Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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 4921 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 all.

 

Re the hair test - this is done at an accredited lab . the hair sample is removed from the donor under strict supervision , hence there is no way of fooling this test !

 

Re the DNA sample - Owing to the fact that i have been with my girlfriend for 20 years and we have 3 beautiful children together , i KNOW that she has not conseumed any drugs , so to the question someone asked as to what i would do if the DNA proves that the sample WAS my girlfriends then i guess i would start eating that old hat of mine lol.

 

Trust me guys , theres NO way my girlfriend consumed drugs....she has way too many health problems to dabble with any drugs....they could kill her.....

 

We can obtain a court order for the release of BOTH the samples to be released to an accredited lab and tested and this is what we intend to do!

 

Thanks again , all replies are appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi 'surreyguy' and Ms 'surreyguy',

 

Hope everything is going according to your plans and that your girlfriend is more relaxed now...

 

You take care...

 

We're all behind you...

---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---

 

***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***

 

- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -

Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, BRB. surreyguy, do you have any news at all?

 

HB

 

 

Hi all.

 

Yes , we do have some (good) news !

 

Girlfriend has had the hair test conducted , some hair was cut from around her crown area of her head and tested.....NO DRUGS/SUBSTANCES DETECTED!

 

Just as we knew there wouldnt be !

 

We also visited a (bloody expensive) solicitor who wrote some very strong worded letters ordering the release of BOTH of the urine samples provided on the day of testing (i.e my girlfriends and the other female tested) . They are now in the lab being re-tested and DNA tested.

 

We have (well the solicitor has) told the lab that we are certain that the samples were swapped so they are fully aware of the situation .

 

We have been told to expect the results around wednesday of next week , as that allows for the easter holidays.

 

So.....as you can see , we have been doing everything possible to sort this mess out BUT.............guess what????? employer is still adament that if the results come back showing that the samples WERE switched they wont be reinstating my girlfriend !!!!!

 

Surely they cant do this ??? Surely if this goes to tribunal we would win ?

 

Guy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as I've said before, even if (when) it's established that an almighty cock-up had occured, they'll probably try and argue that at the time of dismissal it was reasonable for them to have come to the decision they did.

You have to show that that was not the case, and that they didn't pay any consideration to the procedural discrepancies of the test, and should, at the very least, have granted you a re-test.

 

Just one point, has the other woman given her consent to the remaining samples being tested? I'm not sure, but I'd have thought she would have to be consulted. I'd have thought she's cacking herself, no?

 

It's looking very positive over all though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT.............guess what????? employer is still adament that if the results come back showing that the samples WERE switched they wont be reinstating my girlfriend !!!!!

Surely they cant do this ???

 

I'm afraid that they can.

The Tribunal doesn't have the power to force her employer to reinstate her.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing because sadly it isn't difficult for a determined and careful employer to 'fairly' dismiss any employee.

 

Surely if this goes to tribunal we would win ?

 

I would think you'd have a good chance of winning, but it would be a monetary award in compensation for her unfair dismissal.

 

Following on from elpupo's point about the other woman's sample that you are having tested; if her sample tests positive for drugs you might want to take advice before releasing that information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote

 

Following on from elpupo's point about the other woman's sample that you are having tested; if her sample tests positive for drugs you might want to take advice before releasing that information.

 

 

Hi all and thanks for the rplies.

 

In answer to both questions , yes , the other female HAD to allow the release of the sample . On the day of testing , apparently their was a section in the small print which covered the release of the sample in the situation such as dispute over the validity . We visited a solicitor and took all the paperwork showing results etc which he studied and found this section in the small print so VERY useful.....

 

Cant wait til wednesday now lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

BRB sorry , im actually a bit lost after that last post from you (apologies , its been a long stressful day lol)

 

Are you saying that the tribunal MAY come to the conclusion that the employer has acted reasonably because they were within their rights to terminate girlfriends employment on the basis of the positive test result?

 

Lol i think i have just returned to earth with a (very painful) bump lol

 

thanks BRB

 

You will have to convince the tribunal that the employer should have carried a second test upon your girlfriend requesting one...

---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---

 

***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***

 

- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -

Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have to convince the tribunal that the employer should have carried a second test upon your girlfriend requesting one...

 

 

BRB

 

Yes , you are spot on there .

 

Maybe it's just me being in support of my girlfriend but i seriously think that the tribunal will arrive at THAT conclusion themselves.

 

I mean , surely ANY reasonable employer would have ordered a re-test........or at least thats MY opinion anyhow?

 

Guy

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should go through the company's policy in terms of testing... do they allow re-tests? If yes, on which grounds and what is the procedure to follow...

 

Check with a different company, of similar size with similar number of employees... what do they do there?

 

If DNA tests establish that an exchange occured, then you should think about legal course of action against lab...

 

I am confident that you will get there successfully in the end...

---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---

 

***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***

 

- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -

Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, an employer should be seen to examine all alternatives to dismissal. So, in such a circumstance, where clearly there was ambiguity, they need to explain why they disregarded your request for a re-test.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts are generally split on whether to impose liability against drug testing labs. The courts that impose liability typically apply general negligence principles, while the courts that refuse to impose liability fail to apply basic tort doctrine. The former courts reach the correct result because they begin with a duty analysis and ultimately determine that a relationship exists between drug testing labs and employees such that it is appropriate to require the labs to act reasonably during all stages of the drug test...

