Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Papat and welcome to CAG   Find one of my drafts on another thread and adapt it to say :-   I cancelled due to relocation to go to Uni and could not use the gym any more.   I now realise I should have given one month's notice and paid a final month's fee.   I'll pay this if you accept my  offer within 14 days but the offer will be withdrawn if you demand any more.   Put a draft here for checking first if you want.   Send the  letter to Harlands in Haywards Heath and get a free Cert of Posting at the PO
    • Name of the Claimant ?  Hoist Finance UK Holdings 1LI   Date of issue – 11th Nov 2019   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? The Claim is for the sum of £2722 arising from the Defendant's breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no 4929421509954002 The Defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a Default Notice issued pursuant to ss.87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX BARCLAYCARD) Written notice of the assignment has been given. The Claimant claims 1.The sum of £2792 2. Costs   What is the total value of the claim? £2977  Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) ? No    Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Yes, possibly more than once. This claim form has been sent not to my actual address but to a friend's house who lets me use their address for post. I had to do this as I had a lot of post go missing at my own address a few years ago. My address on Clear Score is different and my actual address. I don't know how they got this address.   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? No, I'd never heard of Hoist Finance before Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card bill   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? I genuinely don't know although according to Clear Score it was in 2010   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? I don't know   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/ Equifax /Etc...) ? It's on clear score both as Barclaycard and Hoist. The Barclaycard debt it £0 but the Hoist debt is £2792   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. I assume it's a debt purchaser   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No, I don't remember receiving a notice of assignment.   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not to my knowledge   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not that I remember   Why did you cease payments? I couldn't afford to pay the minimum and hoped that as the amount wasn't huge they might disappear   What was the date of your last payment? I think it was July 2014 but it might have been May 2015.     Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Not to my knowledge but it was so long ago I have no idea what the debt is for or how much of it might have been late/missed payment charges.   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No I did not I've never had a claim issued against me before. Due to my profession it is imperative that I do not get a County Court judgement against me.  Please help with what I should do.  Thank you all in advance.
    • @Jase1982   I have been trying to get up to to speed, and struggling   "Unite general secretary Len McCluskeytold the Guardian that Labour had to win over the party’s traditional working-class supporters with by promising to end free movement of workers - migrant Labour from Europe - after Brexit."   Labour declares a completely stark raving mad open door to anyone and everyone   Immigration was and still is THE big issue driving Brexit (but Corbyn is of course a Brexiter)   Corbyn promises a new Scot ref, then doesn't then hums and hars.     So what actually is happening?     Corbyn declares he's in it for all voters - but seems to mean he wants to ostracise most voters (biggest issue driving Brexit) and bring in new voters who might vote for him in gratitude despite not knowing who he is and probably not caring, and hopes some of them might be nurses.   Cluckskey wants to end (EU) free movement or workers? So where is he on the open door policy - (Theres apparently 40-60,000 none Turk ISIS looking for a new home ...)     I cant make any coherent sense of it whatsoever. Bonkers.   correction: Only sense I see is keeping everyone at each others throats to prevent them seeing the real problem - Corbyn and his quite small cabal of left wing loons ‌
    • OK, using the Norgan rule  payments of £100 per month towards the arrears would clear them in the remaining term of the mortgage, but only just - you would need to keep those payments up for 12 years without fail.  However the lender might not be too happy about waiting 12 years and may force your hand by applying for an eviction warrant in which case you'd have to get a hearing before a judge for them to decide.  £200 per month would halve the time it takes to clear arrears.  You have to decide what sum you can afford to maintain for a long period.
  • Our picks

id330uk

Has an employer to provide to the employee witness statements used to dismiss him

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2335 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

I know that if an employer does notcomply with the ACAS Code of Practice concerning disciplinary procedures and anemployee is dismissed the employee can claim unfair dismissal and ask fordamages. However I do not understand what happens when an employer does notcomply with the ACAS code of practices because he does not use a propergrievance procedure. I would like to know if this case also the employee canask for damages to the Employment Tribunal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory, but it very much depends on the kind of breach (material or minor), what action the employee had taken, and whether there is an actual loss (no claims for hurt feelings!). So we would need more information to advise.

