Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the clear info. about how the estate and parking is organised.   Considering most letters drafted here are a load of abuse directed at the private parking companies, I thought the language was very restrained!  There's not an insult in there 🤣  More seriously, all the legal points in the letter are correct and I think it's good to go.  The agency "should" act and get the ticket withdrawn, but on the other hand they might well not have a clue about the law and refuse to cooperate, even if that would be worse for both you and them.  Still, it's only a stamp and nothing ventured ...   Do you know the history of the industry?  Once upon a time there was only one trade association, the BPA, with a half-decent appeals body POPLA, which often found in favour of the motorist.  This situation was unbearable for the more crooked of the PPCs like UKCPM who trotted off to a new rival association where the IPC association, its appeals body the IAS, and the firm of solicitors who most usually take on these cases ... are all run by the same people!  No conflict of interest there!  The IAS twist everything to always find in favour of the PPC.  The best analogy I can think of is the Mafia.  The Mafia no doubt have their own internal logic about oaths, what amount of protection money it is reasonable to demand, what you can to someone who cooperates with the police - none of which has any connection to the law of the country.  That's how the IAS operate.  Motorists who appeal just encourage the PPC by showing respect for their crooked "procedures", and are at risk of throwing their legal protection under the POFA away by outing themselves as the driver.   If you look in our PPC Successes thread at the top of the page (starting from the most recent cases), concentrating on cases that went to court, you'll see that in their Witness Statements the fleecers do indeed often say the motorist "should" have appealed.  I can't remember one case where the judge was the slightest bit interested in that argument.   It'll be somewhere in the POFA, Schedule 4.          
    • make sure your PDF is lees than 4.8Mb's.   why wont it upload what is the error?   dx  
    • Thanks for all the help, folks, in terms of whether to reply or allege harassment - well being harassed itself it is advised anyway not to respond to them in the first instance. So as Fruit Salad and DX says ignore until letter of claim and not confirm ID which is what I will do.   As I said I note it here as part of the timeline, and just keep records of it for later if necessary. Not intending to do anything with it just yet.  
    • The Financial Ombudsman Service [FOS] has finally come back to me with its thoughts on a long-standing complaint about mis-sold PPI.   The policy was sold to me in April 1997, which, as I appreciate, is before policies became regulated by the FCA on January 14, 2005.   The policy was sold to me by Cofidis which at the time of the sale was not covered by any of the schemes which were applicable before the FCA regulated the sale of PPI policies so the FOS has asserted that my complaint cannot be pursued there.   However, I was already aware of this and my complaint to the FOS was not against Cofidis but the company that provided the cover for the PPI policy, Chubb European Group SE / ACE Insurance S.A. [‘Chubb’] which, at the time of the sale, was covered by one of the schemes that existed before 14.01.05.   The FOS acknowledges this but has said: “There does not appear to have been any direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb at the time of the sale. So the only way Chubb would be responsible is if we can establish that Cofidis was acting as an agent of Chubb when selling the PPI.”   It is the above with which I struggle to agree, but would appreciate the thoughts of those with more expertise than me in these matters.   Firstly, it seems to me there was a direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb. I have supplied the FOS with a copy of the original terms & conditions of the policy [attached here], which is titled ‘Cofidis Limited Protection Plan’ and refers throughout to Chubb. Moreover, it also states that should you wish to cancel the cover at any time you must do so not by writing directly to Chubb but to Cofidis.   This being the case, it seems clear to me that, contrary to the FOS’s assertion, there was ‘a direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb at the time of the sale’ and, what is more, it is entirely conceivable that there was an agency relationship between the two.   The FOS goes on to make the point that it contacted Chubb which advised that it ‘did not have an agency relationship with Cofidis’. Of course, they would say that wouldn’t they! More to the point, when I complained to Chubb, contrary to what they subsequently told the FOS, they said: “Unfortunately, due to the passage of time we no longer hold any information to confirm the relationship between Cofidis Insurance and Chubb when the policy was sold.’   In these circumstances, it is my belief that as a member of the Association of British Insurers, Chubb had an obligation to act in accordance with ABI guidelines and take measures to ensure that any third party, such as Cofidis, selling PPI policies on its behalf did so in accordance with the industry codes of good practice.   Any thoughts gratefully received.   Thanks in anticipation Fred Funk   Cofidis Limited Protection Plan-1-merged_compressed (1).pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Mediator point - Hermes lost my parcel and it is offering just a partial refund of the total amount requested. What's next?. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/434633-mediator-point-hermes-lost-my-parcel-and-it-is-offering-just-a-partial-refund-of-the-total-amount-requested-whats-next/&do=findComment&comment=5109422
      • 13 replies
    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Suspended from work - don't know why?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2701 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 all

