Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Autocorrect typo. For “ admission instructive settlement" read "administrative settlement"
    • No such thing as bailiffs in the north anymore. HMRC have certain statutory powers, but obviously, they don't apply here. The legislation is much like the rest of the UK: MB either chases the debt themselves or sells it (or a %age) to a DCA. The DCA has no more rights than the original creditor had. They have to apply for a collection judgment against you through the Enforcement of Judgements Office. Hence @lolerz blunt point that
    • This is the full appeal & response :    You reported that you were the registered keeper but is not prepared to state who was driving at the time the parking charge was issued. You reported that you are being held liable for the parking charge.         You completed the appeal on 09/02/2023 18:19:20. Upon arriving at the shopping centre The driver attempted to park in the disabled bay, which at the time was encroached by another vehicle already parked well outside of their bay, not displaying a badge. Due to the nature of the visit, the driver was required to park promptly and exit the vehicle, whilst displaying the blue disabled badge. Upon appealing, apparently the only thing that matters in this case is the sign post stating the parking bays must be adhered to at all times. Without any recognition for the fact the driver was physically not able to park elsewhere & correctly displayed their blue parking badge     The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 16/02/2023 15:02:06.   The Operator Reported That... The appellant was the driver. The appellant was the keeper. The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA.. ANPR/CCTV was used. The Notice to Keeper was sent on 15/12/2022. A response was received from the Notice to Keeper. The ticket was issued on 09/12/2022. The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA. The charge is based in Contract.   The Operator Made The Following Comments... The vehicle was not parked fully within the confines of a marked parking bay whilst parked in one of the carpark that we manage. Signage displayed throughout the site states "Vehicles to be parked within the confines of a marked parking bay". As the vehicle was in breach of the terms and conditions that are stated on the contractual signage throughout the site, a Parking Charge was issued.  As stated in the NGP initial appeal:  Arrived on site with a disabled passenger & as is visible in photo, we were unable to park in the disabled bay due to the other vehicle in the photo encroaching the disabled bay, meaning my passenger could not physically get out of the vehicle if we had parked between the marked lines. Please see photo for proof of blue badge & photo of parking on the day. Blue badge was displayed whilst parked.  >> We would just like to clarify that upon receiving their appeal, we reviewed the CCTV footage from the date in question and at no point did a passenger leave the vehicle nor is the keeper mentioning these facts to this IAS appeal.  We note that during the appeal process that we were provided with a disabled badge, but not the full badge showing whose badge this belongs to. Nevertheless the driver failed to correctly park within confines of the bay.  However for the IAS adjudicators viewing only we have attached a file titled "PCN 400786" This file shows the events that occurred with the driver on this date.  Please see file titled "Malpas Road Shopping Park" which shows what the signage looks like onsite.  Please see the file titled "Vehicle Location" which shows where the vehicle was parked and where the signage was located near by.         I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. A number of images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.  The signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked parking bay and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice. I can see from the photographs provided that the Appellant was not parked within the confines of a marked bay, which the Appellant accepts. Whilst I appreciate the circumstances raised by the Appellant, mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. Simply by parking outside of a marked bay the Appellant breached the displayed terms and conditions and as such I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion. I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.  Currently appealed 400786 Issued on 09/12/2022 by New Generation Parking Management Ltd to vehicle registration Originally rejected by operator on 02/02/2023
    • First of all, I'm not sure why you want to given 30 days to do the repair. It is excessive. I have the sense that you feel that you have to be reasonable in order to gain the approval of the court if that's the way it goes. You certainly should be reasonable but 30 days is excessive. Frankly I don't think that you should get the vehicle repaired by Cinch. They have undermined confidence. They have been notified of your quotation and the cause of the problem and they either haven't responded or they have declined to help. You have no way of knowing that if they are allowed to touch your vehicle, that they will do a quality job. I would suggest that the best thing to do is to get the vehicle repaired and then send them the bill. One them that this is what is going to happen and that if they don't pay you within seven days of receiving the bill then you will sue them. So I would book the car in for repairs on a date about 10 days from now. I would then inform Cinch in a letter of claim that the car is now booked in on XXX date. They have already had the inspection report in the estimate for repairs. You're paying the bill and seven days after that if they haven't reimburse you against the bill which you will submit to them, you will have them without any further notice. This will give them about 14 days to respond with the payment. You will have your car repaired and if they refuse – which they probably will – then you issue the claim papers without any more mucking around. If this appeals to you then draft a letter of claim which expresses this plan. Book the car in tomorrow for the work. Once you know the date then jiggle the dates of your letter around so that Cinch have 14 days before you sue them
  • 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
      • 160 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

Stitched Up by my Employer - advice needed

Guest suziedarkness
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5361 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Guest suziedarkness

I have a bit of a problem which I am so annoyed about, I would be gratefull if anyone could give any advice.


I currently work part time (25 hours) in a school kitchen.


I am leaving next week to go to a full time position.