 

edited to add - and if the employer process is BETTER than ACAS., they do not have to follow acas.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The consequence is that I was dismissed. There is a disagrement about whether I was an employee or a casual worker. I think that if I was an employee I can claim unfair dismissal and if I was an a casual worker I can claim detrimental treatment. However I do not understand how I can use in my favour the fact that my employer does not follow the ACAS Code of Practice concerning grievance procedure because he does not reply to my complaint at all. My employer dismissed me because he says that my work was substandard but I think that it is because I made a complaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're still an employee of you are a casual worker with a contract etc.

 

The difference that usually matters is between employed and self employed. Who paid your tax?

 

How long had you worked there?

 

What grounds did they give for your dismissal?


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

We could really do with a brief rundown of the lead up to the grievance and also what Emmzzi has asked to be able to give you the best advice.


How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you're still an employee of you are a casual worker with a contract etc.

 

The difference that usually matters is between employed and self employed. Who paid your tax?

 

How long had you worked there?

 

What grounds did they give for your dismissal?

 

It would take too long to explain but I am not an employee if I am a casual worker even with a contract. Only employee can claim unfair dismissal. I am not self employed because my employer paid my tax what means that even I am not an employee and cannot claim unfair dismissal I can nevertheless make a claim for detrimental treatment because I was dismissed because I made a complaint. I have worked for one year for my employer. I made a complaint because a supervisor was misbehaving and as a consequence I was dismissed. My employer told me that my work was of poor quality and later he told me that I was rude with a client. In reality he got rid of the complaint by getting rid of the complainant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that if an employer does notcomply with the ACAS Code of Practice concerning disciplinary procedures and anemployee is dismissed the employee can claim unfair dismissal and ask fordamages[/Quote]

 

Not true. The ACAS guidelines are exactly that - guidelines. They have no statutory basis and whether an employer uses them or not only becomes relevant should a case be successful at an Employment Tribunal. If a claim for Unfair Dismissal is successful, an award may be increased where correct procedure has not been followed.

 

Failure to follow the Discipline and Grievance Procedures is no longer a reason for making a claim to a Tribunal - the dismissal must firstly be proved 'unfair' for them to be relevant. The employer is not obliged to use any procedures at all so long as the dismissal is fair in itself, or where the employee has not completed the qualifying period of service!

 

For an Unfair Dismissal case to proceed, you must have been employed for at least 12 months (if employed before April 2012 otherwise it is two years) unless there is a reason to suspect that discrimination was a factor in the dismissal.

 

Whether you are a casual worker or an employee depends on various factors, most notably the mutuality of obligation. Whether the employee is obliged to undertake work whenever the employer requests, or as determined by a contract which specifies hours of work, rate of pay etc. Other matters may also be relevant, such as whether the business pays tax and national insurance at source etc.


Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to SWs advice, a casual worker is likely to have worker status if there is a written and signed zero hours contract. Which, if in place, may unfortunately mean no unfair dismissal rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an employer does not comply with the ACAS code of practice:

- It could make the dismissal unfair (given right qualifying period) but careful of a Polkey reduction (ie if the outcome would have been the same with the proper procedure)

- If the dismissal is unfair employee can ask for a 25% uplift of compensatory award

 

If there is no right to claim unfair dismissal or the claim is for something else (detriment agency workers or discrimination) not complying with a grievance procedure will simply be part of the evidence available to show the detriment/unfavourable treatment.

 

There is no right to claim compensation for failure to follow the code in its own right.

 

An employee should also follow the code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the what is stated in the Acas Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance [1Mb] the tribunal has to follow the Code of Practice. It is the Advisory handbook - Discipline and grievances at work which is advisory and as a consequence the tribunal does not have to follow. The only way for the employent tribunal to decide if a dismissal is procedurially unfair is to take into account the Acas Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance [1Mb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote directly from the ACAS Code:-

 

The Acas statutory Code of Practice on discipline and grievance is set out

at paras 1 to 45 on the following pages. It provides basic practical guidance

to employers, employees and their representatives and sets out principles

for handling disciplinary and grievance situations in the workplace. The

Code does not apply to dismissals due to redundancy or the non-renewal of

fixed term contracts on their expiry. Guidance on handling redundancies is

contained in Acas’ advisory booklet on Redundancy handling.

