Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • 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.   
  • 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

New contract


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4861 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

Firsy of all hello everyone im Garry and new here.

 

I work for a private health care company and they have revised our contract down to 37 hours from 39 and chnged almost every part of it we had a 30 day consultation period and a few things have changed but there are a few things i would like some advise on all are under the heading hours of work.

 

here are the bits straight from the contract that i am concerned about:

 

1. There is a need for the employee to be flexible and these hours may be changed as required according to the employer's needs. under these circumstances , where hours need to be changed or additional hours worked, the employer will give as much reasonable notice as possible.

 

This concerns me as i understand it to mean they can change my working hours without further consulation and without me having to sign a new contract? this means they could force me to work a 48 hour week or indeed cut my hours to whatever suits them whenever it suits them?

 

2. under the working time regulations 1998 (wt regulations 1998), a workers working time (including overtime) must not exceed 48 hours per week on average, unless the worker has voulentarily signed an opt-out agreement, you hearby agree to opt-out of regulation 4(1) of the working time regulations 1998, although you may terminate such opt-out at any time by giving tghe group not less than three months written notice.

 

I feel this shouldn't be a contractual requirement?

 

3. you may also be required to work overtime where the needs of the establishment require it, for which you will also be allowed , at the option of the principal/head/manager, either time off in lieu on an hour for hour basis, or payment at the agreed rate of overtime. The overtime rate will only apply once the normal full time hours of work have been achieved.

 

I dont want to be forced to do overtime especially at our new flat rate of £9.05 an hour.

 

Any advise greatly recieved but i do need to know where i stand legally.

 

i have untill the 7th january to accept my new terms before they will dismiss and offer a new contract on the same terms but at a lower rate of pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there and welcome to the forum. The guys are around, but you need the right ones to turn up to have answers. Please bear with us while they get over the celebrations or have time off and I'm sure someone who knows will be along soon.

 

While you're waiting, have you looked at the ACAS or directgov websites? There's quite a lot of employment information and you could try the ACAS helpline for a chat once they're back next week.

 

My best, HB

Edited by honeybee13
Duplication.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Garry and welcome.

 

As far as I see it you are going to be left with little choice here. Whilst a contract is a contract, and you can hold out and refuse to accept, these are pretty standard contract terms, and the employer could indeed just terminate your existing one and then offer you employment on the new terms. That would leave you with any existing length of service broken and either accepting the situation or refusing the new contract and trying the Constructive Dismissal route, but based on what you have said here, it would be a miracle if that went anywhere as the employer does seem to be acting 'reasonably' - and particularly in the current economic circumstances, they would be having to impose far more draconian changes to your contract for a Tribunal to rule otherwise.

 

Looking at the changes one by one:-

 

1. There is a need for the employee to be flexible and these hours may be changed as required according to the employer's needs. under these circumstances , where hours need to be changed or additional hours worked, the employer will give as much reasonable notice as possible.

 

This concerns me as i understand it to mean they can change my working hours without further consulation and without me having to sign a new contract? this means they could force me to work a 48 hour week or indeed cut my hours to whatever suits them whenever it suits them?

[/Quote]

 

I think you need to clarify whether 'changes' to your hours of work might mean a reduction. This is a standard clause in employment contracts, and in practice I would take it to mean that where cover is required, there may be a need to vary working hours (as opposed to cutting them further) for short term needs in the interests of the business. The key word here is 'reasonable' - this is not defined in employment law, and varies from person to person. Two days notice may be reasonable for a single person with no outside commitments, living next door to the place of work, but may be entirely different for a single parent (or married, divorced, separated person with childcare responsibilities, or where the employee has to get the one available bus home to a dark village on a cold winter night).

 

Reasonable works both ways, so in those circumstances, it may be 'reasonable' to decline a request to work extra hours at short notice where this would not be possible in your particular case.

 

2. under the working time regulations 1998 (wt regulations 1998-), a workers working time (including overtime) must not exceed 48 hours per week on average, unless the worker has voulentarily signed an opt-out agreement, you hearby agree to opt-out of regulation 4(1) of the working time regulations 1998, although you may terminate such opt-out at any time by giving tghe group not less than three months written notice.

 

I feel this shouldn't be a contractual requirement?

[/Quote]

 

It can be a contractual issue (and indeed it should be if the job is likely to involve working regularly for more than 48 hours a week), but not a requirement. You cannot be forced to opt out, nor can you be punished or suffer any detriment if you refuse to opt out. Once again, I would imagine that the employer wants to ensure that should the need arise, they will have staff available to cover a particular circumstance where they might have problems if everybody available had already worked their maximum 48 hours in that week. I doubt very much that this would be for anything other than an exceptional situation, so perhaps you should also ask the question 'why'?

 

You could of course sign, then immediately opt out again without fear of recriminations?

 

3. you may also be required to work overtime where the needs of the establishment require it, for which you will also be allowed , at the option of the principal/head/manager, either time off in lieu on an hour for hour basis, or payment at the agreed rate of overtime. The overtime rate will only apply once the normal full time hours of work have been achieved.

 

I dont want to be forced to do overtime especially at our new flat rate of £9.05 an hour.

[/Quote]

 

I don't think I have ever had a job where this wasn't a clause in my contract. As an employee (and more so as a Manager) it was always understood that I worked for the employer, in the interests of the business. In practice, it was only ever for a few minutes, or a couple of hours at most, and it was very much swings and roundabouts, but as with the points above, where would the employer be if they were short staffed, and nobody could work as they all wanted to get off and go home? By having a contractual clause which required staff to be available on an overtime basis if the need arose, then at least they would be covered!

 

The best thing that you can do is to write down your concerns and address them to the employer. Just say that you have a few concerns regarding the changes, and why certain parts might cause problems to you personally. What employers look for is flexibility, and in order to gain that in a workforce, it is sometimes important for staff to understand why and when this may be required, but insofar as the contract changes themselves are concerned, whilst you do have a right to refuse, the employer also has a right to change terms, and unless these are completely 'unreasonable', there is little that you can do, except to negotiate on the sticking points.

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

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

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

Hi

The WTA is contractual only in itself, it hard to understand why your employer has added this to their contract. As it is enforceable on both you and the Employer without any recourse to a contractual term.

You can't be made to sign anything that would enable you to work more than 48 hours unless you want to, as such a decision would not be enforceable [in the case of requiring you to work more than 48 hours] in law. Moreover if they did that would be grounds for walking away from your job

However that aside i think Sidewinders advise is good here. Think about yourself and your future? £9.05 not a good overtime rate? i know workers who work a lot more than 48 hrs a week and only get minimum wage for what ever hour they work.

Upsetting your employer with a cack handled refusal to do anything is always not the best way to make friends and influence people.

Have a chat [as above] with said employer and try to get to the bottom of why they are doing what they are doing. Moreover if you have issues that would preclude them springing overtime on you at the last minute they you can have the chance to let them know in advance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Think about yourself and your future? £9.05 not a good overtime rate?

 

Have to agree there. Try overtime at £7.44 P/H

HALIFAX: 13/01/07 Sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter (marked as rec'd 16/01)

Paid in full in March 07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...