Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I heard a noise downstairs. I had just got out of the shower. Threw on leggings ran downstairs getting dressed, just managing to put my top on. I walked into the kitchen a man all in black with a protective vest on. He had gold numbers on his shoulder’s socks tucked into his boots. I said "what are you doing in my house? Who are you?" He would not tell me. I said "Get out" he refused. Again, I told him to leave. I asked him who he wanted and what address. He told me the address and I said, "THAT IS NEXT DOOR" He called me a liar and said he would not leave he was 2 inches from my face at this point I was petrified. At this point my son came to visit me and opened the door. He asked this thug who he was. He refused to show any identification, I told my son it was for next door. He asked what name and the thug said a name of a person who lived next door but left approximately 8 years ago. My son took a photograph of the plaque next door and showed him. outside this thug stepped into my sons face and said got a problem? Do you want one.? I told my son to call the police and after taking a photograph of the property he walked back to his white van. I spoke with the police who asked me to give the phone to the thug. as I walked towards his van he sped of very fast and I had to dive out of the way, or he would have ran me over. I am not exaggerating I actually have the whole event on CCTV. The police rang me back and said they would not attend as the thug was a bailiff. Is said not for me he wasn’t he was an intruder. I was really mad at the police and said it was a disgrace and that I was not happy. An hour later 2 police officers came and said it was a bailiff and there was nothing they could do. I said to the police get out of my house now. They immediately started to leave. I said why are you leaving?? they said because you told us to. Hold on, so I can tell police officers to leave and you have to go but a bailiff that came into my home when he was in the wrong property and would not leave then tries to run me down, does not have to leave? So, he has more power than you??? I wrote 3 letters of complaint to the Bailiff company they ignored them. I called and they put the phone down. Does this mean anyone can come into my home and the police will not protect me? I am so scared now. I do not like being home alone and lock the door even if I go outside for a minute, then I am scared because I cannot open the door quick enough. I really do not want to live in a world that is not safe. Should the police have helped me. Are people allowed in my house by their mistake with no consequence? If anyone has any thoughts I would be grateful to read them.   TLF
    • Thank you so much. I hope this communication will help you advise me.   I have owned the garage since Nov 2016.    I instructed my solicitor to communicate with the management company. She raised issues regarding the costs, and requested an explanation as to costs. When they failed to respond and were threatening court action I sent a cheque in 2017. The lady (Emma from the pre-action dispute team at SLC) who I spoke to told me she had recieved the cheque and would provide an explanation. Between 2017-2020 I continued to get bills which I forwarded to my solicitors yet I did not get an expanation. Until 02/06/2020 this year when I recieved the following copied below. The issue I had with the explanation is that it talks about the need for maintenance of the garage and no maintenance has ever taken place.  Since that time the bills have escalated from £534 to £2400! (I have also copied the offer from my solicitors which highlights changes in reserve funds etc. Since this date they have acknowledge a small vat error yet still insist on these extra-ordinary charges and fees.)   Is there any possibility as this is in the small claims that they could escalate the bills still further?   Leter of explanation I recieved in June 2020 Our Client has a broker that gets multiple quotes from different sources and as long as they provide the correct legal liabilities and cover, they will of course go for the cheapest option as long as these requirements are met. They of course need liability insurance not just for their contractors but for the people that live on the scheme also. They also need to ensure that the level of cover is correct in case they need to reinstate the building like new in case of catastrophe.   Again the difference in cost could be due to certain liabilities they have to have for the garage if they were to ever having to use contractors to fix it, the superior Freeholder of the estate may also want certain covers in place which again would explain the difference. They of course will look into our policies on an annual basis to try and keep the costs down.   Our Client’s charges do vary from year to year due to the reactive nature of the maintenance done to the scheme, as the managing agent working on behalf of the superior freeholder, it is their responsibility to keep the scheme in a good state of repair, meaning that they have to proactively fix and maintain any issue found on site, which is paid through the service charge. The amount of work, as I’m sure you can understand varies annually, however more often or not as the building/buildings/estate gets older, more maintenance will need to be done to keep the estate in good quality so the costs of maintaining an estate and insuring it, also increases.   