The Code is issued under section 199 of the Trade Union and Labour

Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and was laid before both Houses of

Parliament on 9 December 2008. It comes into effect by order of the

Secretary of State on 6 April 2009 and replaces the Code issued in 2004.

A failure to follow the Code does not, in itself, make a person or organisation

liable to proceedings. However, employment tribunals will take the Code into

account when considering relevant cases. Tribunals will also be able to adjust

any awards made in relevant cases by up to 25 per cent for unreasonable

failure to comply with any provision of the Code. This means that if the

tribunal feels that an employer has unreasonably failed to follow the guidance

set out in the Code they can increase any award they have made by up to

25 per cent. Conversely, if they feel an employee has unreasonably failed to

follow the guidance set out in the code they can reduce any award they have

made by up to 25 per cent

 

Consequently, failure to abide by the Code is not on it's own a cause of action and a dismissal must firstly be considered 'unfair' for the application of the Code to become relevant. Until April 2009 the mere fact that an employer did not apply the Code was in itself sufficient to make a dismissal 'automatically unfair' but that is no longer the case.

 

Any case before a Tribunal will firstly be tested on the basis of whether the reason for dismissal was potentially 'fair' - What was the reason given for dismissal (capability, misconduct, SOSR etc) and secondly whether dismissal was a 'reasonable' response on the part of the employer - would any reasonable employer have dismissed in the same circumstances?

 

If the tests are not passed and the dismissal is held to be unfair, then the failure on the part of the employer to apply the Code would potentially cause an award to be increased.

 

A dismissal is not 'procedurally unfair' just because the Code is not applied.


Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to you the ACAS Code of practice is noTimportant at all concerning the disciplinary procedure and the grievanceprocedure and it is important only to decide whether or not the tribunal awardan uplift or a decrease of 25% of any award given. I think that you are wrongfor the following reasons

 

In the following part of the ACAS Code that youquote

 

However,employment tribunals will take the Code into

account when considering relevant cases. Tribunals will also be able to adjust

any awards made in relevant cases by up to 25 per cent for unreasonable

failure to comply with any provision of the Code

 

We have to notice that it is stated ‘Tribunal willalso’ the word ‘also’ mean that the fact that the tribunal can increase ordecrease by 25% any award in case of compliance or non-compliance of the Codeof practice is an additional element to the fact that the tribunal has to takeinto account the code when considering relevant cases. If you were right this willmean that employers could dismiss employees without informing them of anyallegations made against them and without given to them any evidence used againstthem which are rules stated in the ACAS code of practice. However this cannotbe possible because these are very important principle of British law concerningfairness and natural justice.

 

Concerning the other part of the Code that you quote

 

‘A failureto follow the Code does not, in itself, make a person or organisation

liable to proceedings’

 

Could means only that an employer is not liable of prosecution foronly not following the Code for example for not having followed the Code if anemployee make a complaint he should have also for example dismissed or discriminatedagainst the employee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

id330uk, you seem to be misinterpreting SW's advice (which, incidentally, is the correct interpretation of the code).

 

The whole reason the code was introduced was to repeal the old statutory procedures which an employer legally had to comply with, or the dismissal would be automatically unfair. Automatically unfair dismissals on procedural grounds alone no longer exist - mainly because the tribunal was wasting its time on hundreds of cases where the grounds for dismissal were fair, but a minor procedural fault meant the employees won the case. However, their compensation was reduced to nil because it was their own fault they were dismissed.

