Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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

Compromise Agreement? Urgent


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5003 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 there, Pulpo. It seems to be going your way, although you have to question if the company knows what it's doing. I would say if these steps will result in you getting the next job and coming away with cash, it's probably worth it. After all, what can they do once you've taken the money and started work elsewhere?

 

Don't make the reference make you sound superhuman!

 

HB x

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It's just that the date for them to pay up is close to the ET deadline, I just get a feeling they might not pay and try to run me out of time on the ET. I'm not daft though, I'll have an ET1 ready, and the moment there's a problem, it goes in. I can always withdraw it later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulpo.... companies do things for the strangest of reasons, some no more so than to show everyone that the boss is the boss. Maybe you were the hardest to crack in the company and he has a plan for the remainder. So if he 'wins' against you he has a psychological advantage with the rest. I know you feel reticicent but once the money is in the bank and you move on it will all fall into place for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulpo.... companies do things for the strangest of reasons, some no more so than to show everyone that the boss is the boss. Maybe you were the hardest to crack in the company and he has a plan for the remainder. So if he 'wins' against you he has a psychological advantage with the rest. I know you feel reticicent but once the money is in the bank and you move on it will all fall into place for you.

Exactly, I think that is the case here. The easiest thing for them to do would have been to just back down right at the beginning, but employers don't like to concede to grievances for fear that it might open the floodgates.

I still don't think they intend to follow protocol and enter into a legal compromise agreement with me. They dismissed someone a few months ago, and gave him a months wages as 'a settlement'. It was nothing more a than a statement in his dismissal letter, saying 'we are giving you one months pay in full and final settlement of the matter of your employment'. I pointed out to the general manager that I thought this person might well try and take legal action against them, but he was adamant that this person couldn't do so as they'd 'settled' with him.

More fool them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so I today received a copy of the proposed Compromise Agreement, with a covering letter saying that all they need for it to be completed are the details of my independant legal advisor, so they can be added.

I emailed the manager, stating that as I understood it, they should direct me to seek independant legal advice, and offer to pay my legal costs, up to an amount. He replied that they were unwilling to pay my costs, and that that would have to come out of the settlement. So, what to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Elpulpo. I've been wondering how you were getting on. It's approaching the gestation period of a baby elephant, isn't it? I agree with you, I thought the employer was meant to fund legal advice. But wasn't there a lot of talk earlier about the CA being unenforceable if it wasn't executed correctly?

 

Did you file the ET papers, btw? I'm not sure when you run out of time and know it was a concern for you.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey HB, how's thee?

It's not a big deal, this legal fee thing. If they really start playing silly burgers, I'll stump up myself. Just shouldn't have to. I don't have to submit an ET1 'til about 5 Oct, so still well in time.

Going to find an employment law specialist tomorrow morning, just worried that they'll start trying to 'milk the cow' with it all, trying to drag me into making a case of it, when all I want is for it to be settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have to fund your legal advice although it's usually paid. My employer made it so that my legal expenses were only funded if I accepted the compromise agreement but told me I had to take legal advice regardless of whether I accepted it or not - being on a low income as a single mum I suppose they thought I'd have to agree just to cover the legal fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one thing to add to the advice here - it isn't relevant to this but useful to know. Trades union officers also have the right to sign off CA's. They often have more idea about CA's that the average solicitor who may have never or rarely negotiated one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have to fund your legal advice although it's usually paid. My employer made it so that my legal expenses were only funded if I accepted the compromise agreement but told me I had to take legal advice regardless of whether I accepted it or not - being on a low income as a single mum I suppose they thought I'd have to agree just to cover the legal fees.

 

 

Without legal advice the agreement is voided so its in their interest to pay

Link to post
Share on other sites

They stated that the agreement to pay legal expenses was part of the compromise agreement itself, therefore if I didn't accept it, it wasn't payable by them. They knew I had financial issues at the time and I was on antidepressants because of the stress at work so I guess they were trying to push me over the edge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently because I didn't accept the compromise agreement they decided they wouldn't pay my legal fees and I was told I couldn't refuse it without taking legal advice, they even phoned me at home while I was off sick to ask for the solicitors details that I was taking advice from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I do have to correct some mistaken legal advice given on this thread. There is nothing in law that says an employer must pay legal fees for an employee entering into a compromise agreement, whether it is agreed or rejected. This belief arises from the fact that it is common practice for employers to either pay the fees or a contribution to the fees. Employers seldom refuse to pay at least some of the bill - but that is not the same thing as saying that they must pay. The legislation does not say anything about employers paying for legal fees - it only says that independant legal advice must be sought by the employee as to the consequences of signing such an agreement for it to be legally binding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...