them for all my bank charges it will get stayed by the court and leave me having to pay the court costs on a claim for around 5.5k + interest etc - ie, a lot of issuing cost ?

 

All it would achieve in the short term is that they cannot chase me or take me to court for the 1.1k in overdraft they say i owe.

 

Thats all good and well but it leaves it in limbo situation with possibly no chance of an outcome for at least another 12 months +

 

In regards to them chasing me for the money - im not bothered in teh slightest and if they come knowcking i will send them away.

 

However from what i understand, if they decide the only action for them to take is Court action to get this 1.1k back that leaves me the option of counterclaiming with the charges and then ive got it to court without spending on court fees and with the possibility of them backing down.

 

If im wrong in this assumption or if you think my arguement os wrong then let me know lol.

 

as a bit of history - i sent the LBA to lloyds in oct 2006 with charges going back to 2001. Obviously at THIS point i would only be able to claim back till 2003 - so any problems there - if continue should i just carry on my original claim with all new charges or should i start a new one ?

 

Not 100% decided on which way ill go at the mo but trying to explore avenues etc

 

Thanks, Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

 

I was under the impression that if the bank started the Court process you are within your rights to instruct the Judge to have the case heard ;)

 

So, you'd want the bank to take you to court.

 

As for not claiming further back than 2003, I'd say put them in the claim. You have nothing to lose. Statue of Limitations start from when you become aware that the charges were unfair.

 

 

Jogs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the fellow members in this thread.

 

If the bank starts, the claim and you counterclaim, then the bank would either have to deny the claim (and attend court) or acknowledge the debt and pay you.

 

They cannot have it stayed (sisted in scotland) as they were the original claimant/pursuer. They may try, but the judge would almost certainly deny it since they brought the case.

 

I'd say go for it. That is what I am waiting for my bank to do, then that way, my case will be heard.

 

Good Luck with whatever you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers everyone soo far for your replies.

 

Would it also be a fair assumption to make that should a claim like this successfully get to the court stage the bank would more than likely back out.

 

Reason im thinking this is obviously one of the things they would have to answer to successfully win would be how they make up the charges etc - which if my thinking is correct is one of the points that they are arguing with the OFT therfore if they answered aid question or it was found in my favour in court it may effect anything they may say or do re the OFT case ?

 

Just a thought.

 

Scort

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Would it also be a fair assumption to make that should a claim like this successfully get to the court stage the bank would more than likely back out."

 

 

This is the point I was trying to make here:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/185242-what-about-new-tactic.html

 

Please take a look and express your thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...