Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
  • 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

working when injured - police officer


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4194 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 caggers, been here a while got a few threads running and now trying to help/advise a friend with her work related problem/s

 

She is a Police officer, has had injuries on duty x 2 resulting from a work based activity - the first one was an accident during compulsory training wher her back went during Physical Training

 

The second injury a year later occurred when ordered to conduct the same physical activity despite telling supervisor she wanted confirmation or all clear from Dr prior to undertaking the activity

She undertook the activity (as she felt compelled to do it) and her back went again.

 

She has been diagnosed with disc prolapse with a tear; after the initial HR feeling was that she was swinging the lead,

It was only after HR paid for an MRI scan that they changed tack and actually belived the injury was genuine. (my friends perception)

 

HR are aware of the full condition and she is now in reciept if IIDB.

 

My friend is overweight (although very very good at her job) and during the subsequent HR/Medical and management meetings regarding her condition her weight has been focussed on as opposed to the activity that caused the injury.

 

My friend has had very limited sick leave as she is conscientious and hard working, she has suffered and is suffering with pain every day as it is her sense of duty to keep going.

 

My friend is a 'specialist' and works mainly in office based and specialist investigations

 

My friend loves her job, doesnt want to sue the force for causing the injury (second time) and after a lengthy period of supported and temporary restricted status returned to full duties after a modified fitness test and self defence

 

The problem is that the injury is still very very troublesome and she is getting worse by the week however in a male dominated enviroment where it is macho to 'soldier on' she feels that if she was to go on the sick it may lead to her being pensioned off as she cannot fulfil the full duties of a Police officer.

 

She is hiding the true extent of her injury from her colleagues and bosses as she does not want to be dispensed with or moved from her role. She is braving it up to keep going, but also deep down realises that if the wheel came off in a confrontation she may get more seriosuly injured and actually become more of a liability than an assett to her colleagues.

 

If she is found out to actually be more seriously injured after telling them she is fine would this be classed as gross misconduct?

 

She is very worried as the austerity measures are bringing a whole new way of dealing with injured officers, she has said they can make her retire under regualtions but wants to keep going, anybody know if this is preventable?

 

Also she is worried that by hiding the injury and then becoming involved in confrontation or similar situation where she may get injured again, or cause an adverse effect on her colleagues dealing with that situation because of her inability to deal with it - would she be liable under health and safety legislation for injuries to her colleagues?

 

My friend does not want to speak with anyone internal including her federation (union rep type) reps as there is a belief that the force will find out as there are different employment laws concerning police.

 

Her immediate supervisors went through the motions as being supportive however she feels this is management action to 'tick the boxes' and they would rather her move to different department. As her condition is still their she has until June 2013 to undertake the physical training again or face disciplinary action.

 

She was advised by supervisor and union rep to maybe take painkillers and 'do the test and physical activity' just to pass, she feels this is again more risky and damaging to her back.

 

any suggestions for her to proceed as her doctor, physio can see no solution to her back problem at the moment

I am fighting it all the way :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

She essentially has to decide whether to risk bad things by lying or bad things by telling the truth.

 

You've covered most of the possibilities that could happen here.

 

What is your specific question?

 

I cannot help thinking your friend would be better posting here herself, as this could get messy going back and forth through a 3rd party.

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

Hi emzzi, thanks for the reply

 

i think the question she wants answering is if the hiding the true extent of her condition would be classed as gross misconduct?

 

And also if she fronted it up could they get rid of her or would they have to find her a role which she can perform?

 

The issue is that the role she does currently is not really affected by her condition other than the pain issues but there is an element of risk

 

We have discussed Disability Discrimantion Act etc but she thinks it does not fully apply to Police Officers

 

I will speak with my friend and try to get her to join CAG.

 

I have told her about this forum and the wonderful people who help others, something that has restored my faith in humanity on more than one occasion

 

kind regards

 

phaitun

I am fighting it all the way :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Failing to declare something which may endanger others would certainly be GM

 

Personally I could not sleep knowing I may be doing that every day

 

If there are other jobs available they would need to look at those for her; they do not need to invent a job for her. the equality act applies here, BUT no special perks - same for everyone, only reasonable adjustments need be made, not bending over backards.

 

is it the police federation they have instead of a union? she really does need to talk to them.

  • Confused 1

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

ps she doesnt want to be moved from her role

 

but her role leaves her in great pain

 

you aren't going to be able to do anything for her until she has come to the only obvious conclusion about those 2 statements.

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

Emmzzi, i think my advice will be for her to discuss it with the police federation, they are like a union, however she tells me that police officers are not 'employees', rather they are 'crown servants' with limited industrial rights.

 

I will see her tomorrow, i did also previously inform her that the risk to her colleagues is real and she should really address it as a priority, you have confimed my suspicions that hiding a medical pronlem that could be a risk to others may be classed as GM and i will pass this on to my friend.

 

As always, great advice/opinions from the knowledgeable Caggers

I am fighting it all the way :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh i think that she is in great pain and would be in any role - her current role, which is mostly office duties and driving, nothing too physical other than a bit of walking and using some handheld equipment is not really that physically demanding.

 

It is the love of her job she does not want to lose, she has recieved commendations and praise for her work on numerous occasions, she has been involved in numerous high profile cases and is highly thought of by her colleagues and seniors.

 

I think she is hanging on for as long as she can for fear of losing what she has loved, when she talks about her job and the satisfaction it has given her for the last 16 years her eyes sparkle and she seems to glow with excitement.

 

I will speak to her tommorrow, we will have a glass and discuss her options.

I am fighting it all the way :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...