Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would suggest also that you telephone the ombudsman tomorrow and ask them for details of the complaint that they have received from you and tell them that you want it in writing.  You will be amazed how scant The records of which are kept by these people. Read our customer services guide and at least actually give you some idea of how you should deal with customer service people or any call handlers on the telephone.  It is very important that you get a written summary of the report which you made to the ombudsman so that you can see exactly what they are investigating. The complaint to the ombudsman should have been very carefully considered over a period of time rather than simply made in a phone call
    • You should start putting everything in writing. Even the ombudsman, to begin a serious complaint by telephone is quite frankly crazy. I hope you have taken a copy of at least the advertisement that you have posted above.  I don't suppose that you kept a copy of the original AutoTrader advertisement.  How much in writing have you got of anything?    
    • Funnily enough the ad is still available online Range Rover 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography LWB Previously Sold | Clinkard Performance Cars WWW.CLINKARDCARS.CO.UK Performance, Prestigious and Specialist cars Dealers in Romsey, Hampshire but the autotrader version isn't which was probably slightly different potentially with more information. Reported to FOS over the phone but essentially gave them the same information I've stated here, updating them that I'm paying for a car I haven't had for nearly a month now etc I'll certainly come back with an update. Fingers crossed they will realise it's not worth taking to court. So the inspection among other things found a hairline crack across a load bearing section of the chasis which at the minute to the naked eye looks tiny but could turn out to be catastrophic and has had some filler chucked on top of it but we'll see what Clinkards inspection comes back with. Distance wise I believe they're around 165-170 miles away from me. Also I'm sure many people will have PCP agreements as it's the most common way to buy cars under 5 years old but they just forgotten the terminology or name for it. Pay deposit, choose a length then pay the difference between value today and guaranteed future value at the end of that agreed term   Whole experience has scarred me and moving forward I'd be tempted to pay for a pre purchase inspection myself because these guys are bigggg traders with a lot of top end cars. I just hope they don't make any more silly offers
    • Strange final response. They say that they are still investigating but they are giving you their final response anyway. Seems like a load of nonsense. Have you got a copy of what you then sent to the ombudsman? Anyway, for the moment although would like to know – it really is all for curiosity because as you have put it into the hands of the ombudsman it's probably not worth doing anything more until you have a reply. I would suggest that when you decide to spend this kind of money in future on a used car, that you understand exactly what your rights are before you make the purchase. When you buy anything – and maybe especially used car you should realise that you aren't only paying for the car, you are also paying for a bundle of consumer obligations which are intended to bind the dealer. You are paying for a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality and remains that way for a reasonable period of time and you are paying for any defects which emerge to be addressed and repaired at the expense of the dealer. We've already pointed out that by purchasing the warranty, they have effectively persuaded you to pay for something for which you have already paid. Very decent of you not to want to cause trouble in respect of defects which manifested themselves within the first few weeks. I have no idea why. For £78,000…. This you say that they were age-related problems – that is still no reason why those defects should have been there or why the dealer should not have been responsible for them. It seems to me that you have a clear case against the dealer/the finance company. We don't have many or any PCP purchases on this forum. However, it seems to me that the finance company is probably responsible for the condition of the vehicle because effectively you have bought it from them and to that extent it should be the same as HP. With a hire purchase agreement, it is as if you bought the vehicle directly from the finance company not from the dealer and it is the finance company which bears all the consumer obligations. I think the only thing you can do is to monitor the situation. Update us when you hear from the financial ombudsman and if you need to take the matter to court then we will help you. In principle it should be straightforward – but certainly there is a risk of a serious bill for costs if you lose. I don't see you losing. Did you say somewhere that the report suggested that the vehicle was unroadworthy? Have you got the advertisement for the vehicle? Does it make claims for the vehicle which are clearly untrue? And by the way, four hours away from you is what kind of distance? Have you read our used car guide? Have you looked at the video?
    • there's one in this thread.. i wonder if its the same, they seem to be identical regardless each time we have a thread with one Vehicle Control Services Privacy Notice, Brooke Retail Car Park, HA4 0LN - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group  
  • 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

Can she do this?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4970 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 had been certified unfit for work, and suffering from stress, from 7th June 2010 to 30th July 2010 (a total of 8 weeks) during my daughter's illness and subsequent hospitalisation. I was paid full pay at end of June and July. At end of August was paid less than a third of usual salary. When I queried this I was told by my line manager 'Oh you were at home with your daughter for the first month, therefore it's unpaid leave. Your certificates changed after that and you were sick from 5th July.' The reasons given by my doctor for my being unfit for work are as follows;

 

'Stress, daughter ill and bedridden' 'stress, daughter bedridden' 'stress, daughter ill and housebound' and finally, 'stress due to daughter being seriously ill in hospital.' This last certificate is dated 4th July and covers the 4 week period to 30th July.

 

My line manager also invited me, by letter, to an absence meeting when my daughter was in hospital. The letter starts by saying, 'As you have now been absent from work as a result of sickness since 8 June 2010, I feel that the time has come for me to meet with you....' Surely this statement can be regarded as acceptance of my being certified as unfit for work and therefore entitled to contractual and/or statutory sick pay?

 

My doctor certified me as fit for work from 30th July 2010, saying that I was 'fit for work' but my line manager has also put me on unpaid leave for the 1st and 2nd of September.

