Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
  • 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

Help with self employment contract


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4951 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,

 

I started as a self employed advertising agent for a publishing company in Blackpool on 14th June 2010. The previous 2 weeks to that was taken up by attending a training course for the job. Of which all expenses, including petrol, hotel and food, was paid for by myself. Totalling around £380.

 

Over the next few weeks it became apparent that the role was not as they'd described and it was difficult to achieve their targets. Over the next 10 weeks I had earnt commission of £1086 but my outgoings to do the job over that period of time was at least £500.

 

Then I got a call on 27/8/10, from head office, telling me to cease all work on my assignment until further notification. I did have a couple of missed calls from one of the directors over the next 3 weeks and did return them, leaving messages. In the meantime, left without any means of at least trying to earn an income, I took on some work with my friend.

 

When I finally spoke with the office, after 3 weeks (16/9/10), it was agreed that I would leave. This was due to them leaving me in limbo and the fact that I had some casual work.

 

I did email them on 24/9/10 asking them for outstanding monies owed to me. And today 1/10/10, I received a letter from them demanding all the commission they have have paid me to date, £1086. Stating a paragraph in the agreement signed at initial training.

 

It states:

 

" In the event that 70% of the target is not achieved 2 weeks prior to the deadline, or the salesperson does not adhere to the above, the company exercises the right if it so wishes to reclaim all commission paid on the current assignment."

 

OUTSTANDING CHARGEBACKS

 

I ****** ******

 

Of ******** ****** ******* ****

 

Do hereby agree to repay all outstanding monies to ******* Publishing and her subsidiary companies.

 

If I leave the company for any reason, the debt will be paid in full within 28 days.

 

 

Signed **********

 

Signed *********

 

 

Witness *********

 

Any help on this would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Well, the next step is to see if there is anyway such an agreement can be voided.

Is it long and wordy - would you be able to scan a copy ?

Lived through bankruptcy to tell the tale! Worked in various industries and studied law at university. All advice is given in good faith only :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the contract. The first signature was signed on behalf of the MD. The MDs name is below the signature so they PPd it. The second was mine with my name below the line. The third is the witness who wasnt actually there so I dont know who it is. Their name isnt below the line.

 

Contract.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit too small to read, I have zoomed in but unfortunately cannot read it. Can you re-scan at a higher resolution, and perhaps make it a bigger size?

Lived through bankruptcy to tell the tale! Worked in various industries and studied law at university. All advice is given in good faith only :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I've had a look and on the face of it, it does appear to be a valid agreement - on paper, that is. There doesn't appear to be anything in the wording which would render it invalid. However, my concerns over this are:

 

- no evidence to suggest the witness was a suitable person to assign their name to a [legally] binding document

 

- no evidence to suggest whoever signed 'pp' did so on authority from the MD

 

- they are attempting to take back money which they have not lost, based on the fact that bookings have gone through sucessfully - but simply, a target was not met.

 

These 'chargebacks' are tricky, and more often than not fail in any further action, because it can't be proven that the company is at a loss, and that you are in breach of contract. Whether or not this 'document' will be valid enough for any further action against you is dubious - as you were self employed (as such) then there would not be a need for a contract of employment, therefore this would be seen almost as a sales contract between two parties, and a generic one at that in order to protect them from multiple people leaving when they have had enough - and the company can make some more money.

 

If the company is large enough, then it may be that they won't take any action against you - my feeling is that this company has a large turnover, and it's not worth the hassle of trying to track down multiple people in an attempt to enforce a dubiously signed agreement. You're probably not the first to be worried about this kind of thing - have you tried googling the company and see if any ex-contractors have blogged about their own experience?

Lived through bankruptcy to tell the tale! Worked in various industries and studied law at university. All advice is given in good faith only :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the excellent reply chesham. Theres nothing on the internet regards this company taking other agents to court. Maybe I'm the first?

 

The reality is though, due to my poor financial situation, I couldn't pay it back anyway. So the only choice I've got is to let them play it how they see fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...