Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • As one of you mentioned above I've been in a mess for nearly 20 years now and I'm ready to sort my credit report out now - the main reason I got into second round of debt is my kids being unwell and the state considering them not unwell enough for extra help so despite my son being in hospital for 3 months in one year we got extra zero help and I eventually lost my job and got into debt to just so I can be تا my sons hospital bed at his time of need - my life basically fell apart and all these debts got me again 
    • Gosh mate I've woke up this morning with half the worry I had last night when going to sleep!.  I can't believe how much this forum has helped me over the years and I don't  have the words to explain the gratitude I feel towards you guys -  Now that I've slept on it I feel ready to reject this company and my plan is to make them an offer to accept payments to date as full and final settlement - I will I think write them a letter once my review is completed or maybe just send it now whilst they are reviewing explaining my kids are unwell for which reason I'm struggling to survive and if I can politely request for them to accept payment to date as a full and final - I'll mention I don't have any cash or anyone to borrow from to offer a full or even part amount of the remaining balance of the iva and therfore am unable to make a offer of payment.   If they agree to at least even put my offer to the creditors then I feel it's better I hang in there and that way I won't have to deal with any possibilities of more defaults and ccjs    Right now the only adverse effects on my credit report are the iva that is now 3 years old and 2 Ccj one coming of this July and one thus October.    But I am worried new action will begin and new defaults and Ccj may start to appear because I've paying into an agreement im under the impression the 6 year rules starts again so yes I have lost of mixed feelings about this but I'm not going to lie you guys have put some life back into my breath this week as for the last 3 years I've felt caged like an animal and this morning I feel freer I can't explain how much but certainly my soul feel lighter today thanks to yin because I'm now viewing this review totally different to I do yesterday thanks to you guys 
    • Court name UNKNOWN Case number ********** Amount N/A Confirmed by Insolvency Service Date issued May 2021 Type Voluntary Arrangement Notes If you have questions about voluntary arrangements you should speak to the Insolvency Service.     I started this in 2021. So it's been about 3 years I've been paying. 
    • Thanks @lookinforinfo@Nicky Boyi sent across the agreement earlier in this thread. No mention of financial reward to the MA. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on the sly. As I said earlier, the owner of OPS is a convicted criminal, with a very shady reputation around these parts.
    • The average high street easy-access account pays 1.7% interest - but savers could earn 5% if they moved their money elsewhere. We look at which banks have the top rates.View the full article
  • 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 pools and scoring


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5520 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

Hi

 

I work in customer service role and have been recently told that I will be made redundant.

 

I have a problem with the scoring and need some advice.

 

The customer service department is made up if two areas. The first which is the main area, which covers nearly all of the companies products, is manned by people who have been in the company for a while and have loads of experience and have picked up a wide range of technical kwowledge over the years.

 

The second area was newly formed about a year ago after acquisition to look after a separate product and after people from the existing area had supported this product for a while, new people were taken on to work in this area and the existing people were transferred back into the main area.

 

The people in both areas are in the same pool for selection and both areas are going to retained.1 person is to go from the new area and 5 from the other

 

Now, the issue.

 

In terms of technical ability the new people in the new area have been scored higher than most of the people in the main area including the ones who supported the new product.

 

It looks like these people have been scored using different competencies within the technical ability selection criteria, competencies that relate to the persons specific role.

 

Is this fair?

 

Surely all members of the pool have to be scored using identical competencies within this criteria as it is a measurement of knowledge of tools and processes that are required to do the customer service role.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like these people have been scored using different competencies within the technical ability selection criteria, competencies that relate to the persons specific role.

 

Is this fair?

 

Welcome to CAG simj. No this would not be fair....

Surely all members of the pool have to be scored using identical competencies within this criteria

 

...and this is why. If the jobs are deemed identical for red pooling, then the same objective criteria should be applied across the pool.

 

Members of the pool should have been consulted about proposed scoring criteria. Did this happen?

 

Have you been shown your score relative to other members of the pool?

 

Why do you suspect that different criteria have been applied to some pool members? If this has happened and your employer cannot justify that the two roles were objectively different from each other, then this alone could make any eventual dismissal unfair.

 

How long have you worked there?

 

Che

...................................................................... [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. Always seek professional advice from a qualified legal adviser before acting. If I have helped you please feel free to click on the black star.[/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS] I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Black][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Red]'Venceremos' :wink:[/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response Elche.

 

There are many redundancies being made in our department and there are multiple pools, a representative was appointed to represent all of the pools in meetings with management to agree selection criteria.

 

I have seen my scores.

 

I think the two roles probably could be seen as being objectively different as the new area was a newly created area for a new product.

 

However I have worked in both the new and existing area and my overall technical skill level is higher than the new people due to the time I have worked at the company. Similar technical skills are required for both areas.

 

I have worked there for about 12 years

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many redundancies being made in our department and there are multiple pools,

 

It would be perfectly legitimate to apply different criteria to two different pools of at risk employees - provided of course that the criteria are different for an objective reason.

 

This obviously relates to the fact that they were pooled separately in the first place, there must be differences between the two jobs, and thus these differences could lead to different selection criteria being used.

 

If you feel the scores were unfair, you should appeal any redundancy on this basis.

 

Che

...................................................................... [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. Always seek professional advice from a qualified legal adviser before acting. If I have helped you please feel free to click on the black star.[/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS] I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Black][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Red]'Venceremos' :wink:[/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Elche.

 

I think my last post may have confused things.

 

My query relates to the pool that I am in. It contains people from the old area and also those from the new area that was created to support a new product.

 

The only people who can support the new product are the new people and those of us from the main area who supported it before the new people came in.

 

Technically the new product requires the same skills that all the other products require, it`s only the product knowledge that sets it apart from the products supported in the main area.

 

So, can they use different competencies to measure technical ability for two roles in the same pool which are only set apart due to lack of product knowledge within the main area due to the decision to have a new area for the new product even when the competencies required to support all of the company`s products, including the new product, is the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, can they use different competencies to measure technical ability for two roles in the same pool which are only set apart due to lack of product knowledge within the main area due to the decision to have a new area for the new product even when the competencies required to support all of the company`s products, including the new product, is the same.

 

No they should not do this. As I said earlier, "It would be perfectly legitimate to apply different criteria to two different pools of at risk employees - provided of course that the criteria are different for an objective reason.

 

This obviously relates to the fact that they were pooled separately in the first place, there must be differences between the two jobs, and thus these differences could lead to different selection criteria being used."

 

Thus the converse is also true, if you are pooled, this should be because the roles are sufficiently similar / the same. Certainly normal practice would be to apply the same selection criteria (SC) to the whole pool.

 

I think that if there were an objective reason to apply a different SC to some in the pool, then one one wonders if those people should have been pooled together in first place.

 

As I said earlier you should appeal any decision and ensure in any minutes of consultation meetings at which the SC and scores are discussed, you make your concerns clear

 

Che

...................................................................... [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. Always seek professional advice from a qualified legal adviser before acting. If I have helped you please feel free to click on the black star.[/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS] I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Black][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Red]'Venceremos' :wink:[/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By the way, where are the scales I need to tip.

 

Bottom left in between the red triangle and the globe (thing)!

 

Good luck

 

Che

  • Haha 1

...................................................................... [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. Always seek professional advice from a qualified legal adviser before acting. If I have helped you please feel free to click on the black star.[/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS] I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Black][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Red]'Venceremos' :wink:[/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...