Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
    • Incorrect as the debt will have been legally assigned to the DCA and they are therefore now the legal creditor. Read up on debt assignment.   Andy
    • Thanks Man in the Middle and everyone it's greatly appreciated form was filled in online yesterday now just have to wait and see
  • 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

Not allowed to take annual leave for snow day


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5248 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

That's just downright unreasonable ! are they going to provide every employee with a crystal ball for future weather emergencies?

 

So do they have to take it unpaid?

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just downright unreasonable ! are they going to provide every employee with a crystal ball for future weather emergencies?

 

So do they have to take it unpaid?

 

Yes it has come from the big boss, he stated today that anybody that was not able to attend work Wednesday was not allowed to claim this time off as annual leave as it was not pre-booked before hand so everyone that was absent from work HAS to take unpaid leave.

 

I think this is disgusting behaivour from a big security company

Edited by taz_in_2001
wrong day stated
Link to post
Share on other sites

was the business open or closed?

 

The place where he works was open because cardiff council is much better then Rhondda council, we live at the top of a steep hill that was like a sheet of glass, we are under around 5 inches of snow, today the sun was lovely but not a drop has melted.

 

Cardiff was fine although they did close early, the other employees were ok because they live in or around cardiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from the fact that it's unreasonable - it's a particularly silly move by the employer, hasn't it dawned on him that those who took holiday now have one less day this year that he has to plan for!

 

All employees where I work were allowed to take holiday for the days they couldn't get to work.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Employers will face a sticky wicket if they dont pay as it would be classed as unauthorised deduction from pay and could land employers with an ET claim - that's not my professional advice BTW but an employment lawyer. They have to warn you beforehand that if you took the time off you would not be paid - maybe they should have had a crystal ball as well!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep you are entitled to be paid for the day you took off due to the snow.

 

Heres a post from Elche in another thread that you can locate here.

 

Point A which i have highlighted in red is what would apply to you. There's also some information about using the time as annaul leave too

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditcruncha viewpost.gif

If a school is closed due to bad weather, and thus there is no opportunity for a teacher to work, is a teacher entitled to pay for that cancelled day?

 

The current exceptional weather raises interesting questions in employment law.

 

In order to attempt to answer your question it is important to firstly make one point clear.

 

There are 2 circumstances that an employee could face due to the snow:

 

a) I cannot attend my workplace or:

b) I could attend my workplace, and am prepared to do so, but my employer has told me not to because they are shut due to the weather.

 

Point B is clearer - The employee has been 'laid off' for the day. This lay off was either permitted by a term of the contract (or custom and practice), and as such the employee is entitled (as a minimum) only to stat guarantee pay @ £21.50 (or such amount as was specified in relevant term of the contract); or there was no such contractual entitlement, and as such the employee willing and able to attend the workplace should be paid approximately their entire salary due.

 

Point A - Is a moot point, and I have heard a solicitor specialising in employment (a partner nonetheless) on PM radio 4 yesterday and today defend the position that not to pay in such circumstances could be viewed as an unlawful deduction from wages.

 

After hearing this on my way home, I nearly rang in work on to apologise for my poor advice as I had been telling clients all day, 'If an employee does not attend work due to snow, then technically they are in BOC and have no right to payment of wages'

 

I think the point is arguable either way and may depend on how the 'Payment of Wages' clause is worded in your contract, but I still prefer the general position that, 'If your workplace is open on a day you are contractually obliged to attend work, then, should you not attend, then you are in BOC and cannot rely on the same contract to demand wages for that day'

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditcruncha viewpost.gif

Normally a (harsh) employer can insist that snow (or similar bad weather) days not worked be taken as annual leave (provided such policy is in the contract, or published in advance);

 

I wouldn't necessarily agree. The employer's position that you allude to would definitely be permissible if the contract provided for such AND the leave that would be taken was contractual entitlement to annual leave above the statutory minimum (i.e. normally those days above 28pa for FT employee)

 

As regards statutory entitlement to annual leave, this can only be imposed if the correct notice is given the '2 for 1 rule' (my phrase). i.e. if an employer wants to force annual leave on an employee that represents part of that employees entitlement to annual leave under the WTR ( i.e. the 28 days for FT worker), they must give that employee twice the notice of the leave they want you to take.

 

Thus if they want you to take 1 week, they must give you 2 weeks notice.

 

Hope this partially helps - and I must add that some issues regarding non-attendance at work due to snow are potentially argued more than one way legally right now, and often may turn on the wording of that particular employee's contract - and as such generalisations are difficult.

 

Che

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Always seek the advice of an insured qualified professional. All my legal and nonlegal knowledge comes from either here (CAG),my own personal research and experience and/or as the result of necessity as an Employer and Businessman.

 

By using my advice in any form, you agreed to waive all rights to hold myself or any persons representing myself of any liability.

 

If you PM me, make sure to include a link to your thread as I don't give out advice in private. All PMs that are sent in missuse (including but not limited to phinishing, spam) of the PM application and/or PMs that are threatening or abusive will be reported to the Site Team and if necessary to the police and/or relevant Authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...