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

Holiday Entitlement.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5356 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 new to the site and this is my first thread.

 

I work for a well known retailer (Won't mention who). It has recently been brought to my attention that the goverment has increased the minimum holiday entitlement to 5.6 weeks. This can mean that bank holidays can be taken into your entitlement if you do not normaly work on a bank holiday (e.g my wifes place of work is closed on bank holidays, hence she is not at work so each bank holiday in the year comes off her anual entitlement leaving her with approximatly 4 weeks to choose from.)

 

Now as you will know retail work requires us to work bank holidays:sad:. BUT our company is saying we are only entitled to 4.2 weeks paid holiday:confused:.

Surely they are breaking the law??????

 

The only exception I have seen to this law is basically for off shore workers.

 

We are paid time and a half if we work bank holidays, if you are rosted off then you recive a day off in lue and no extra pay.

 

We have been told that bank holidays are optional, but if that's the case how come I am working August bank holiday and have'nt been asked. Besides they can't open the store without staff:lol:.

 

Some might say "Think of the time and a half" but in retail we are paid such a small amount an hour you don't feel the benefit.

 

Can anybody tell me if what our company is doing is legal and if not what should we do, as they like dishing out written warnings for fun at the moment. Scare tactics me thinks!

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The increase to 5.6 weeks (28 days) statutory minimum paid holiday entitlement applies from 1st April 2009.

So, depending on how your leave year is calculated (e.g. January-December etc.), your entitlement could be slightly less (up to 0.9 of a day).

The link below gives more information and you can follow further links to calculate your exact entitlement.

 

Holiday entitlements: the basics : Directgov - Employment

 

Your company is saying that you are only entitled to 4.2 weeks (21 days) paid holiday.

Are they including all 8 Bank holidays in that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you working 7 out of the 8 Bank holidays then?

 

That's the only way I can see their 4.2 weeks would be correct.

 

Although, I'm not too sure about this time and a half business.

It doesn't seem right that you can lose 7 days holiday entitlement for 3.5 days pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you work the bank holidays then i believe your company has to substitue anothe day to be taken as holiday instead regardless of whether they are paying time and a half or not, you should still get 5.6 weeks holiday a year

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you working 7 out of the 8 Bank holidays then?

 

That's the only way I can see their 4.2 weeks would be correct.

 

Although, I'm not too sure about this time and a half business.

It doesn't seem right that you can lose 7 days holiday entitlement for 3.5 days pay.

 

Exactly thats what I thought. We do work 7 of the 8 Bank holidays, but the way I have read the laegal stuff, it wouldimply taht we should get 5.6 weeks minus 1 day. I also read that they are NOT allowed to buy back holidays anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you work the bank holidays then i believe your company has to substitue anothe day to be taken as holiday instead regardless of whether they are paying time and a half or not, you should still get 5.6 weeks holiday a year

 

Yeah that's how I thought it would work, time and a half and a day off in leiu if you work the bank holiday, or if you get the bank holiday off because Monday is your usual day off (Monday and Tuesday off every week) then you get no time and a half but you still get the leiu day. Giving you 28 days holiday again either way!:?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct they must give you the 28 days, irrespective that you are paid to work BH's. Whats in your contract?

 

Just that we are expected to work weekends and Bank holidays. If you work bank holiday you will be paid time and a half. If your days off normaly include Monday, then you will recive a day in leiu for any bank holidays not worked but no extra pay.:?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an email from the consultation with the then Department of Trade and Industry - Pretty indisputable, I think.

 

Dear all,

The Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2007 - which increase the holiday entitlement to 4.8 weeks from 1 October 2007, and to 5.6 weeks from 1 April 2009 - were finally made on 19 July.

We have now amended our guidance to reflect the increase in the holiday entitlement:

Employers can find more details on implementing the increase on the Business Link website here: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?r.l1=1073858787&r.l3=1074414642&type=RESOURCES&itemId=1079422234&r.l2=1073858926&r.s=sc An online calculator for the increased holiday entitlement should be available in the next day or two via this link.

Individual workers can also find more details on the Direct.gov website here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/WorkingHoursAndTimeOff/DG_10029788

Finally, detailed guidance and Frequently Asked Questions can be found on the BERR website here: http://www.berr.gov.uk/employment/holidays/index.html A ready reckoner is also available and we will shortly be making model staff statements and paragraphs for contracts of employment available on this website.

To access this guidance, just click on the links above or cut and paste into your browser's address box.

We will be updating the guidance on a regular basis over the next few weeks as we receive feedback on the guidance and specific issues arising. We'll keep you posted of any further updates.

Best wishes,

Peter Stephens & Tracey Millard

Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform

Bay 3140, 1 Victoria Street

LONDON

SW1H 0ET

Link to post
Share on other sites

farmlama at #7

regardless of whether they are paying time and a half or not, you should still get 5.6 weeks holiday a year

&

raydetinu at #8

Correct they must give you the 28 days, irrespective that you are paid to work BH's.

&

Mechguy at #9

I also read that they are NOT allowed to buy back holidays anymore.

 

 

You are all correct. Thank you.:)

(Mechguy, you're not the only one on this thread who needs to have a word with their employer on this issue.)

 

From 1st April 2009 no more payment in lieu for holidays.

The 5.6 weeks statutory paid holiday entitlement is for time taken off work.

 

The Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2007 No. 2079

 

If an employer pays an enhanced rate to ensure enough cover for bank holidays it's just a contractual matter, not a statutory one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...