Our Client wishes to assure your Client that it is in their best interests to have the interest of the leaseholders at heart, and they welcome a mutual understanding when it comes to the scheme. They will continue to work towards keeping the scheme at the highest level of repair.   Our Client’s current statement of account is attached. Both our Client’s Administration fees, and our fees have been waived, however the balance of £534.53 needs to be paid in full.   Please could you ensure this sum is settled by your Client, as a matter of urgency.     Reply from my solicitors: Whilst you have provided us with copies of your client’s accounts for this property, you have not provided us with a basis for your costs as requested on several occasions. You mention that the allocation of your client’s costs includes the maintenance of the estate and the garage, yet our client is invoiced separately for the service charge to the property and the estate. Can you please explain this? You have also failed to address our following points in your response and would appreciate your cooperation in providing these: 1. your client’s insurance premiums; 2. in respect of the Accounts preparation fee and Audit fee which has been allocated to our client, we consider that the level of work required to take into account the six itemised factors (as stated above) to be completely disproportionate to the costs allocation. Can you please explain why such costs have been allocated to our client’s garage and detail the level of work required by your accountants. With respect to the reserve fund, we note that this is referred to under the sixth Schedule of the Lease however the determination by your client must be reasonable. In accordance with your arrears schedule on 19th July 2017 we refer you to a letter of around the same date (please refer to separate attachment “First Port Letter Re Reserve Fund (July 2017)”) whereby your client stated “We have reduced the annual collection for schedule 2 from £250 to £90 as we feel with the current reserve fund levels this is a more appropriate level. We have therefore credited your account by £53.33.” As we have mentioned previously, there does not appear to have been any maintenance or management actually carried out in respect of our client’s garage which would warrant a departure from the £90 in reserve fund contribution from July 2017 to present. It seems clear that not only should the historic figures be adjusted to reflect this but also that the accounts for future years should be prepared on a similar ongoing basis. Your client’s costs should therefore be adjusted in respect of each of the years in question and for ease of reference we have set out the calculation below: · July 2017 to June 2018, the reserve fund has been charged at £250.00 when it should have been £90.00. Therefore the reduction in your costs for this year should have been £160.00. · July 2018 to December 2018, the reserve fund has been charged at £125.00 when it should have been £45.00. Therefore the reduction in your costs for this year should have been £80.00. · January 2019 to December 2019, the reserve fund has been charged at £265.00 (a 6% increase), when it should have been £90.00 (plus a 6% increase of £5.40). Therefore the reduction in your costs for this year should have been £169.60. This totals £409.60 however taking into account that your client credited our client £53.33 on 19th July 2017, our client has been overcharged by £356.27. We also note that there is a VAT discrepancy in the sum of £36.00 from the arrears schedule sent with your correspondence on 22nd January and 9th March and the arears schedule sent with your email dated 31st March, yet there hasn’t been any adjustment in costs. We are therefore working from your original arrears schedule, that being £1,179.71, minus the £356.27 that your client is attempting to overcharge our client, thus bringing the amount due to £823.44. In the circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect our client to cover the legal costs in this matter. Your client has not been forthcoming with the information or explanations requested on several occasions. We are of the opinion that had your client been forthcoming your legal costs would not have amounted to £336.50. As a gesture of goodwill, our client is prepared to offer a reasonable contribution towards your client’s costs in the sum of £150.00. In the absence of your client’s insurance premiums, an explanation as to the costs for the Accounts preparation fee and Audit fee, and an explanation as to how the management fee has been calculated without any management of the garage actually taking place, we are mindful that these allocated costs are likely to be inconsistent with what would be deemed reasonable in the circumstances.        
    • Yes exactly, nothing after mediation - previously it was with Northampton Bulk centre
    • Well this is where the confusion sets in.......did they get that order in 2018 ?    Did they file the documents with the court ? If they didn't there is no amended new date on the order that they should comply with the order.   So you have an old Order with a new date...which in respect tells you nothing.   Reading between the lines looks like Portsmouth County Court is in meltdown hence all the errors. You stated you submitted a DQ but it was never processed to the N57 Notice of Allocation...so mediation then nothing.  
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 977 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi all

