Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So, why do DVLA (via that leaflet) say 1) that S.88 MAY allow a driver to be treated as if they have a valid licence (after an application that discloses a medical condition) AND   2) before DVLA have reached their licensing decision ? (Since S.88 ceases to apply once they have reached a decision to grant or refuse a licence)
    • Thanks for that, Bazza. It sheds some more light on things but I’m still by no means sure of the OP’s father’s likelihood of successfully defending the charge. This in particular from the guidance stands out me: He does not meet all the s88 criteria. S88 is clear and unambiguous: It makes no provision for either the driver or a medical professional to make a judgement on his fitness to drive under s88. S92(4) and the June 2013 guidance you mention defines in what circumstances the SoS must issue a licence. It does no modify s88 in any way. However, delving further I have noticed that the DVLA provides a service where the driver can enter a relevant medical condition to obtain the correct documentation to apply for a licence: https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving/find-condition-online I haven’t followed this through because I don’ have the answers that the OP’s father would give to the questions they will ask and in any case it requires the input of personal information and I don’t want to cause complications with my driving licence. It is possible, however, that the end result (apart from providing the necessary forms) is a “Yes/No” answer to whether the driver can continue to drive (courtesy of s88). With that in mind, I should think at  the very least the OP’s father should have completed that process but there is no mention that he has. The Sleep Apnoea Trust gives some useful guidance on driving and SA: https://sleep-apnoea-trust.org/driving-and-sleep-apnoea/detailed-guidance-to-uk-drivers-with-sleep-apnoea/ I know nothing about SA at all and found It interesting to learn that there are various “grades” of the condition. But the significant thing which struck me is that it is only the least trivial version that does not require a driver to report his condition to the DVLA. But more significant than that is that the SA Trust makes no mention of continuing to drive once the condition has been reported. The danger here is that the court will simply deconstruct s88 and reach the same conclusion that I have. I accept, having looked at the DVLA guidance, that there may be (as far as they are concerned) scope for s88 to apply contrary to the conditions stated in the legislation. Firstly, we don’ know whether there is and secondly we don’t know whether the OP’s father would qualify to take advantage of it. Of course he could argue that he need no have reported his condition. The SA trust certainly emphasises that the condition should not be reported until a formal detailed diagnosis is obtained. But the fact is he did report it. As soon as he does that, as far as I can see,  s88 is no longer available to him. Certainly as it stands I maintain my opinion that he was not allowed to continue driving under s88. The only way I would change this is to see the end result of the DVLA exercise I mentioned above. If that said he could continue driving he would have a defence to the charge. Without it I am not confident.  
    • Americans are already keen on UK-made coins, and the Mint said it has seen a 118 per cent increase in sales to the US since 2022.View the full article
    • Right, my friend has just called me. He has indeed had to cancel bookings in the past from his end. There is a specific number for Booking.com that he calls.   After that Booking.com jump into action and contact you re refund and/or alternative accommodation. I suppose it's all logical - the party cancelling the booking has to inform Booking.com. So the gite owner needs to contact Booking.com on the cancellation number.
  • 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

Please Please Help.........


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5319 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

I think he will be fine. He called a member of staff to de alarm the products. He was recognised by a fellow colleague. If it was theft,

hardly the actions of a 'mastermind'. A severe talking too, a Verbal

Warning. What was the total value of the products?

It is very unlikely that he would compromise his position for that value.

Is he in a Union? I think he needs to fight it if he believes it to be unjust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I reckon the converstaion that should of happened is as follows, e.g.

John did you know that you forgot to pay, what happened?

John explains why he was in a rush.

O.K. John don't let it happen again, your in a senior position.

John I expect to see your till receipt before lunch tomorrow.

End of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they are treating it as theft, it's 'non-payment of goods' they

can't accuse him of anything until they've got all the facts. Everything points to someone in a rush who thought he'd paid.

An investagatory is fine. We haven't reached a disiplinary yet which is good.

 

AN EMPLOYEE?S GUIDE TO DISCIPLINARY AND DISMISSAL HEARINGS | North West Employment Law

 

The Retail Trust people are good for support

 

http://www.retailtrust.org.uk/

Edited by rebel11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, just stay calm. It's good that he's got Union Representation. I have mixed feelings about Union folk in general, but he's got someone to fight his corner.

 

'Do not anticipate trouble or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight.' ~Benjamin Franklin

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've got an autistic son, clearly thats a concern on his mind as the alarm has been switched off and theres nothing to wake you up. That explains why he was in a rush and didn't wait for yor daughter. The problem is being represented by a Shop Steward who works at the store

who will always be close to management, so isn't impartial. Just because

he can't remember if he paid or not doesn't make him guilty. Does look like

the Shop Steward was trying too hard to help your husband.

 

I would ring the Union and speak to someone at thier Head office. Just

explain exactly as you have explained to us. This is giving the Store Management an opportunity to use your husband as an example, whilst

an injustice occurs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would tell the truth, if he fabricates info on an application form, if found out later that would have consequences, he would be no better off.

Plus it's far from over, the other thing is that this manager might be trying to impress the new store manager. I spent 25 years in retail and was a manager for many of those years. I've seen it all. I should really write a book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know where your coming from, but your husband's manager does know your husband, you've said that he is supportive. Plus they probably hold a

Personnel file which will show positives. So maybe he can write something.

If you want to write a letter about your concerns and how you feel.

I'd send it to the Director of HR at Head Office. The fact that the Store Manager is new has a plus and minus side. It's all down to his makeup.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that as it stands nobody knows whats going to happen on Wednesday. Has your husband spoken to the Union rep thats coming down? I would brief him today if you can get hold of him or at least before

Wed. I would also tell him that the Shop Steward was hopeless. You will

have the opportunity to appeal. One step at a time. Your husband was in a rush, thats how the situation arose. So he can't remember everything, he had you and your son on his mind. There is a big

difference between a mistake and theft, although companies disiplinary

procedures don't distinguish between the two. Please don't worry, do stuff to take your mind off it, at this moment you can do anything about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of points there in favour of your husband. When your husband goes to the meeting on Wednesday, till him to stick to his guns, it was a mistake because he was in a rush. They will try to convince him that it's theft. He needs to say that he will defend vigorously any attempts by the

management to say that it was theft.

 

What position does does the guy who held the investigatory meeting hold?

Edited by rebel11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Meg,

 

If they use your husband as an example, thats very opportunist and not justice. Poor personnel manager, thats another reason to appeal. Thats a very stupid thing for the personnel manager to say. Good Luck.

Let us know what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...