---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---

 

***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***

 

- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -

Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Check with a different company, of similar size with similar number of employees... what do they do there?

 

If DNA tests establish that an exchange occured, then you should think about legal course of action against lab...

 

 

Hi all.

 

Firstly , BRB i have already been intouch with another testing company and when i told them what had happened they thought i was winding them up!!

 

They just could not believe that a testing agent could do something so highly un-professional.

 

The man i spoke to regarding this said that if a collection agent from their company behaved in such aa way it would be HIM/HER facing disciplinary action ! He also is 100% sure that this result will NOT stand up to scrutiny at a tribunal.

 

Secondly BRB , the collection company when they received a "presumptive" positive on girlfriend's sample then sent it to an independent lab for definative testing. So my fight is actually with TWO companies.

 

The collection company who BROKE the chain of custody AND the lab who TESTED the sample upon whcih the chain of custody had been broken.

 

Thanks again.

 

Guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mr & Mrs 'surreyguy',

 

How is it all going?

---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---

 

***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***

 

- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -

Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mr & Mrs 'surreyguy',

 

How is it all going?

 

 

Well all , what a week it's been !

 

All results have been returned and.......................wait for it....................lol .............................the samples WERE switched!!!!

 

The TRUE sample found to be my girlfriend's was clear NO SUBSTANCES DETECTED AT ALL !

 

So , now we have it.....an almighty cock up has occured somewhere along the line whilst the two testing agents were out of the room !

 

BUT........... The employer still says that they treated my girlfriend fairly in her dismissal and so they are STILL determined to defend the claim all the way to tribunal !

 

Some people just annoy me lol

 

thanks for thinking about us guy's

 

Guy

 

 

p.s. I will be back later with more indepth details if anyone wants to know , am really busy at the min but just decided i needed to check in and let you all know the latest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! It has been dramatic hasn't it?, but the employer's attitude defies logic. I'd be fascinated to know what happened when you have time, especially how you know the samples were definitely switched.

 

Thanks for updating us. I guess it's 'See you in court' next, is it?

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the result I was expecting!

 

I also assume that no action will be taken against the other party that was tested, despite the fact that her sample has now been proven to be positive?

 

G

 

 

Hi Griffzilla.

 

I havnt seen you participate in the thread before , so its nice to see that some people have been following .

 

At this point in time , i am stil unsure as to what action will be taken against the other girl and to be honest (im not being harsh , its just been long and stressful) im not really that bothered what happens to her !! I care about my poor girlfriend and the outcome of all of this ON HER !

 

Ok lol that DOES sound harsh !

 

Guy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! It has been dramatic hasn't it?, but the employer's attitude defies logic. I'd be fascinated to know what happened when you have time, especially how you know the samples were definitely switched.

 

Thanks for updating us. I guess it's 'See you in court' next, is it?

 

HB

 

 

Hi Honeybee.

 

We received written confirmation from the testing lab that sample X - which was originally marked with a barcode which related to my girlfriend could not logically be matched to DNA taken from her during the later investigation .

 

The same testing was then conducted on the OTHER sample Y which had a barcode relating to THE OTHER girl and it returned a 99.9999999999999 % match to my girlfriends DNA !

 

Result ! lol

 

Guy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mr & Mrs 'surreyguy'...

 

Well done for the hard work produced so far... your girlfriend can now rest!

 

Have a go, now, at finding, on the net, policies related to drug testing in UK companies... see if you can find what a 'reasonable' employer states on his policy about allowing staff a re-test if the employee suspects results are erroneous...

---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---

 

***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***

 

- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -

Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Griffzilla.

 

I havnt seen you participate in the thread before , so its nice to see that some people have been following .

 

At this point in time , i am stil unsure as to what action will be taken against the other girl and to be honest (im not being harsh , its just been long and stressful) im not really that bothered what happens to her !! I care about my poor girlfriend and the outcome of all of this ON HER !

 

Ok lol that DOES sound harsh !

 

Guy

 

Guy,

 

Sorry, have been monitoring, but have kept quiet as testing isn't an area of expertise of mine. However did sense the injustice immediately, and am so glad that things are going on track for you.

 

Harsh - not really! As long as your partners name is cleared then I doubt any credible person would be in a situation to think of anything other than yours!

 

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

b) They break the chain of custody (3 minutes absence during which anything can happen) and it is asserted by letter.

 

c) They refuse results of tests conducted by GP on the grounds that chain of custody cannot be confirmed...

 

--------------

Is it just me who thinks points B and C are ironic?

 

How can the company refuse to accept GP results when THEIR results are compromised?

 

Boggles the mind.

 

Hope your girlfriend screws them, surreyguy, and not in the good way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its nice to see that some people have been following.

 

Probably more than you think, I'm sure a lot of people are rooting for you and just don't want to clog up the thread with non informative posts (such as this :p)

I just found this thread and read it front to back, so as the voice of moral support I want to wish you well and hope you screw them, in a big way.

 

And I do apologise for getting any joy out of your situation but I'm intrigued over the details of what happened. It has me hopelessly interested and makes me want to go study law all over again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...