 

In short, would a respondent risk committing perjury at a tribunal hearing when if they told the truth they would jeopardise their case in such a way that they would lose.

 

Basically I want to ask questions at my hearing, which if the managers answer correctly would prove my unfair dismissal case, if they lie they commit perjury which I can prove.

 

Hope this makes sence ........

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all

 

In short, would a respondent risk committing perjury at a tribunal hearing when if they told the truth they would jeopardise their case in such a way that they would lose.

 

Basically I want to ask questions at my hearing, which if the managers answer correctly would prove my unfair dismissal case, if they lie they commit perjury which I can prove.

 

Hope this makes sence ........

 

From what I have experienced and seen on this forum, many lies are told at the ET but it is only considered perjury in the most extreme circumstances.

 

Employers defend against the facts of the case by bare denials and utter falsehoods but there is a good deal of tolerance for this as they are seen as protecting their company's interests even though they are not telling the truth.

 

Action was taken against an employer who bodged up a contract and payslips and he ended up doing about 6 months in gaol but it really has to be that clear cut to attract any sanction or penalty from an ET judge.

 

 

Other CAGGERS may be able to explain it better, but in my view, the ET is not a proper court and does not offer the protection of a proper court against false evidence and perjury. It is formal and costly and there is a judge but it is really just a Tribunal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I have experienced and seen on this forum, many lies are told at the ET but it is only considered perjury in the most extreme circumstances.

 

Employers defend against the facts of the case by bare denials and utter falsehoods but there is a good deal of tolerance for this as they are seen as protecting their company's interests even though they are not telling the truth.

 

Action was taken against an employer who bodged up a contract and payslips and he ended up doing about 6 months in gaol but it really has to be that clear cut to attract any sanction or penalty from an ET judge.

 

 

Other CAGGERS may be able to explain it better, but in my view, the ET is not a proper court and does not offer the protection of a proper court against false evidence and perjury. It is formal and costly and there is a judge but it is really just a Tribunal.

 

Browncow, thanks for your post. I assumed that swearing on oath and making statements of fact and truth would be taken very seriously. That said I was referring more to perjury being made public after the tribunal. I understand the ET are packed with media representatives, what is the best way to approach these to get them interested in your case?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
Browncow, thanks for your post. I assumed that swearing on oath and making statements of fact and truth would be taken very seriously. That said I was referring more to perjury being made public after the tribunal. I understand the ET are packed with media representatives, what is the best way to approach these to get them interested in your case?

 

Thanks

I think that kind of publicity is pretty rare, unless of course there is a bit of a story in it. The hearings are public so anyone can attend. If you really want press coverage, I think the best way is to approach your local rag, for example Newsshopper, and suggest it.

 

Depending on the content, your story might be picked up by a national paper and even if it isn't , local rags have a substantial circulation as they are often free or at least cheap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No media people at my ET, certainly no one taking notes. My employer answered several of the judge's questions with a lie and I was not allowed to come back to that (represented myself). The judgement was not decided on the day but when I received the ruling 3 weeks later I felt it was a Pyrrhic victory because I'd seen and heard her lying under oath about a factual matter. Not a lot of comfort, but I knew she'd lied, and she knew she'd lied and several other people in the room knew it too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No media people at my ET, certainly no one taking notes. My employer answered several of the judge's questions with a lie and I was not allowed to come back to that (represented myself). The judgement was not decided on the day but when I received the ruling 3 weeks later I felt it was a Pyrrhic victory because I'd seen and heard her lying under oath about a factual matter. Not a lot of comfort, but I knew she'd lied, and she knew she'd lied and several other people in the room knew it too.

 

Yes I agree. Although they lied rather well, they know that I know that they know that are liars. I am sure that the judge knew that they were lying too as he would have had about 30 years experience of porkies but it did not seem to matter all that much. Appaling nonetheless.

