Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

Dependancy leave being threatened with dismissal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4519 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,

This is my first post and hope you can help my husband works in a call centre and is in his probationary period his first 6 month period was extended due to taking two periods of sick and his next 6 months are up this week in this 6 month period he has had to take 3 period of dependancy leave we have 2 toddlers one of whom suffers from bronchialitas and is on inhalers and comes on very suddenly and he can be admitted to hospital with it, once he was off with this as one of us was at the hospital and the other had to look after our other toddler it was only 2 days in total, next I was placed on a very strong painkiller that made me incapable of looking after the children while I waited for surgery that was 1 day and this week me and both children came down with flu and the youngest also struggled with his breathing so again he had to take 2 days off to help me. We do not have any family to fall back on we are both only children and my parents are both deceased and his parents work.

When he returned to work last week he was called into a "investigation meeting" where they told my husband that they would be investigating his time off for dependancy before ending his probation at the conclusion of this meeting they decided to take it to a formal hearing which is tomorrow he will have been with the company 1 year on the 1st November at which they stated that one of the outcomes could be dismissal.

 

From my investigation I have discovered that their is no limit to time off for dependants and that this shouldnt be used as a reason to dismiss someone as he has never had more than 2 days and they stated quite clearly in his investigation that they have no issues with his work at all he has had no sick at all in this period of probation.

 

My questions are:

 

1/ Can he be fired for taking time off for dependants when no warnings have been given

2/ Can they bring the sickness from his first 6 months probation in as relevant in the new period of

probation as he has met the request to not take any time off for sickness.

3/ Will he be counted as being their a year on his 365th day if he is dismissed tomorrow for an unfair dismissal claim.

 

Thank you any help is gratefully received.

 

Lesley

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his service will be a year. They can dismiss for less than a year.

 

In any event it does sound unfair and possibly discriminatory. he could submit a grievance tomorrow stating that he feels that company inaction could be discriminatory due to Associated Disability Discrimination ie he is associated with a disabled person (baby on inhalers) and that any policies procedures etc should take this into account as he is needed for the needs of a disabled person. You may need proper legal advice on that but hopefully it will stop them in their track and get them to consider this before proceeding. he could then try and negotiate what is permissable in circumstances when he is urgently needed for baby's needs

Link to post
Share on other sites

His length of service + a minimum of one weeks' notice + accrued holiday entitlements will have got him safely over the one year threshold.

 

Dismissing him without following any sort of recognised disciplinary procedure is breach of contract, therefore unfair dismissal.

 

Failure to take account of his situation, especially when they were aware of it, would be discriminatory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

Just to clarify, accrued holiday entitlement does NOT put you over the one year threshold for claiming unfair dismissal. It would not be counted under any circumstances.

 

However, if he has 51 weeks' service, he can bring a claim as the statutory notice period would push him to the 52 week mark. This means that if he was in the 51st week, he is probably safe.

 

He could potentially have a claim in any event as he is facing dismissal for asserting his statutory right to dependant leave. In addition, depending on the nature of the child's condition, it could also amount to disability discrimination by association. He is entitled to "reasonable time off", what is reasonable in the circumstances may depend, but unless there are other elements involved, it is likely that his absence was reasonable. I presume he followed the company's internal reporting procedures when taking this time off? If not, this could be a disciplinary offence in itself.

 

As he will have one year's service on 1 November, you could claim unfair dismissal. So in answer to your questions:

 

1. This is highly likely to be unfair.

2. Yes, they could do this, however if they are relying on this to dismiss him when they already agreed to discount this period, then arguably this is unfair also.

3. If he is dismissed, yes, he does still have the requisite length of service.

Best of luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi,

 

Well since I last posted my husband was dismissed on the 31st October his 365th day of working for company with one weeks notice. The reason they gave was that they did not feelwe had sufficent back up from family should my sons ilnness reoccur which seeing as its an ongoing thing would be likely. My parents have both passed away and my husbands work we are both only children so we do not have a huge network.

 

We have taken advice off a solicitor who said we have a very strong case for unfair dismissal under the associated disability act as my 2yr old is on inhalers for a reoccuring problem. We appealed the decision and my husband had his meeting a week ago he took with him a letter off our doctor stating that on the dates he was absent that it had been comnpletely neccesary for him to be a t home to help me as we have 2 toddlers so one of us at hospital and one at home with our other child. They adjourned the meeting to go away and do some investigating and its now been a week and we have heard nothing how long should we wait before we chase them up, I must add this isnt a small company this in one of the biggest private healthcare providers so you would think they would be a bit understanding!

 

We have followed everything to the letter in line with company procedure to ringing in and he was never off for more than 2 days just long enough to get my sons breathing and wheezing under control and then I took over sole care again usually with the help of the community nurses.

 

Any advice would be great.

 

Thanks Lesley

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can take as long as they want, as they are a law unto themselves. Whether that is fair or lawful in another matter. If the company is large as you indicate then there should be a company policy indicating the time limits. Failing to follow those limits could in these circumstances be construed as victimisation.

 

They should take a 'reasonable' time, but what that is is a matter of interpretation.

 

have you actually instructed the solicitor now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No we havent instructed the solicitor as yet we where waitingon the outcome of the appeal hearing they told us to come back to them should we not have any joy with the appeal!

My husband worked for [edit] so a very large organisation and in the notes he managed to get off the employee website it doesnt give timescales for hearings- Sorry just re read the notes it was under a differnet heading and for a dismissal hearing it says 5 working days which is today.

 

Do you think we should look at instructing a solicitor now or wait for them to get back to us with their investigation findings?

Edited by honeybee13
Firm's name.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Give them an extra week to write, then write them a letter explaining that their delay could be construed as victimisation. In that letter give them a date to get back to you otherwise you may consider proceedings. Give enough rope = hang themselves, comes to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...