Now, I contacted the lady in the office who deals with wages to find out how much money I will get when I leave next week as I am expecting they owe me quite a bit and here is why:


I am paid £*** per hour x 25 hours per week x 43 weeks per year. this is what it states in my contract. Now because we only get paid 43 weeks of year, the school spreads the annual amount over 52 weeks and divides it by 12 so that we get paid the same every month, which in theory is a great idea but ....... I started in January of last year and so have worked a whole year and are 6 months into 2nd year.#


Now when we get paid each month, we dontactually get paid for every hour that we have worked because they are spreading 43 weeks of payments over 52 and I am down about £110 per month which goes into "a pot" to make up for the weeks I dont get paid.


I have paid about £450 into this pot but my employer is refusing to acknowlede this and wont pay me what I am owed. Any thoughts?



Link to post
Share on other sites

But you're paid a fixed amount per hour. They need to keep records of the number of hours you've actually worked since the start of the year. (Number of hours x hourly rate) - actual recieved pay = what you're owed. Easy to work out, easy to prove so get the grievance letter in with all the figures and hopefully that will scare them into paying you.


Hope that helps


P.S. the patronising maths is for the benefit of your employers...a school no less...oh the irony ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest suziedarkness

Thanks for your reply Flipper.


I have worked out exactly what I have worked and what they should pay me. I am so mad, seems that the teachers big slap up meals are subsidised by me working for nothing!!!!!


It has made food for thought (pardon the pun) in the kitchen as people are now wondering how many past employees have been stitched up in the same way and never realised. Unfortunately for the school pursar, I may be a mere kitchen assistant but I do have a brain and it doesnt take much working out to see that they are trying toi have me over.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe good pun! :D


Come to think of it, your payslip should be showing everything earned and everything deducted. It should show what you've been paid as your contracted hourly rate and then itemise what's been set aside for the 9 week cover fund. Where I work, they used to have a christmas fund that worked on the same principal and anything put aside was always detailed on the payslip so there could be no confusion. Might be worth contacting ACAS to find out the legal requirements on how they detail it.


On a side note, my stepmum works for the local council. I've heard many many stories at how mercenary and immoral schools in particular are when it comes to their budget. Sounds like they're playing a numbers game, relying on employees not realising they're owed money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest suziedarkness

Flipper, you have hit the nail on the head or the cook in the kitchen haha!!


Unfortunately, their numbers game has been rumbled by me and I wont let it drop.


I have requested a meeting with the ring leader today in a final hope that they will see the error of their ways and agree to pay me what I have earnt and not what they feel I should be paid. I dont hold out much hope although I did scream TRIBUNAL yesterday as I left the office.


If I dont get the meeting today then I will not be working my last weeks notice and I have told them that. I will just wait until they have paid me then I will send the grievance letter giving them 28 days to resolve and pay up or I put in a claim for unlawful witholding of wages.


Lets see how they enjoy their school lunch then!! :D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites


Come to think of it, your payslip should be showing everything earned and everything deducted. It should show what you've been paid as your contracted hourly rate and then itemise what's been set aside for the 9 week cover fund. Where I work, they used to have a christmas fund that worked on the same principal and anything put aside was always detailed on the payslip so there could be no confusion. Might be worth contacting ACAS to find out the legal requirements on how they detail it.



If this is a local authority school and thus the OP is employed by the LA, then there is no 'set aside fund'. it doesn't work like that.


How it works is that the employers hours are averaged across 52 weeks for pay purposes. For example if you are paid for 30 hrs/week for 42 weeks of the year that is 1260 hours p.a.. So you would be paid at a rate that reflected 24.23hrs/week.


I don't know how that affects things at the end of someone's employment, but is is not money dedeucted as any form of set aside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest suziedarkness

Pat when I say "set aside" its because that is how I try to explain that they dont pay me for all the hours I have worked.


The fact is, it says quite clearly in my contract that I am paid £xyz per hour. Now the fact they spread my 43 week salary across 52 weeks does not give them the right to pay me at a lesser rate per hour, which it means that they have.


I have spoken to an employment law solicitor and he has said that they quite clearly DO NOT have a leg to stand on. They must pay me per hour the amount that is stated in my contract.


I had a meeting today with the head of the department and she admitted to me that I have been short changed and there is nothing she can do about it, its the way the governing body works. She also said that there are poeple out there who have been short changed and dont realise it.


she also said that they wont set a precedent by changing the way they deal with people who are leaving their jobs part way through a year because "it would cause too much aggravation".


What she doesnt realise now that I have opened a can of worms, is what aggravation I will be and I plan to campaign for all so-called term time workers who are being stitched up by their educational employers!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way, it sounds as if it may be better to go to tribunal. They're clearly using this as a way to trim their budget and if it's resolved beforehand obviously it leaves them free to keep on attempting to fleece their employees.


Anyway, you're clearly an intelligent and knowledgable person Suzie, so I have no doubt that one way or another you'll get what you're owed. The real shame is that an institution which should be instilling honesty in its pupils doesn't abide by the same principals!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your argument and where you are coming form on this. However, I can't see that this will get anywhere.


This method of working (annualised contracts) is very, very common in local government and I can't see that the public service unions would have allowed the practice to continue if they thought it wrong/illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is saying it's wrong or illegal Pat. The argument is that part of her wages are put aside to cover months where she's not working. She's earnt that money, they've put it aside and now they're not willing to pay it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...