 

I take it that you won but I understand what you mean about the Pyrrhic victory. I could not have faced representing myself and really admire you for doing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, my mistake ~ not really Pyrrhic ~ I lost my case, even tho' it seemed to be going my way towards the end. What I meant was that even tho' I lost, I felt I'd won because I looked into her eyes while she was giving evidence and knew she was lying on oath. So sorry folks, got the expression wrong, but hope you all understand what I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh its a shame you didn't win - especially as they were lying, but like you say that person has lied under oath so she obviously has no conscience. I have lost faith in Employment Tribunal and I haven't even hard my pre hearing review yet!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh its a shame you didn't win - especially as they were lying, but like you say that person has lied under oath so she obviously has no conscience. I have lost faith in Employment Tribunal and I haven't even hard my pre hearing review yet!

Never say die Professional the odds are 50/50 and it all depends on legal points and definitions (ave you heard of the Johnson area, for example?). Also a PHR can work in your favour as one side will probably have to concede an area of dispute and if your case is strong enough it could lead to an offer of settlement before full hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Never say die Professional the odds are 50/50 and it all depends on legal points and definitions (ave you heard of the Johnson area, for example?). Also a PHR can work in your favour as one side will probably have to concede an area of dispute and if your case is strong enough it could lead to an offer of settlement before full hearing.

 

Thank you for your words of encouragement Browncow. Just out of interest why are you called Browncow?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your words of encouragement Browncow. Just out of interest why are you called Browncow?
How now? I had the picture from a Christmas Nativity I made with the kids.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I just wondered. Take it you are a woman same as me then if you were making things with the kids LOL When are you expecting the decision on your case? When I went to watch an ET they gave the judgement there and then at the end - is that unusual? I only went to watch one (3 days)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I just wondered. Take it you are a woman same as me then if you were making things with the kids LOL When are you expecting the decision on your case? When I went to watch an ET they gave the judgement there and then at the end - is that unusual? I only went to watch one (3 days)

 

I think it depends on the complexity of the legal aspects of the case. The last day of my case was left for the judges to deliberate and they flagged that they would probably need a further day. This means that they will have to find another day to get together and as there are 3 of them, my lawyer said that he felt it would take about 4 weeks.

 

I am not finding it so bad because the thing to face is that all the court stuff is superficial and has little bearing on real life. Win or lose the problems remain the same and adjustments have to be made.

 

ET decisions remain more of a secret than I realised. Although they are a matter of record, there is a charge of £10 for the written judgement so it must be easy for employers to "spin" even if they lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:\ That's quite a long time to wait and in the meantime you having to see them at work. I don't suppose they talk to you about it at work. It must be extremely difficult for you. I signed on with an temp agency and had problems getting them to give the agency a reference, which I think left a bad taste as I have just seen an ideal job for me on totaljobs and it is advertised by the agency I signed on with. I called them and asked them why I hadn't been told about the post or put forward for it as I have the relevant investment banking experience (10 years) albeit about 15 years ago. She said they wanted someone with more recent investment banking experience, but it is only a temp role! I may be getting paranoid but I feel as if my ex employers are thwarting my attempts at getting a job so I think you were wise to keep your job as it is hellish trying to get employment after an ET claim!

Link to post
Share on other sites
:\ That's quite a long time to wait and in the meantime you having to see them at work. I don't suppose they talk to you about it at work. It must be extremely difficult for you. I signed on with an temp agency and had problems getting them to give the agency a reference, which I think left a bad taste as I have just seen an ideal job for me on totaljobs and it is advertised by the agency I signed on with. I called them and asked them why I hadn't been told about the post or put forward for it as I have the relevant investment banking experience (10 years) albeit about 15 years ago. She said they wanted someone with more recent investment banking experience, but it is only a temp role! I may be getting paranoid but I feel as if my ex employers are thwarting my attempts at getting a job so I think you were wise to keep your job as it is hellish trying to get employment after an ET claim!

 

They really do not bother me at all now Professional. It is over and I made my very expensive point.

 

I never intend to get another job after this one and I want to quit for good around Christmas or before, if it gets nasty again.

