Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank goodness it's not your roof and you get to foot the bill! How big are these bits of mortar? How often are they falling into your garden? Hourly, daily? Just go ahead with your plans, of course, they're not going to be worried by your time pressures and the urgency of the situation, so simply carry on as you would have done and I'm sure everything will go fine. Unless there is a danger to life and serious structural issues which mean you cannot venture into your garden, then IMHO there is little more you can do less for what you have done so already and made them aware of the issue.
    • Hi all!   Thank you in advance for any help you can give me!!    I parked up (at 18:08) in a rush, entered my Reg and paid for an hour of parking. At 18:20 I got a ticket for not paying for parking.    I've just looked at my receipt and noticed why ... I put "22" instead of "21"  when i put in my Reg. yes... what a stupid mistake.    I seem to remember there being a court case or a rule change about entering the wrong reg but the company wasn't at a loss because i had paid for the parking just technically for the wrong car. Am i making that up?    Any advice would be gratefully received, even some key points i have to hit when doing the appeal      
    • You haven't returned to the thread to give us your views, but a couple of other things strike me which you should consider: 1. You say that at no time was your father's licence revoked by the DVLA. It didn't have to be revoked. It expired in September and his "entitlement to drive" (of which the licence provides proof) expired along with it. He could only continue driving whilst his application was being processed by virtue of s88, and it seems clear to me (based on what you have said) that he was not able to take advantage of the benefits provided by that section. 2. The letter he received threatening to revoke his licence was probably a template letter sent when any medical issues are brought to the attention of the DVLA. But it is clear that beyond September until it was eventually renewed, your father had no valid licence to be revoked. I believe a "not guilty" plea in court will fail. The basic facts are that your father's licence expired in September, it was not renewed until February because the DVLA were looking into his medical declaration and he could not take advantage of s88. So in December he had no licence and no entitlement to drive under s88. The facts that he believed he was fit to drive and that his licence was eventually renewed may mitigate the offence but they do not provide a defence. I also asked whether he had received a summons (very unusual these days) or whether he had received a "Single Justice Procedure Notice". The way to proceed from here differs slightly depending on what he has received so if you let me know, I'll advise further.  
    • Well, what I've read from various sources suggest if a CCJ is 6 years old that if becomes pretty much ineffective for enforcement purposes in its original form.  And that if it's about to expire then the claimant needs to apply to the court to extend the original CCJ within the final year.  Even if they do apply for an extension within the 6 years they have to have a very strong argument for doing so such as the person being out of the country or could not be traced, basically show they were actively still perusing the debt I guess. Now if a claimant ever does apply within the 6 years to extend the CCJ, would the person named on if be notified by the court that such an application has been made?.  In my case I've heard nothing from the court so assume no such application has been made.  The original CCJ in my own case is now a year beyond the 6 years of issue so must now make things even less likely again. So whilst the CCJ exists that they have not enforced it in that time must surely make it unlikely they can now take it back to court because as said it would be very rare for a judge to agree to such action now. That said, I guess they now can't use the CCJ to continue with any action for an attachment order to our mortgage either?
    • Donald Trump now banned from countries including Canada and UK as convicted felon WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK There are 37 countries that bar felons from entering, even to visit.  
  • 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

Work Uniform/Dress Code


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5336 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

:? My wife works as a teaching assistant at a local primary school, most of her colleagues who are also teaching assistants wear jeans for work (smart casual dress). The Head of the school is now trying to enforce a "no jeans" rule and that school uniform should be worn.

Assuming that there is no dress code in her contract of employment, can the head of the school enforce this rule ?

My own personal view is that the head should be told "You provide the uniform & I`ll wear it".

For my wife and her colleagues to provide their own uniform or suitable work wear would constitute a reasonable financial outlay, considering her wages.

What are everyone elses thoughts on this ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi verycatchy7939,

 

Wife has no problem with wearing uniform, just who is going to pay for it, she has just had her hours reduced and is consequently £100 per month worse off (she is already struggling financially) - if the school pay for it, she`ll wear it.

 

Thanks,

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work in a school and support staff have never been allowed to wear jeans or combat trousers.... only on training days. The dress code is smart/casual, but staff are not expected to wear clothes with the school logo on either.

 

S'pose it depends on the head teacher, although if these rules were put into place after working in the school for a while and I was told to buy clothes with the school logo on, I'd agree with you and your wife.... the school should fund the changes. Support staff are underpaid as it is!!

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I dont think it is acceptable to wear jeans to work in a school (my partner is a teacher!).

 

This is no different than if you worked in an office and have to wear shirt and tie - would you expect the company to pay?

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that's my thoughts too. Perhaps there should be some discount or initial allocation of the polo shirts with the logo on it, but I wouldn't expect them to pay for the trousers.

 

Agreed.

 

My aunt does this job and when the scool changed the dress policy from smart to uniform they gave the staff the polo shirts free and the staff had to pay for their own troussers/shoes etc. Which is the same most places where the company expect you to wear their uniform.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite show how jeans every qualified as smart/casual.

 

Sounds to me like the head is simply trying to enforece an existing rule.

 

I'm strugling to see how asking someone to where black trousers and a polo shirt could be seen as unreasonable, even if it is a shirt with the school logo on it.

 

Andrew

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to wear something for work. I get a real impression that the head could be reacting to dress standards that have slipped to the point where staff have become plain scruffy. Jeans don't belong in a school environment on either pupils or staff. Pupils might try it on - staff should know better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why should the school pay? many workplace have a dress code and you have to fund it out of your own pocket

 

 

... because the school wants its staff to wear tops with its own logo.... which bumps up the price quite a lot. Support staff are grossly underpaid for what they do and to have to fork out for expensive, nasty-looking schooltops for themselves as well as uniforms for the kids is taking the p*ss, in my opinion.

 

As said previously, I work in a school.... and would kick up an almighty fuss if this rule was suddenly brought in; unless they agreed that we could go somwhere more economical and wear similar tops.... minus the school logo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

unless they agreed that we could go somwhere more economical and wear similar tops.... minus the school logo

 

That part I agree with, £13 for a polo shirt is steep. I'm sure if staff turned up looking presentable it wouldn't be an issue at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

£13 for a polo OK.So if u were told when you took the job on you have to fund a dress code would you of not taken the job? no of course you still take the job.

 

Welcome to the real world, not some public sector haven that you teachers work in.

Pay up or face the disciplinary process

Link to post
Share on other sites

£13 for a polo OK.So if u were told when you took the job on you have to fund a dress code would you of not taken the job? no of course you still take the job.

 

Welcome to the real world, not some public sector haven that you teachers work in.

Pay up or face the disciplinary process

 

 

Haven? You haven't got a clue mate....:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood if you have to wear a 'uniform' or 'work clothes', and i think something with a school logo would count, and you wash it yourself you are able to claim some sort of tax rebate.

 

I wait to be corrected from someone who actually knows rather than what someone 'thinks'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...