Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Noted, thanks re-draft it is then 🙄    If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based  CCA  sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement  87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea. 
    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Received Final Written Warning AND Demotion?! Help needed..

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3653 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts


I have just come out of a disciplinary, in which I have been issued with a Final Written Warning, and also told that I will also be demoted from Manager to Assistant Manager.

The reasons for my disciplinary were 'Falsification of company documents and failing to adhere to banking procedures, which have resulted in a breakdown of confidence and trust' The falsification of company documents is listed as a reason for Gross Misconduct in the staff handbook.


At present they are still deciding where I will work as an Assistant Manager, and I will be contacted in due course to inform me where I will be working and at what salary (will be lower than my current salary.)


However, after a bit of research on the net, and looking through my staff handbook, I am not sure whether I should have received both sanctions.


The handbook reads:

The outcome of the disciplinary hearing will be one of the following:

- No disciplinary action will be taken.

- Verbal Warning

- First Written Warning

- Final Written Warning

- Dismissal with Notice

- Summary Dismissal (without notice)


As you can see, it does not mention the possibility of demotion at this relevant point in the handbook.


However, there is another section in the handbook which states the following regarding Redeployment:


In certain cases, as an alternative to dismissal of an employee whose performance is found to be unsatisfactory, the Company at its sole discretion may consider a transfer to a more suitable position assuming an appropriate vacancy exists.


Now, what I am wanting to know are the following:


Should redeployment(demotion) have taken place as an alternative to the Final Written Warning, or in conjunction with?

Should my salary be affected as a result? And if so, should I still be entitled to a further month at my current salary before it drops (contract states that if the company were to terminate a contract, they will give one months notice.)

If I do decide to raise this with the company, are they then allowed to change the outcome of the disciplinary if they do agree/find out that they should only do one or the other?

How should I raise this issue with the company? If its by appeal, they can change the outcome in either direction which could result in dismissal.


I do feel that I should feel happy that I still have a job - albeit not the job I have carried out for the past 3 years, however the demotion with a pay decrease will leave me in a difficult situation.

Any help would be greatly appreciated it, I feel very confused!!




Link to post
Share on other sites

You would seem to be stuck between and the devil and the deep blue here.


The main point is whether you were guilty as charged? Did you commit the act(s) that you were accused of and is the action taken by the employer 'fair' in the circumstances? If you accept that your actions were indeed a matter of Gross Misconduct, and there was a very real possibility of being dismissed as a consequence, then that has a bearing on what, if anything, you should or shouldn't do next.


On the face of it, you may think that since demotion is not stated as an available disciplinary sanction in the contract, the employer should not have taken the action that they have. This may create the possibility of you resigning and making a claim of Constructive Dismissal over a breach of contract, however even though the breach may be clear, the employer could well be in the clear as they have followed correct disciplinary procedures and their actions were justified as the alternative would have been dismissal.


As you correctly state, you do have a right of appeal, and could correctly challenge whether you should be a) be demoted in the first place as the contract does not allow for this, and b) whether you should have received a FWW and a demotion. You are also correct that the employer could reassess the severity of your actions and decide that dismissal would have been more appropriate - IMO particularly likely if they believe that you are trying to split hairs or challenge their authority!


Similarly, the relevance on whether you should receive a further month's money is also a matter of judgement. You may well have an argument, but the counter is that you could have been dismissed without notice. The employer is not terminating your contract but is proposing to vary it as an alternative.


What the employer is doing represents a change in your contract - it is down to you whether you accept that or not, and whether if you don't, you would have any justification for a claim of CD. Such claims are nigh on impossible to prove, so I think in summary that if you believe that you have a realistic case against the employer that you should think long and hard about it and take proper legal advice as to whether it should be pursued.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.






If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply, pretty much confirms my thoughts.


I do accept that I have falsified documents, although this was minor (sign in/out form) and done for what I believe is a justified reason, and was not for personal gain in any way.


I really want to appeal, but I don't dare to do so as I really can't afford to be earning nothing. Do you think there's another reasonable way in which I can raise these points without officially appealing?

I haven't looked into this yet, but do you think ACAs might be able to help in any way, especially as they write the recommendations?



Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Sidewinder. The employer has a contractual right to demote, and had they not done so, the outcome would quite possibly have been dismissal. Even if they had no contractual right to demote, you would have been unlikely to win a case at tribunal because even if you won, any award would have been significantly, if not entirely, wiped out by the fact that you did what you were accused of. I think your best advice would be to accept this, stick your head down, win back their trust, and get your record clear of the offence. Understand that it doesn't matter that it was minor (in your view - obviously not in theirs), or not for gain - it was falsification of records, and you were lucky not to be dismissed. Many people have been dismissed for less.


I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...