Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The announcement comes as the Euros football tournament is due to kick off in Germany next month.View the full article
    • Household budgets have come under pressure as prices soared in the wake of the pandemic.View the full article
    • Please see my witness statement below.  Please let me know what modifications I need to apply.  I haven't included anything related to "administrative charge while paying by credit or debit card" as I wasn't sure if I should include since sign says "it may apply"   Background  1.1 Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of November 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.    Contract  2.1 No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” From PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) 2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-  (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or  (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44  For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.    Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed  3.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.  3.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.  3.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.  3.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.    Unfair PCN  4.1         As stipulated in Exhibit 1 (Pages 7-13) sent by DCB Legal following the defendant’s CPR request the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows £60.00 parking charge notice and will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof when the signage changed to show £100.00 parking charge as the evidence provided by DCB Legal stipulated £60.00 parking charge was indeed the parking charge at the time defendant parked and included in Exhibit 1   4.3        The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC   4.4        It is also unfair to delay litigation for so long and claim nearly four years' interest.    No Keeper Liability  5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.  5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.    5.3        The claimant did not mention parking period instead only mentioned time 20:25 which is not sufficient to qualify as a parking period.   Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  The notice must -  (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;      No Breach of Contract  6.1      No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY.  6.2        The wording “Electric Bay Abuse” is not listed on their signs nor there is any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them.    Double Recovery  7.1        As well as the original £100 parking charge and £50 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  7.2        PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”. Which in this case is £100.  7.3        The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off".  7.4        Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.  7.5        Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6        In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating “It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a addi8onal sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.  7.7        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  7.8        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  7.9        The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA AND THE CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.    In Conclusion  8.1        I believe the Claimant has got use to intimidation tactics and has got greedy. I believe the truth of the manor is the Claimant has used bullying tactics successfully for too long and is therefore assured that innocent drivers will fall into the trap of paying rather than going through the hours it takes to defend themselves. In the process, wasting the time of the Court, the time of the Defendant and everyone else who has advised the Defendant, out of sheer decency to help have a fair hearing and see justice delivered.  8.2        I am still in disbelief that I am being heard in this court, defending myself nearly 4 years after receiving a charge through my door. I have had to spend weeks’ worth of my life studying the letter of the law in order to defend myself from this ridiculous attempt at a swindle.  8.3        I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 
    • 'I thought why don’t we give it a try?' said student Swapnil Shrivastav, after inspiration struck during water rations.View the full article
    • honestly he/she just makes these ppc look so stupid everytime   fairplay lfi
  • 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

Annual medical questionnaire required for employer


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4838 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

My employer has recently asked certain staff who are on occasions required to travel or work overseas, to complete a medical questionnaire in order to satsify 'fitness for travel' purposes. It's all done through the Occupational health company they use.

 

I find it a bit odd as I work in the education sector and wouldn't think this was necessary and secondly our personnel department has asked us to complete this questionnaire annually as the 'fitness for travel certificate' lasts one year. Also some of the questions are a little intrusive. We accompany students on overseas residentials but they are all over 18 so again, strikes me as a little odd to ask staff to complete such a form.

 

Any thoughts/advice please? especially regarding the annual completion of said form. thanks.

Edited by bustle
ccccc

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like they are getting access to confidential medical information by the back door. Surely they should be asking for a disclaimer for access to such information. Alternatively surely the OP could merely refer the questionnaire to his / her GP and ask for a simple letter confirming fitness to travel? If the GP charges a fee, which I imagine they are entitled to do, the OP can ask the employer to pay it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that the employer will receive any medical information at all - they'll just be told whether an individual is 'fit' or 'unfit'. The Occ Health provider won't release any clinical information without a signed release. The medical questionnaire, once completed, should go straight to Occ Health, or via the employer in a sealed envelope.

 

One reason for using Occ Health rather than GPs for this sort of task is that it is more consistent than asking a variety of GPs - and almost certainly quicker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, thanks for the quick responses. The initial email the personnel unit sent was below (no mention of insurance within it)

 

"You have recently been identified as a member of staff who is likely to work overseas on behalf of xxxx during the next 12-months. In conjunction with our medical advisor, we recently reviewed our guidance and procedures on working overseas to enable us to be sure that we are not putting staff members in situations that may be detrimental to their health. As part of this procedure, we need you to complete the attached medical questionnaire and return it direct to xxxxxx. Your information will be reviewed only by our medical advisor and treated in the strictest of confidence.

 

 

If the completed questionnaire raises no further questions, a ‘Fitness for Overseas Travel Clearance Certificate’ which is valid for a period of 1-year will be issued. Alternatively, xxxx may need further information from your own GP, or may wish to meet with you personally, before proceeding. The Fitness certificate will be sent directly to xxxxx and you will be advised when the medical consent has been given."

 

You will see it is quite carefully worded but understand it is probably because of insurance purposes. I also read somewhere that you could get into some issues if at a later date, something crops up when overseas and I had not been totally honest on the form.... results in a breakdown of trust between employee and the employer.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that the employer will receive any medical information at all - they'll just be told whether an individual is 'fit' or 'unfit'. The Occ Health provider won't release any clinical information without a signed release. The medical questionnaire, once completed, should go straight to Occ Health, or via the employer in a sealed envelope.

 

One reason for using Occ Health rather than GPs for this sort of task is that it is more consistent than asking a variety of GPs - and almost certainly quicker.