 

I've been suspended from work on full pay, pending investigation and without prejudice however I am not sure why. The reason given and the reason in their letter is for misusing social media and breach of data protection but I'm not sure what they're referring too. I've tried twice now to find out specifics of their allegations but they're not telling me. I was suspended at 5.35pm on Friday and I've been asked to attend a investigatory interview on Monday lunch time which gives me no time to seek advice from anyone.

 

Does my employer have to give me the specifics of the allegations? I really don't think it's fair that I'm expected to attend an interview without having a clue what it's about and would like to prepare myself prior to the interview.

 

Also - have they given me enough notice to attend a interview? Bearing in mind that I cannot get any legal advice during a weekend and it would be extremely difficult to speak to HR prior to the interview on Monday.

 

Thanks for reading and thanks in advice for helping :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

 

As this is an investigatory meeting, your employer has acted correctly. The whole point is to effectively catch the employee off guard without allowing them time to concoct a defence, so it's fairly common for this to happen!

 

If they do move to a disciplinary though, you have the right to know the allegations against you, see any evidence, be informed of the potential outcome and be given reasonable notice of the hearing, with the right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union rep.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi there

 

As this is an investigatory meeting, your employer has acted correctly. The whole point is to effectively catch the employee off guard without allowing them time to concoct a defence, so it's fairly common for this to happen!

 

If they do move to a disciplinary though, you have the right to know the allegations against you, see any evidence, be informed of the potential outcome and be given reasonable notice of the hearing, with the right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union rep.

 

Hi thanks for that, much appreciated. Is it normal to be suspended whilst still in an investigation stage even if none of their claims constitute gross misconduct as per their policies or is it just considered on a case by case basis?

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's possible given the nature of the allegations that they could be concerned about you attempting to cover something up. Suspension is a neutral action which allows an employer to investigate without the employee intervening, so suspension at this stage is normal.

 

It is still possible to be disciplined on gross misconduct grounds even if the offence isnt specifically listed in the disciplinary policy, it is a case by case basis. They need to act reasonably in each situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You must have said something on Twitter or Facebook that someone has read.

+1

 

Maybe you posted something that could be read as negative about the company or someone in it? (Let us know after your meeting what is being alleged, rather than posting here today that you had a dig at your manager on Facebook).

 

Some organisations are more sensitive to this than others. A tax payer funded organisation will have very little tolerance for this, as will any company with a large brand image (e.g McDonalds).

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

Hi guys

 

Sorry I didn't respond, I forgot all about this thread and account I had.

 

Just to let you know, I ended up putting in a grievance for them failing to follow procedure - which was upheld and I was reinstated with immediate effect - I resigned shortly after as I got a better job offer elsewhere!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi guys

 

Sorry I didn't respond, I forgot all about this thread and account I had.

 

Just to let you know, I ended up putting in a grievance for them failing to follow procedure - which was upheld and I was reinstated with immediate effect - I resigned shortly after as I got a better job offer elsewhere!

 

Hello again.

 

Thank you for updating us. I'll close your thread now.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2701 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...