 

No more workin' for de man or de wooman for that matter:whoo:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Never say die Professional the odds are 50/50 and it all depends on legal points and definitions (ave you heard of the Johnson area, for example?). Also a PHR can work in your favour as one side will probably have to concede an area of dispute and if your case is strong enough it could lead to an offer of settlement before full hearing.

 

Dear Browncow,

 

glad that your hearing is over, how do you feel it went? I'm glad you seem so positive about it. I am deliberating on my appeal, as I have my written decision and it did not go in my favour at all. Very disappointed. Please are you able to offer any advice with regards to appeal?

 

Also can you elaborate on the Johnson exclusion and what PHR stands for? I have looked Johnson up on google, but dont really understand the concept.

 

All the best

 

BB

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Browncow,

 

glad that your hearing is over, how do you feel it went? I'm glad you seem so positive about it. I am deliberating on my appeal, as I have my written decision and it did not go in my favour at all. Very disappointed. Please are you able to offer any advice with regards to appeal?

 

Also can you elaborate on the Johnson exclusion and what PHR stands for? I have looked Johnson up on google, but dont really understand the concept.

 

All the best

 

BB

 

I have no experience of ET appeals Billybob. There are some lawyers on the forum who might help with that.

 

A PHR is a Pre Hearing Review and it is a sort of mini-hearing before the main hearing, Its purpose is to sort out major areas of contention in the case. For example, if the employer disputes disability, there could be a PHR to sort that issue out and, if the Claimant loses that argument, there could be no point in progressing to a full hearing.

 

The PHR is not used all that often as it is not considered the most efficient use of Tribunal time. Major disputes can be argued at the main hearing so a PHR is often not necessary.

 

The Johnson area relates to unfair and constructive dismissal. It refers to an actual case and it refers to loss of income before and after dismissal. I do not really understand it so my explanation may not be correct but here goes.

 

If, for example, a worker had run out of sick pay and was dismissed and claimed unfair dismissal they could claim loss of earnings up to the day they got the boot as well as future loss of earnings as a result of getting the boot.

 

However, if the same worker was not sacked but because they had run out of sick leave, resigned and claimed constructive dismissal they can only claim for loss of future earnings and cannot claim for loss of income prior to their resignation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Yes have no doubt they will commit perjury and they will have to to keep to their story. Don't assume everyone has your standards, that will be an error on your part. You have to find enough flaws in their arguments, ideally in written fact. Anything subjective can go either way. Pick holes in their ET3 and any statement. Also look for things that they should have done and where they have not, e.g. correct processes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Hello everyone can anybody clarify if there is anything I can do ,my former manager lied under oath in the employment tribunal ,not once but twice .

She did this despite me having evidence and witnesses to back this up , the tribunal hearing ruled in the companys (name edited) favour because the lies she told we're what I had notified head office about in confidence and they had shared the information with the management involved .

 

The lie she told was she denied verbally threatening myself and two others with dismissal for raising the issue of another manager bullying members of staff .

She also denied that the company discussed an out of court settlement despite me having the email evidence .

 

Can anyone advise me in what if anything I can do about this ???

I can't afford to go back to the solicitor it's already cost me nearly £5k but need this injustice to be resolved .

Edited by honeybee13
Removing company name and location
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I think if you appeal it is free? I think the system is so unfair.

I went to view a Tribunal once and it was obvious that the employer was lying, and they tied themselves in knots, but still they believed them and not the employee!

I think it is really difficult to win a tribunal.

 

I pulled out of mine at the pre-hearing review when it was obvious I wasnt going to get a fair crack of the whip as already my previous employer had been telling lies and they believed it.

 

I think maybe you shouldn't waste any more of your precious life on them.

They know they have lied.

 

Alternatively you can appeal and see what happens.

i wish you all the best.

I hate to think of people lying and getting away with it, but it seems that the odds are stacked against honest people in the tribunal system.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that ET is not about who is "lying" and who is telling the "truth". These things can be extremely subjective, especially in an emotionally stressed situation.

 

It is about whether the employee has a legal claim against the employer. Nothing more nothing less.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...