 

Now, the uplift only applies if the dismissal was unfair, and THEN the procedure taken is assessed. The only way that procedure would be taken into account is if enough investigation wasn't undertaken and this meant the employer couldn't satisfy the Burchell test on a reasonable investigation and reasonable grounds for belief in the employees guilt, which is still good law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have forgotten that some parts of the ACAS code of practice are included inacts of parliament. The right that an employee have to be informed of all allegations made against him which are used against him to dismiss him, the right to have an hearing and the right to make an appeal are included in ‘Schedule 1: penalties procedures and appeals Part 1 Dismissal and disciplinary procedures’ of the Employment Act 2002. If these rules are not applied Chapter 34. ‘Procedural fairness in unfair dismissal’ ofthis act says also that a dismissal will be procedural unfair

 

The right to be accompanied is included in chapter 10 ‘Right to be accompanied’ of the Employment Relations Act 1999 and chapter 33 of this act ‘Unfairdismissal: special and additional awards’ says that in case of unfair dismissalthe employee should received four weeks wages as compensation.

 

Because all these rights are given to the employee by statute any breaches of them make a dismissal unfair.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am tending to lean with id330uk

 

the ACAS code of practice sets the MINIMUM standards an employer has to follow in disciplinary cases

 

THAT HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED ONCE IN ALL THE POSTINGS SO FAR

 

what about a companies own internal seperate industrial relations frame work on behalf of trade unions. these excel the ACAS code of practice

 

is a breach of these then not classed as unfair dismissal at a tribunal

Edited by squaddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Employment Act 2008 has replaced the Employment Act 2002 and subsequently repealed the default procedures and the automatically unfair provisions I named above. Therefore, it's no longer good law and the ACAS Code is now applied.

 

The fact remains that whilst employers are supposed to adhere to the code, that failure in itself would not render a dismissal automatically unfair. As case law has emerged, it's clear that it only comes into play if the employer UNREASONABLY failed to follow the code, taking into account its size and administrative resources. If correctly following the code would have made no difference to the eventual outcome, there would be no case for unfair dismissal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Employment Act 2008 has replaced the Employment Act 2002

 

may i ask when and a link please as this is important

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head, April 2009. I don't have a link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was told that in all grievance and disciplinary matters and procedual breaches was delt with reference Polkey v A E Drayton on awarding , or not awarding compensation through an employer not following the ACAS code of practice

 

is that still the case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"All" is too broad to possibly be true.

 

Here is an explanation of the Polkjey guideline.

 

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2006/04/11/34865/dismissal-polkeys-place-in-the-modern-world.html


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polkey is a common law (case law) rather than statutory (legislative) principle and yes, it's still good law. It's technically a defence to a claim.

 

It only comes into play in terms of a percentage reduction for compensation. Polkey was a redundancy case (and incidentally, the ACAS Code does not apply to redundancy dismissals). So say, for example, a redundancy process was not completed fairly, meaning the claimant was unfairly dismissed. If the employer could show that there was a chance they'd have been dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed (for example, if there were two possible employees at risk of redundancy, compensation would be reduced by 50% to reflect this) then compensation can be reduced on a percentage basis, or limited to the amount of time the tribunal believes it would have taken to conduct the process fairly (e.g. by capping loss of earnings compensation at one month).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although google is your friend... This article highlights the main changes. http://www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=The+Employment+Act+2008

 

 

The issue is that the Employment Act 2008 does not repeal in chapter 10 ‘Right to be accompanied’of theEmployment Relations Act 1999. Hence in case of breach of this rule at least a dismissal can be considered procedurally unfair even if it has been found being fair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that muddying the waters somewhat? Your original and subsequent queries related to a dismissal being unfair solely on the basis of the employer not following the ACAS Code, which was repealed under the EA 2008 - nowhere have you previously mentioned the right to being accompanied as a factor!

 

Perhaps if you explained more thoroughly your query, it might be easier to explain which legislation would apply....


Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The issue is that the Employment Act 2008 does not repeal in chapter 10 ‘Right to be accompanied’of theEmployment Relations Act 1999. Hence in case of breach of this rule at least a dismissal can be considered procedurally unfair even if it has been found being fair

 

AFAIK the dismissal would only be unfair for those reasons if you exercised your right to be accompanied and were subsequently refused.

 

But in those circumstances, even if you won on the procedure point, the compensation would be reduced (probably to nil) as the dismissal was substantively fair, meaning that the employee was at fault, and therefore no compensation would be awarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...