 

Do you really think Occ Health would 'confidentially' keep ANYTHING if the employer wanted the information. Our experience is that they merely a tool of the employer just like HR. Even without signed disclaimers they leak information and after all it is the information the employer wants. Once they have it officially or unofficially they have it and will use it. Trust no-one with your medical information is my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, thanks for the quick responses. The initial email the personnel unit sent was below (no mention of insurance within it)

 

"You have recently been identified as a member of staff who is likely to work overseas on behalf of xxxx during the next 12-months. In conjunction with our medical advisor, we recently reviewed our guidance and procedures on working overseas to enable us to be sure that we are not putting staff members in situations that may be detrimental to their health. As part of this procedure, we need you to complete the attached medical questionnaire and return it direct to xxxxxx. Your information will be reviewed only by our medical advisor and treated in the strictest of confidence.

 

 

If the completed questionnaire raises no further questions, a ‘Fitness for Overseas Travel Clearance Certificate’ which is valid for a period of 1-year will be issued. Alternatively, xxxx may need further information from your own GP, or may wish to meet with you personally, before proceeding. The Fitness certificate will be sent directly to xxxxx and you will be advised when the medical consent has been given."

 

You will see it is quite carefully worded but understand it is probably because of insurance purposes. I also read somewhere that you could get into some issues if at a later date, something crops up when overseas and I had not been totally honest on the form.... results in a breakdown of trust between employee and the employer.

 

Are you likely to be traveling overseas? If not why not write back to them and say as much but that if you did apply to do such a traveling expedition you will get a fit note from your GP? I would be very wary of this intrusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, some staff travel overseas about once a year or so. I've since been notified that I have now got the medical certificate. The other reason for my reservations regarding this procedure is that I have an underlying medical condition and I'd rather it was not disclosed to my employers. I completed the medical form honestly, without being too specific in terms of what the condition is but not lying or misleading them. I was expecting the OH company to contact me but quite relieved they didn't. As someone has already mentioned, the employer cannot see medical forms without written consent from the employee nor can they request medical details from my GP without written authorisation from myself.

Edited by bustle
signature

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, some staff travel overseas about once a year or so. I've since been notified that I have now got the medical certificate. The other reason for my reservations regarding this procedure is that I have an underlying medical condition and I'd rather it was not disclosed to my employers. I completed the medical form honestly, without being too specific in terms of what the condition is but not lying or misleading them. I was expecting the OH company to contact me but quite relieved they didn't. As someone has already mentioned, the employer cannot see medical forms without written consent from the employee nor can they request medical details from my GP without written authorisation from myself.

 

What is the underlying medical condition? The more you have told us only reinforces my belief they are getting information by the back door. Any disability you have should be of no interest to the employer if you are coping with it and it has no bearing on your work. The minute it did have a bearing on your work, you should perhaps reveal the problem so they, and you, can make reasonable adjustments to enable you to remain in work. What relevance would the knowledge of a condition have to the job of supervision etc whilst abroad?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not prepared to disclose that on a public forum!

 

It doesn't affect my day to day work or capacity to do the job nor have I ever been off work due to the condition. It's covered by the Equality Act 2010 and I mentioned this on the medical form so it should be fairly clear (along with the other responses I gave) to the OH dr. what the condition is.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think Occ Health would 'confidentially' keep ANYTHING if the employer wanted the information. Our experience is that they merely a tool of the employer just like HR. Even without signed disclaimers they leak information and after all it is the information the employer wants. Once they have it officially or unofficially they have it and will use it. Trust no-one with your medical information is my opinion.

 

Actually I do think that Occ Health would keep clinical data confidential. Quite apart from data protection issues, Occ Health staff will be governed by their professional standards. Then again, I work in healthcare, so I know how seriously confidentiality is taken.

 

I also have recent practical experience of exactly the sort of thing OP describes. My job takes me abroad from time to time, and before each trip I go to Occ Health (my employer uses an external provider), complete a lengthy questionnaire, and undergo a full medical, including blood screening and a psychological assessment. On my return I go back to Occ Health for a check up. In addition, I can see the Occ Health doctor in confidence at any time, without giving my employer a reason, though they pay for it. In my case the nature of my work, and the location, is rather more challenging than accompanying students abroad, but the principle is the same. Apart from insurance considerations, my employer must ensure that staff do not travel with certain pre-existing conditions or on certain medication.

 

However, all my employer receives from Occ Health is a short report to the effect that I was examined, and found fit (or unfit). I have no doubt at all that no other information would be provided, even if it were asked for. Consequently I have no problem with discussing my health with the Occ Health doctor in the same way as I would with my GP.

 

I'm sorry that you seem to have been the victim of some sort of conspiracy involving HR, Occ Health and your employer, but I do not think it is typical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I do think that Occ Health would keep clinical data confidential. Quite apart from data protection issues, Occ Health staff will be governed by their professional standards. Then again, I work in healthcare, so I know how seriously confidentiality is taken.

 

 

Sorry to disagree with you Scarlet but we have personal experience of breaches by OH staff. When the pressure is on they will help the employer or they too become the target. You are either with them or against them when in a dispute. That is why confidentiality agreements are so wide ranging, because when you do get the evidence, as we did, then they have to protect the people that have gone against their professional obligations to help the employer. Just trying to give a balanced view. !!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...