Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just circling back with a thanks and an apology.   Apologies because, I honestly thought I'd replied to thank everyone and update, but turns out I hadn't. Sorry. So first of all, a big big thanks to the Forum and all those that helped me on this thread, especially @dx100uk and @AndyOrch. The work you do is awesome and I'm sure I'm only one of many who are extremely grateful for your support. So, in terms of a belated update, Moriarty withdrew, well they said ADCB did. So that's a result. Whilst that was a few years back, I still get emails from odd 'agents' locally in UAE - usually at a weekend - or reminders from ADCB. The sums offered by the agents for a settlement are a fraction of the sums that were claimed - like 75% less - so one would presume if one wished to settle, dealing direct with ADCB may be even less. If it helps anyone, what I would say is this. 1) Listen to the advice from the trusted sources on here. They know their onions. 2) It can seem overwhelming to a layman with all this legal jargon, but don't let it scare you. Just take it a step at a time, listen and learn as much as you can from other threads, and trust the process. 3) I was surprised how shambolic Moriarty appeared to be in my case. Don't ever think the other party is above you in terms of knowledge, experience or how they will conduct themselves. Whilst it was during the pandemic, even on the remote calls with the court, in one instance Moriarty didn't even bother attending the call. In other instances, they didn't reply to certain requests I made via court process. Finally, they just give up the ghost, and a few years later I received confirmation of discontinuance. I'm not saying my experience is/was/may be typical, but what I took from it was it simply came down to brinksmanship and them playing the percentages on their part. Play the long game, take good advice, there's nothing to be scared off and if it's anything like my situation, you may well win the day. The longer things went on, the more you will feel you're on the right side. Especially once it gets into all the process, form submission and involvement of the court, stick to your guns and follow the advice.  It's nothing scientific, but if every case was like mine, it seems like these folks have the view that at some point, the defendant will crumble and give in, through fear or otherwise, so it's important to stay brave and keep pushing forward because the further you go, the more it will tilt in your favour. Play a straight bat and the long game. I've now come back to post due to another situation, different debt, and will start a new thread in due course.   So keep your chins up, fight the good fight and good luck to all, and sincere thanks for all the help.  
    • The NTK needs to be redacted, your VRN is still showing.
    • Hi, yes they swapped over after a brief period when the bank were sending something over.
    • Fair enough. But I don't understand why they send these letters. Do people really get scared and end up paying them?
    • That's a blessed relief. They would have been withdrawn because, as I said, they have no evidence that you were driving. That comes from the responses to the requests for driver's details which you failed to send. The important thing is that the speeding charges were laid. That makes life much easier (and far more likely to see a successful outcome). You need to make your SD and serve it on the court where you were convicted. The next you should hear is by way of a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" laying the four charges against you again. You will have three options (for each charge): Plead Guilty and do not attend court Plead guilty and attend court Plead not guilty You must plead Not Guilty to all charges. In the section headed “reason for not guilty plea” you can state that you will offer to plead guilty to the speeding charging providing, and only providing, the FtP charges are dropped. This is a procedure well known to all court users (prosecutors, magistrates and their legal advisors) and is carried out up and down the land daily. I’ll refer to it as “the deal”. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to undertake this deal and speak to the prosecutor (the agreement of the prosecutor is required as the court cannot accept it without that agreement).  However, during the pandemic courts aimed to reduce the numbers of people required to attend to an absolute minimum and most courts accepted a written request to do the deal. Local police prosecutors made an agreement with their courts that the magistrates’ legal advisors could accept the deal. In some areas this arrangement has carried on. In others they have reverted to the old process where attendance was required. So your offer of the “deal” with either be accepted in writing and dealt with under the Single Justice procedure or you may have to attend court. In either event it is important to emphasise that you will plead guilty to speeding only if the FtP charges are dropped.  There may be slight variations to the process depending on how the individual area works but there is no reason why this should not be successful.    
  • 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

Unfair Dismissal? ***WON***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4723 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

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Has OH been given a letter setting out the new allegations and that they're to be heard at the appeal hearing(?!)

Just thinking as to whether he's able to substantiate what they're playing at.

