Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

Hours reduced from 30 to 0 instantly - Advice about employment tribunal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4593 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

Dear all,

 

I recently worked for a small company (about 100 employees) in Manchester and have been on a zero hour contract for about a year (just under i believe). I have worked a steady 30-45 hour week from when i started and then they suddenly reduced my hours to zero.

 

I have contacted ACAS and browsed the internet for advice and i am no closer to realising whether i have a case against them to take to an employment tribunal. There seems to be two thoughts on the matter, the first being that under customs and practice i have been given a certain amount of hours and i am now therefore entitled to similar ones in the future. The other is quite simply that they do not have to give me any hours because i have signed to say this is acceptable.

 

I'm sure the law is quite hazy but surely this can't be right. Other details which may or may not be of relevance is that this company does this regularly as a way to sack staff on the spot and it is well known in the company that they are ruthless in doing this. They did not give me (or anyone for that matter) a copy of the contract.

 

The only employment tribunal case i can find that comes close to being similar is Davies v Hertz (UK) Ltd ET/3303522/09 which rules against the claimant. This does not bode well for me i assume.

 

The reason i am so annoyed is that the zero hour contract in this case is used because the owners/management now have the power to fire people without any reason. I have never received a disciplinary and people at this company do not get fired, they are just suddenly left off the rota. It's quite sickening. I'm sure it has a very valuable use for some companies and employees, but in this case it is used in an unfair and malicious manner.

 

Do reiterate my main point, does anyone have any advice for me at this stage? Currently i am awaiting a letter from them explaining their actions (though they have said they are under no obligation to do so). After two weeks i will consider taking this further.

 

Any help or advice would be appreciated.

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have been on a zero hour contract for about a year. What sort of contract is that?

 

You have work regularly 35 hours per week. What date did you start work for this employer? What was the date of your last shift?

 

You are now on zero hours. Have you been dismissed? Were you given any notice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you have done 35 odd hours week in week out, then no existing (or non existing) contract can override your current working conditions.

 

They should have given you a copy of the contract of employment, it is illegal otherwise.

 

I think you have a case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all,

 

I started work around the 10th November 2010. Which means i worked for them for about 11 months. As far as i am aware after 12 months i would have gotten statutory rights but i would hope the law isn't so rigid on a date like that. 11 months is still a long time of consistent working.

 

To clarify, my last shift was Sunday 2nd October 2011 and i looked at the rota Sunday evening and i was not on it at all for the following week. They haven't fired me, they didn't even speak to me, i am just expected not to show up. It should also be noted that this wasn't done because they didn't need my services (as i am the most experienced person there. Yes 11 months is the longest serving member of staff in my area. This is because they constantly get rid of people and most smart people leave before this happens), but purely because i had the next two weekends booked off work and i asked how much notice i needed to give them to leave (as i was moving house in October). This combination instantly made them realise i was of no use to them (as weekends are the busiest time). Hopefully that gives you an idea how this company operates.

 

Like i said before, i'd be really interested to know if anyone can give advice to whether i would win in an employment tribunal. The whole situation is frustrating because they are clearly flouting the zero hour contract to avoid disciplinary procedures and get rid of staff when they please. I have never worked anywhere where the staff turnover is so high. it's ridiculous.

 

Thanks again,

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Again to clarify. I signed a zero hour contract. What this means is that i am not guaranteed any hours each week. hence when they took me off the rota they are not doing anything wrong (maybe). What i need is someone with experience in the customs and practice rule of working hours. Do i have a claim to say that because i was used to working 35 hours a week for 11 months they cannot just reduce it to zero instantly? This is what ACAS seem to be telling me.

 

Thanks,

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again. I hope someone will be along later with information on custom and practice, zero hours etc.

 

Are you saying ACAS think you have a case? And do they know that you were there less than 12 months? What I do know from the forum is that 12 months can make a difference. Have a read of gazhodge's thread if you would like more info.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honeybee13,

 

Yes i spoke to ACAS and they are aware that i have worked there less than 12 months. They seem to think that the customs and practice rule will make that irrelevant. I'm not really sure though to be honest, as much as i appreciate their advice i don't get a sense that they know case law in much detail which i assume is critical.

 

I've searched for Gazhodge's threads but only found two that don't seem relevant. Any chance you could direct me to the particular one? that would be great.

 

Thanks,

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...