Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So who did you pay for the few months energy used before you switched to BG ?  OVO ? 
    • I moved in November 2018. The date they have got is the 10/10/2018 (that's the date it says the agreement was entered into in the letter before claim). I have no idea what period the money owed covers. 
    • Irrelevant if its not in their particulars. Look the crux of the defence is that you are being billed for energy (most probably daily Standing Charge amount) after the previous owner left. So you want proof and dates from the claimant that pin points this debt was incurred by yourself after you took residence. Now we can throw in the the standard legal jargon that puts them to proof. The claimant is an assignee who bought the debt for pence from SSE/OVO they haven't a clue how it was incurred or by who and possibly wont have any paperwork to back up their pleadings. What did did you take residence...what dates are on the charge from when and to ?
    • Notify them of your new address when you move yes.  You should do this with all your creditors and twice with the DVLA (once for licence, other for car V5C) Limitation period is 6 years for private cases.  Don't worry about a CCJ. They're a punishment from the court. For that you'd have to: Get a letter of Claim. Ignore that and get a formal claimform. Either not defend, not meet directions or go to a court hearing and lose (highly unlikely when following the advice here) Get judgement awarded against you Ignore this and not pay in full within 30 days. Only once all that has happened is a CCJ registered against you.  
    • Yes, you should tell them by snail mail if you move, just don't give them your email address. I think they have six years to pursue this, hopefully they won't. HB
  • 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

post terminatio​n restrictiv​e covenants


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4363 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,

 

I'm due to move to a new company in 3 weeks time and despite handing in my notice nearly 10 weeks ago my current employers have decided that i have breached the restrictive covenants in my contract and have sent me a letter from their solicitors looking for an injunction to stop me starting my new role ?

 

A few facts of this are:

 

  • there is a cross over of products between my current & new employers but there core products are different although in the same industry so not entirely direct competitors
  • the core products amount of business only accounts for 1.35% of my exisiting companies business which they are trying to protect
  • I have worked in this industry all my life and have therefore built my career and knowledge in this industry
  • I am still working for my current employer they decided not to grant gardening leave. In fact I'm still out selling for them albeit on the Trade side and not the retail side which is my usual area.
  • I know of other employees who have left for direct competitors and nothing happended.

So my question is can they really enforce these and what are my next steps. Do I need a solicitor or should I acknowledge the letters myself ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

This probably is one for a solicitor I'm afraid. To give a meaningful answer would probably need you to post up your contract, which even if you anonymised it, would probably identify you.

 

Although in principle, nobody should restrict your freedom to choose to whom you sell your labour, competitor or otherwise, as long as you're not working for both at the same time (including leave), nor actually taking any company papers or other physical property with you. One might argue that the contract is unreasonable on that basis.

 

As you say, gardening leave is the normal protective step taken and they have chosen not to do so. The question is whether their threats would stand up in Court and result in either damages or an expensive legal bill on your part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're still in touch with your other colleagues who left without any action resulting against them, then you could call them as witnesses - but for all we know, your case might have some significant differences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say that I agree with the above - it is impossible to advise for certain (and even then it would not be conclusive) unless we were to know precisely what the covenant restricts. In very general terms, a clause which is overly restrictive and effectively prevents you gaining employment in your field would be considered unlawful, but this very much depends on factors such as any geographical restriction, the length of time that any restriction applies, and the level of information that you are privy to in your current employment. Ultimately it is down to whether the covenant serves to protect legitimate business interests only, or whether it is deemed punitive, but the starting point is always that any clause preventing employment is unlawful, and the enforceability or otherwise is then assessed on the various factors which may justify the current employer's need to protect their interests.

 

If you were a relatively junior employee, with little or no access to classified information (for example product launches, sensitive technical information etc) then the employer may not be able to justify a restriction on future employment, however as you become more senior, a restrictive covenant may be seen as more reasonable.

 

Sadly, legal advice is almost certainly essential. Let us know how you get on.

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!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies so far. The claues are :

"except with the prior written consent of theBoard, you shall not during the Restricted Period be engaged or interested inor concerned with (in any capacity whatsoever and whether on your own accountor in conjunction with any other party) any person, firm or company carrying onthe Restricted Business within the UK.

except with the priorwritten consent of the Board, you shall not in competition with the Companyduring the Restricted Period…canvass or solicit orders or facilitate thecanvassing or solicitation of orders in respect of the Restricted Business fromany person firm or company who or which at the date of termination of youremployment hereunder is or at any time during the period of 12 months priorthereto was a customer of the Company, such person firm or company being orhaving been such a customer of whom you have knowledge or with whom you havedealt at any time during the period of 12 months prior to the termination ofyour employment…

What I'm really struggling with is that the company are only entitled to protect their ligitimate business interests so as the turnover of the account in question is such a small proportion of the business that does not seems reasonable. In fact the actual products sold which are exactly the same is only 0.14% of turnover !!! I'm also still actively selling their products and whilst this is in a different sector I see all the internal communication of the revenue, profits, new products etc... So surely if they wanted to protect there business why continue to let me sell and continue to expose me to sensitive information ??? Also why leave it so late......even i was scared enough to suddenly decide not to join this new company how on earth am I supposed to find work in 3 weeks ??? Why can I not further my career???

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. legitimate business interest is not defined by %age turnover, so drop that idea

2. they haven't left it late, you chose not to read your contract!

3. If they choose not to put you on garden leave that really isn't your business either. The law doesn't change because you think they are stupid.

4. your case depends on the industry. 12 months MAY be overly restrictive. Also there is no geographic area noted by the looks of it? BUT you need a lawyer! Either that or just gamble and see what happens. Or retract your resignation.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, the point in relation to the covenants applying to anyone you had dealings 12 months PRIOR to the termination of your employment is entirely normal and reasonable.

 

It's the restriction imposed after the termination I would like to know about. What is the "restricted period" defined as, ie the length of time you are bound by the covenants?

 

Also, do they define "restricted business" and "restricted customer"? That's very important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. legitimate business interest is not defined by %age turnover, so drop that idea

2. they haven't left it late, you chose not to read your contract!

3. If they choose not to put you on garden leave that really isn't your business either. The law doesn't change because you think they are stupid.

4. your case depends on the industry. 12 months MAY be overly restrictive. Also there is no geographic area noted by the looks of it? BUT you need a lawyer! Either that or just gamble and see what happens. Or retract your resignation.

 

Thanks Emmzzi - I am going to get some advice from a solicitor but just wanted other opinions on this. What is legitimate business interest defined as then ?? Surely there are trying to protect the business i looked after and may look to take ??? So how can the amount of business involved not be a factor? There is no mention of geographical area and this role is a national sales role with a retailer. Also the restricted period is 6 months not 12. The company im going to work for are specialists in a different product to my current one albeit in the same industry so the core products of the two companies are different......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any potential loss of interest is a legitimate business interest.

 

As a novel idea, have you considered just having a chat with your company to make sure they understand the new job you are going to? You know, before everyone goes to court....

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do understand the job I'm going to because I made that clear. It's basically the same job I'm currently doing for the same customer. The new employer us a bigger, more recognised brand with more market share. I guess I'll need to spend money I haven't got on a solicitor

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing is my position was filled quite quickly so no option of retracting my resignation. Also the account hasn't suffered because they filled the position so quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Becky, the job is pretty much the same looking after the same customers. However the company I'm going to work for already have a bigger, better relationship which I'll be taking over so it's not as if I'll be taking a customer away from my existing employer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cam, you're pretty much just going to have to take a punt, aren't you? Good luck!

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...