 

SE, so you'd now suggest not even attending the appeal hearing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has OH been given a letter setting out the new allegations and that they're to be heard at the appeal hearing(?!)

 

Yes

 

Just thinking as to whether he's able to substantiate what they're playing at.

 

The GM has admitted to the OH by email that the disciplinary process was incorrect. I can only presume he is now trying to correct the mistakes made.

 

This is a HUGE, multi million pound national company we're discussing here and the General Manager is seen in high regard by Directors......would you admit to such catastrophic errors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has OH been given a letter setting out the new allegations and that they're to be heard at the appeal hearing(?!)

Just thinking as to whether he's able to substantiate what they're playing at. Good point - I read the word letter and assumed that this had come in a letter! Did it?

 

SE, so you'd now suggest not even attending the appeal hearing?

 

Assuming that the OP can substantiate these new allegations (and if she can't yet - can get them in writing) then I see no real purpose in attending the appeal. Since the rescinding of the Statutory Procedure, a claimant does not have to appeal. It is simply better to do so in order to avoid any possible reduction of award. But in this case there is a substantial amount of evidence (it would appear) that the employer would, given wind of having got it wrong, reinstate (so you can't claim) then bide their time and dismiss fairly. The employer is obviously already realising that they have got it wrong - what happens if the OP's OH is reinstated??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that the OP can substantiate these new allegations (and if she can't yet - can get them in writing) then I see no real purpose in attending the appeal. Since the rescinding of the Statutory Procedure, a claimant does not have to appeal. It is simply better to do so in order to avoid any possible reduction of award. But in this case there is a substantial amount of evidence (it would appear) that the employer would, given wind of having got it wrong, reinstate (so you can't claim) then bide their time and dismiss fairly. The employer is obviously already realising that they have got it wrong - what happens if the OP's OH is reinstated??

Well aye, that's the danger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, set the record straight.

 

The OH has all letters regarding his original interview and subsequent disciplinary meetings. He also has his dismissal letter. Now, he has a chain of emails from the GM stating everything I have told you including a PDF letter on letterheaded paper SIGNED by the GM saying everything I have told you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, set the record straight.

 

The OH has all letters regarding his original interview and subsequent disciplinary meetings. He also has his dismissal letter. Now, he has a chain of emails from the GM stating everything I have told you including a PDF letter on letterheaded paper SIGNED by the GM saying everything I have told you.

 

In that case - do you genuinely trust the GM to hear the case without prejudice and to make a fair decision. Or do you think that if you go in there spouting the law (which, in a sense you will have to do) telling them they can't do this etc., ec., they may panic (as they have obviously already done!) and reinstate. If the latter, and if you do not want that - you have no option but to go for breach of trust and confidence and take the risk of a reduction in award - which I have to say I think is a small risk if you argue as I have suggested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've both known from the outset that it would be an unfair hearing, and the GM has kindly shown us that it will be. I think taking the small risk in reduction of any award would far outweigh the option of working there again. There are many, many reasons (including victimisation) as to why he could not work there again. This includes 2 statements (which we have but are unfortunately marked without prejudice) that state the OH has a low level of skill/competency. This is a huge knock to his confidence as before this time there has NEVER been reason to question his work. The OH is under no illusions of everything being great if he was to work then again and we both know that within a short time they would find something to discipline and ultimately dismiss him for (correctly).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because a document is marked 'without prejudice', doesn't mean it is automatically privileged. It depends on the context of the document.

 

And in fact, although I cannot be certain without seeing the documents, I would lay bets that without prejudice has no meaning at all - and that you can use them. To be "without prejudice" a document must relate to a dispute (pretty sure that one of those exists:-() and must also be a genuine attempt at resolving it. I feel fairly sure that insulting the other party would not be considered a genuine attempt to settle the dispute!

 

But without prejudice, I think your OH's employer needs to get some legal advice rather than pretend they are a legal adviser and write silly letters to you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah...well if I tell you what these statements are about you will probably agree that the without prejudice meaning means nothing.

 

One just states that a support and training meeting was carried out with the maintenance team on two occasions. It also mentions that standards were discussed.