 

I work for a local authority and have 3 years continuous service but am not in a union so any advice would be gratefully appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In essence you should have only received SSP of about £79 a week after the first 7 days so getting full pay was a real bonus and very decent of the company. Unpaid leave just means that, no pay while on leave so very unsure why you got paid. They may realise this at some point and claim it all back less the SSP. The company is also following procedure by inviting you into a meeting so nothing wrong about that. Just my thoughts but someone with better knowledge may be along shortly to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at your contract with them and then asked to see the staff handbook or relevant pages of it for reference. I would have though that your leave would come under compassionate leave when your daughter was in hospital and when you were certified not fit for work by your GP that should be paid by your company, as far as I can remember it is determined by the length of them with the council. Again your contract should specified this or staff handbook.

 

If you have exhausted the company pay then you should get SSP under your GP's certificate. If they continue to keep asking you for an interview then say that your GP feel that this would not help your recovery at present and you will keep them advised accordingly. :madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Allwood. I have 3 years continuous service and am entitled to 75 days sick pay apparently. The problem seems to lie with my line manager's interpretation of my unfit for work certificates. I thought that as long as I was certificated as unfit for work by my doctor I was entitled to sick pay. Perhaps not? Does the fact that I was unfit for work because of my stress levels during my daughter's illness mean that I am ineligible for sick pay despite my doctor's certificate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What did your GP put on the certificate did it say that you are unfit for work due to stree because your daughter was in hospital.

 

As far as I am aware you are entitled to sick pay when you have produced a GP certificate unless it has change and I know nothing about it. :oops:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying! M doctor stated that I was unfit for work because:

 

1st certificate = 'Stress, daughter ill and bedridden' ( 1 week)

 

2nd certificate = 'Stress, daughter bedridden' (1 week)

 

3rd certificate = 'Stress, daughter ill and housebound' (2 weeks)

 

and finally, 4th certificate = 'Stress due to only daughter being seriously ill in hospital.' (4 weeks)

Link to post
Share on other sites

med3.pdf

I thought that as long as I was certificated as unfit for work by my doctor I was entitled to sick pay. Perhaps not? Does the fact that I was unfit for work because of my stress levels during my daughter's illness mean that I am ineligible for sick pay despite my doctor's certificate?

 

 

Unfortunately an employer is not bound by any law to accept a MED3 or pay SSP because of a MED3.

 

A MED3 is purely an advisory note for the purpose of administering SSP or ESA (if it is considered appropriate)

 

On presentation of a MED3, an employer can:

 

  • Accept it, allow their employee time off sick and administer SSP
  • Reject it and insist their employee attends work
  • Reject it and offer their employee annual leave or unpaid leave

However, if they do not accept that their employee is unfit for work, the common sense approach would be to implement their occupational health policy, if they have one. Again, there is no law stating that they must do this but certainly, unacceptace of a MED3 and failure to implement their OH policy (if they have one) would not go down well in an Employment Tribunal.

 

There should have been a discussion in the first instance to establish the facts of whether they were allowing you time off, whether it was paid leave, unpaid leave or sick with SSP. Kinda shot themselves in the foot by not doing that, because unltimately if you present a MED3 and they accept without discussion, and make no attempt to contact you to advise that they are not accepting you are sick, that in itself would suggest that they have accepted you are taking time off on sick leave and they are going to pay you accordingly via SSP (or their contractual sick pay scheme).

 

Your post suggests that the sick certs do plainly say that it is you who is unfit (with stress) due to your daughters illness, unless they said that you were fit, subject to adaptations then why would you have any reason to think that they were not going to pay sick pay unless they stated such.

 

I'd suggest you raise this at the meeting.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only found out that had been put on unpaid leave for whole period from 7th june to 4th July inclusive, when I got paid on 31st August. Less than a third of normal pay, have not received payslip yet so cant check, but assume have only received ssp and not contractual sick pay. The issue of unpaid leave was not discussed at ant time during my absence. Finally had the meeting on Thursday 2nd Sept. Essentially this was a back to work meeting. Had meeting with manager on Thursday 2nd September, this was essentially a back to work meeting to assess my needs etc/fitness for work. (Doctors cert. said I was fit for work from 30th July onwards.)When I asked her why half my absence was unpaid leave, manager said, 'I cant pay you for for the first four weeks. You were at home with your daughter. But when your certificate changed I could pay you for that.' I didn't query it any further. Just wanted to go home and re-check copies of certs at home. Having looked at them again, nothing she says makes any sense and I still feel that I should have been on full pay during the whole period. Also if I was certified fit for work from 30th July, why has manager told payroll that 1st and 2nd September are unpaid? Still doesn't make any sense to me. Will be speaking to Office manager who deals with staff payroll, just need to be clear about my position legally. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd cetainly speak to payroll I'm not sure if payroll would be able to help; it would depend on how payroll is administered. Most payroll departments pay according to the submission by management of the employees time keeping record. Payroll just release pay in accordance with the timesheets given to them - they are also not likely to be able to advise you on your legal position.

 

Sounds more to me like a managerial decision than a payroll decision (i.e that they have advised payroll you are taking unpaid leave for that period). It's a discrepancy over whether that leave is to be unpaid or paid by company sick pay or SSP.

 

I would suggest speaking with your HR department would be a better bet to gain insight in regard to what your position is. Or, if you want someone impartial (and free), speak to ACAS.

 

Best wishes - I think your manager has simply misinterperated matters and hopefully it can be resolved quite easily.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...