Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

is this unfair?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4922 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 would like to think the ET had given a Judgment on this one by now.

 

Would be nice to know what happened, especially given the duration the thread went on for, and the amount of CAGgers who chipped in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Given that this went to Tribunal, and decisions of the Tribunal are public I do not see how there can be any confidentiality clause / gagging order in place.

 

Unless the Respondent realised they were on to a loser and offered to halt the trial in return for a some of money and a confidentiality agreement, perhaps.

 

Either that or the result did not go our way:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet AGAIN, after a number of people have helped out we have yet to receive an update. It really cheeses me off and I didn't have any input!

I hope for everyones sake, the OP updates after all the support he received, it is the least he can do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello SWIS, haven't seen you here before. Remind me not to upset you :)! I agree it's disappointing when you try hard for someone and they just disappear without a word.

 

I wonder if our OP and his lady have got something like a Confidentiality Agreement since the Tribunal started and have been told they can't discuss the case.

 

SarEl, if you happen to read this, would this type of agreement preclude telling us that the case has been resolved, for instance? Just to put us out of our misery to know something has happened, hopefully in our OP's favour.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello SWIS, haven't seen you here before. Remind me not to upset you :)! I agree it's disappointing when you try hard for someone and they just disappear without a word.

 

I wonder if our OP and his lady have got something like a Confidentiality Agreement since the Tribunal started and have been told they can't discuss the case.

 

SarEl, if you happen to read this, would this type of agreement preclude telling us that the case has been resolved, for instance? Just to put us out of our misery to know something has happened, hopefully in our OP's favour.

 

HB[/QUOT

seems umlikely that it would have gone all the way through the ET and only then the respondant offered a CA, I might be wrong though.

Might be that the decision sadly went against them, and they were so knocked for six theat they haven't thought to post the outcome. It can have a big effect on people after so much expectation that they'd get justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subbing to this thread. Has anyone tried PMing the OP?

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

sounds to me like a bit of a set up unfortunately the dice are loaded in the employers favour

however they must carry out a thorough investigation taking into account every aspect of events

there are a few cases on this worth reading

i am no legal eagle but i see certain similarities between this case and the one that i am going to tribunal hearing shortly

it seems personal and the reason for sacking may not be the real reason

i will let you know how we got on and any tips or help

ps in our case covert cameras were used!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a real shame that the OP has not told us the outcome.

 

I infer either that they didn't win and don't want to admit it, or that there was an 11th hour Compromise Agreement, which included a confidentiality clause.

Quite, the least they could do is come here, post that a compromise or whatever has been reached and that they cant say any more

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey peeps !

 

Some may not believe this but i have not been getting email notifications that people have been posting on this thread ?

 

I did however receive a pm from a user and that is what alerted me to come on and up-date.

 

Apologies to all who have been awaiting the result.

 

The panel took quite some time to issue their decision on the case and believe it or not the decision arrived only last thursday.

 

It wasnt the good outcome we had all hoped for and to be honest it's not the one i thought we would receive.

 

The case was decided in favour of the Respondent. We did not win.

 

The panel informed us that they were not their to decide if my partner is/was a drug user . They were not interested if the sample tested belonged to my partner or if it was indeed the sample of the other person tested on the same day.

 

They were not there to decide if the testing company broke procedure when the tester left the testing areana to meet up with the trainee tester who who had called him out of the room .

 

They were not interested if the chain of custody on the samples had been adhered to .

 

The only thing the tribunal panel were interested in was whether or not the respondent company complied with the statutory dismissal procedure.

 

They did however state in their decision that the respondent company did not conduct adequate investigation . They also said that the disciplinary hearing where my partner was not afforded the right to speak was seriously flawed but they found that the appeal process corrected all of the flaws.

 

For this reason the panel concluded that the dismissal was fair.

 

To be honest it was a shock to find out that we had not won but in saying that , i can see that the panel are only interested in the statutory procedure.

 

We have had one week now to get used to the idea of loosing and life goes on.

 

Emotions are not as high as they were in the early days and to be honest to be free from the stresses that a tribunal brings is a "win" in itself.

 

Life has returned to normal , my partner has got a new job in which she is very happy . She was honest with the new employer and assured them that she would at any time submit to random drug testing (she did one at the beginning of employment as standard) at any required time.

 

Life is good. We are happy and content.

 

The biggest loss here is the Respondents because through this whole situation they have lost my partner who gave them 18 years of loyal service . Thats not something which can be forgotten.

 

Once agin , to all who helped us on this matter a big big thank you !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there. It's great that you've updated us and I'm very angry that justice hasn't prevailed. But I think you're both dealing with it incredibly well and I wish you all the best in the future. As you say, the ex-employer is the loser and you still have each other and your happiness.

 

HB x

Edited by honeybee13
Grammar.
  • Haha 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely gutted for you and your girlfriend surreyguy, what a travesty!

It's results like this that put people off trying in the first place, but as HB says you have your happiness and each other and at the end of the day that's all that matters

:wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

gutted for you but you are right in thinking it is their loss

who would want to work for an employer who needs to resort to such tactics to get rid of someone

worse still the "JUSTICE" system allows them to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am grateful that you updated this thread as i am now facing the prospect of the same outcome UNLESS i can prove procedural floors

we did not get an appeal hearing

do you think that is relevant?

any advice would be much appreciated

GOOD LUCK! SOMETIMES WHEN YOU WIN YOU LOSE

BUT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU LOSE YOU WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the fact that you were not offered an appeal is a big flaw in the statutory procedure !

 

Are you just at the beginning of the tribunal route ?

 

Is there anything i can do to help? Having just been through it myself i would be more than happy to help out if i can.

 

Do you have a legal rep ?

 

If not have you checked you're house insurance policy ? A lot of policies offer legal cover as standard and sometimes people dont even realise they have it.

 

Worth checking and remember , if i can help in any way just ask . pm me if you would rather .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Surreyguy. I still think you've gained a vast amount of knowledge from what you and your lady went through, plus the peace of mind which you both deserve. So I think you would be a great asset to the forum and I look forward to working with you if with luck you decide to stick around.

 

My best to you both, HB x

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear this didn't go well. I remember reading quite a bit about it at the start.

 

Being a litigant-in-person is a daunting prospect, my advice to anyone looking to bring a claim is to see if you have Legal Expense Insurance, usually as part of your home insurance policy.

 

You might be able to appoint a Solicitor and get it paid for by the LEI, however most policies are underwritten by a company called DAS, and it is very rare to see them 'back' a claim unless it is nailed-on to win (i.e. prospects of success above 70%).

 

Another problem is that DAS normally take several months to make a decision, given that the time-limit in most employment law claims is 3 months, this creates obvious difficulties with limitation.

 

There are employment law solicitors out there who will work on a no-win no fee. Under new law passed in April 2010 they cannot charge more than 35% of your winnings, to include VAT. I.E. you get £10,000 they take £3,500.

 

If you have LEI you can go to any Solicitor and they will try and get it backed by your LEI insurer. This is often better than dealing with DAS direct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...