 

The other one is much the same except at the end of it they have written that the OH has a low level of skill/competency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But without prejudice, I think your OH's employer needs to get some legal advice rather than pretend they are a legal adviser and write silly letters to you!

 

:-D I think the silly man has underestimated both mine and the OH's intelligence.....oh, and the advice that is so easily gained from places like CAG and your good selves!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah...well if I tell you what these statements are about you will probably agree that the without prejudice meaning means nothing.

 

One just states that a support and training meeting was carried out with the maintenance team on two occasions. It also mentions that standards were discussed.

 

The other one is much the same except at the end of it they have written that the OH has a low level of skill/competency.

 

I once discussed with my father how much I wanted an Ewok (a real live one) for Christmas - but I didn't get one! I wonder if I should have made it a without prejudice request?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that made me laugh!!!

 

Just something else he can add to his ever growing file of papers then. I mean, who would want to work for a company where one of the managers has no faith in your ability.

 

If the OH wins, I'll buy you an ewok - actually, make that a breeding pair :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they may be told to go beep themselves after the tribunal! I have to restrain myself as I will see these people everyday I'm at work. The OH though - well he got a lifetime ban from the park.....shame.

 

So relieved to know that he has a case though. Reading through it, it does sound so unbelievable. Getting sacked was obviously a blessing in disguise for the OH.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I may have found a way to get this appeal letter from the GM on here.....just for fun.

 

EDIT.....nope, image was too small. Goddammit. Will try tomorrow when I am less knackered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about sending em a 'without prejudice' email informing em that they're a shower of BEEPING BEEPS and they can go BEEP emselves?

 

Now, now no BEEPING swearing on the forum pulp .........

...................................................................... [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Please post on a thread before sending a PM. My opinion's are not expressed as agent or representative of The Consumer Action Group. Always seek professional advice from a qualified legal adviser before acting. If I have helped you please feel free to click on the black star.[/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS] I am sorry that work means I don't get into the Employment Forum as often as I would like these days, but nonetheless I'll try to pop in when I can.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Black][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Red]'Venceremos' :wink:[/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just mulling this over. Should the OH be going for wrongful dismissal or unfair dismissal (or both). It's undoubtedly wrongful, but is it unfair. I have been doing a little reading, and it appears that it can be seen as unfair to dismiss someone for something that could be a one off mistake (it was), that the person had no prior warnings/disciplinarys on record etc. I mean, you tick a unit as checked, by accident, and you get sacked for it.... the fact that the OH is dyslexic, and informed his employers of this during the meetings, and that he struggles with lists doesn't seem to have been taken into consideration. He was asked why he never stated this on the application form, and he told them that there was no where to write this information (they suggested under disabilities, but my OH doesn't see it as a disability, just an annoyance). He had never brought it up before hand as he is embarrassed by it. Anyway, going off track here.

 

I have to call ACAS today anyway and inform them that the OH is not going through with the appeal so I will ask them - there is just so much background information to this that it's going to take forever to explain it all! Oh, and I must email the GM telling him to shove his appeal up his backside :)

 

Any ideas guys?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both - but it is the unfair dismissal (for those with 52 + weeks) that is the main claim - wrongful dismissal is essentially just to obtain notice pay (and a decision of unfair dismissal overrides this). You might also try for disability discrimination - failure to make reasonable adjustments, because the employer was told about his dyselxia (admittedly late!) and could and should have made a reasonable adjustment once they became aware of it - i.e. not sacked him. I am a great believer in kitchen sinks - throw in anything you can claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you :)

 

His dyslexia was not mentioned on his application form for fear of discrimination ;) He should have informed them earlier, but it's in the minutes of the meetings. Might as well go for gold eh?

 

Surprisingly ACAS have said to still attend the appeal.....ermmm, no. Told them reasons why (thanks SarEl) and they said fair enough. Ok, off to email GM now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter regarding his appeal hearing.....

 

This is the second one they sent today due to change of date. The original one is on letterheaded paper, signed by the GM (its a PDF, which I can't upload on here as I can't delete information).

Appeal1.doc

Edited by clemma
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...