Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Claims for victimisation if you are not disabled


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4439 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

A coworker has made a claim for disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

 

He also claimed for lost wages because he was forced onto sick leave after he raised a grievance

 

and employer would not let him back to work when he produced a fit note. There were some adjustments on the fit note.

 

They delayed his return for more than 8 months and he had threats from their lawyer because of the ET claim. He is worried about costs but I told him that even if he is not found disabled costs are unlikely. Is that true?

 

The question he asked me was "Is the Tribunal likely to award him any compensation for the victimisation if the Tribunal find that he is not disabled.?" He has claimed victimisation after a grievance and an ET claim.

 

He got an expert report but it is not very good and might not hold up and he cannot afford to pay for any more medical evidence.

 

He has a back problem and is in pain all the time. He can walk but he cannot run or make a lot of other stretching movements with his legs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it's theoretically possible, even if he's not disabled, to bring a victimisation claim on the grounds that the protected act was that he alleged the respondent had contravened the equality act. I don't know of any authorities on the point though I'm afraid!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it's theoretically possible, even if he's not disabled, to bring a victimisation claim on the grounds that the protected act was that he alleged the respondent had contravened the equality act. I don't know of any authorities on the point though I'm afraid!
Thanks for the reply Becky.

I have not seen much about it either. I have seen cases were Claimants were awarded compensation for being dragged through a sham grievance process but the main part of the case was either unfair dismissal or some sort of discrimination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My knowledge stems from the old DDA not the equality act. In the DDA, victimisation was quite tightly defined and it certainly wasn't limited to someone who had been discriminated against.

 

Use BAILLI to see if there's a similar definition in the Equality Act.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My knowledge stems from the old DDA not the equality act. In the DDA, victimisation was quite tightly defined and it certainly wasn't limited to someone who had been discriminated against.

 

Use BAILLI to see if there's a similar definition in the Equality Act.

Thanks reallymadwoman I find that site a bit hard to comprehend but I will try.

 

So can you be victimised without having a protected characteristic? Does illness count if it does not match the definition of disability? This stuff is really complex

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's at least 5 years since I was researching all this stuff and I can't honestly remember the details. I'll have a bit of a search and see if I've still got my notes.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't find my notes but I've been on BAILLI. It's the Equality Act 2010, Part 2, s27.

 

Victimisation

1. A person (A) victimises another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because :-

a) B does a protected act, or

b) A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act.

2. Each of the following is a protected act :-

a) bringing proceedings under this Act;

b) giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act;

c) doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act;

d) making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened this Act.

 

So if B accuses A of discrimination and because of that accusation A treats B less favourably, then B has been victimised. Note that the accusation does not have to be true unless it's made in bad faith.

My understanding is that if they have been victimised then it matters not if they are disabled.

 

This is quite a complex area with potentially large compensation awards. Does your friend have legal advice? If not, he might consider approaching a 'no win no fee' solicitor for a preliminary interview.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's at least 5 years since I was researching all this stuff and I can't honestly remember the details. I'll have a bit of a search and see if I've still got my notes.
You're a reallynicewoman reallymadwoman.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't find my notes but I've been on BAILLI. It's the Equality Act 2010, Part 2, s27.

 

Victimisation

1. A person (A) victimises another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because :-

a) B does a protected act, or

b) A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act.

2. Each of the following is a protected act :-

a) bringing proceedings under this Act;

b) giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act;

c) doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act;

d) making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened this Act.

 

So if B accuses A of discrimination and because of that accusation A treats B less favourably, then B has been victimised. Note that the accusation does not have to be true unless it's made in bad faith.

My understanding is that if they have been victimised then it matters not if they are disabled.

 

This is quite a complex area with potentially large compensation awards. Does your friend have legal advice? If not, he might consider approaching a 'no win no fee' solicitor for a preliminary interview.

He has seen a solicitor who told him that if the disability discrimination reasonable adjustments is lost there is not much left

 

The two protected acts are the grievance and the ET claim, which should meet the definition above but solicitor says that it is

 

really hard to get to second stage (is that the reverse burden of proof?) on victimisation claims.

 

Sollicitor also says that victimisation claims are small and that bloke might have to pay costs if her pursues the disability claim on

 

weak medical evidence.

 

 

What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding that under the equality act, if your employer does not believe you have a disability - its upto a tribunal to decide if a claim has been raised for Disability Discrimination. I recently had a claim for Disability Discrimination and settled out of court. The victimisation part would fall under the same (however not sure)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding that under the equality act, if your employer does not believe you have a disability - its upto a tribunal to decide if a claim has been raised for Disability Discrimination. I recently had a claim for Disability Discrimination and settled out of court. The victimisation part would fall under the same (however not sure)

You are correct but the Tribunal always follows the medical experts. My mate is suffering and nobody disputes that but the evidence is saying that it is not substantial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he produce a statement of disability? It's usually for a phr but of disability is disputed it's the claimants chance to show his daily routine and the effect his disability has. It is also possible for some disability claims to fail but others to succeed, his eggs aren't all in one basket, so I still think it may be theoretically possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He has seen another medical expert but has not had the report yet. The solicitor says that the Tribunal would consider the report but that the case might be postponed. If that happens I fear that he will owe the solicitor for the hearing days as the hearing is scheduled for May 10th and then have to pay for another Tribunal. This is really too pricey for an ordinary worker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Solicitors can only charge for the time spent, unless it's on a conditional fee agreement or a fixed fee, so i would hope they wouldn't have to pay for a postponement!

 

I checked the victimisation point today, incidentally. Apparently it's easier to win victimisation than discrimination claims and it's still possible even if the claimant isn't disabled. So that's good news!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Solicitors can only charge for the time spent, unless it's on a conditional fee agreement or a fixed fee, so i would hope they wouldn't have to pay for a postponement!

 

I checked the victimisation point today, incidentally. Apparently it's easier to win victimisation than discrimination claims and it's still possible even if the claimant isn't disabled. So that's good news!

 

Yes that is good. I thought he might have to pay because the Tribunal time was booked.

 

He is back at work but redeployed until after ET. Can he be forced to work for managers involved if ET postponed.

 

 

Can the Respondent claim costs for postponement because extra medical evidence introduced?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The respondent cannot claim costs, the tribunal can award them, but its very rare that a claimant has to pay the respondents legal fees.

I am not a legal professional or adviser, I am however a Law Student and very well versed areas of Employment Law. Anything I write here is purely from my own experiences! If I help, then click the star to add to my reputation :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this person still working there? ET claims get very expensive with solicitors and barrister fees. Can your friends solicitor speak to the company with a view to a settlement?

Big organisation that never offers compromise but prefers to use up tax payer's money defending lies.

 

The lies and the stink of the internal process promted him to pay out a few K. Employer very confident that this would never get to ET but he has managed to get full discloslure and their statements out of them so I consider that a bit of a victory in itself.

 

Solicitor seems good on disability but does not seem to know much about victimisation. The impression I get it that it is not argued all that often except in the context of trade union activity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...