Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks so much!    1. Ok so on planning permission my WS says: The signs did not have planning permission under the Town and County planning. I have an email stating there was no planning permission from the council.The signs do not fall under deemed consent.  * Their WS says they do not need planning permission by being an approved operator of the trade association, and it is not for the  county court to determine planning permission.       2. Excel are trying to say I’m dishonest. Their WS states my defence appears to be cut and pasted from websites relating to parking whose aim is to assist motorists on contesting PCN's. Large portions are non sensical and irrelevant to the claim This is Unacceptable as the defendant has signed a statement of truth whilst clearly not being the defendants knowledge  Q Any comments?      Their WS states that I alleged I received no correspondence, and the onus is on the driver to update DVLA. I did update DVLA, but I moved numerous times due to domestic abuse. This was in my set aside and part of why it was granted. Evidence was provided at that time. Q Is this going to come up again?    *Also they question how I would be able to comment on the signs if I’m not the driver of the vehicle, as she would not have first hand knowledge, therefore it is the claimants position that she is being disingenuous.  I state that photos will be provided in my bundle. I actually haven’t submitted any but I do also know somebody who had PCN from the same carpark, He gave me all his evidence etc, Mr Booth and he won his case. I linked to the parking pranksters article on it.  Q So is it ok to use such websites and to use photos from someone else?    Thanks 
    • Not anymore now that the right have manipulated voters into voting for a conservative dictatorship.   All of what you've said is just another worrying aspect of what the future holds 
    • Just like all the rubbish spouted over the past 4 years, would, would, would.  What you really mean is COULD.    
    • You're ignoring the most difficult issue in a trade agreement. It's not the tariffs or the lack of them  which is the tough part to reslove but the regulatory standards of the goods to be imported & exported that needs to be decided.   For example the EU banned the import of chlorine washed chicken since 1997 which of course hurts the US, and who are going to be very keen to include it in any new agreement with the UK and will use it to barter prospective concessions in exchange . As a nation we're going to first have to decided whether that is acceptable or not and that alone will be difficult enough to resolve. And that's just one product.   This has all the makings of a category 5 $h1t storm that will last an eternity. 
    • 28 of the 32 wealthiest countries in the world reside within the EU.  Realistically we will need the US because they are one of the few remaining countries outside of the EU that would be worth doing a deal with, but as discussed on here previously, the exact agreement we strike with the US is open to debate.  Should we still want a trade deal with the EU we would need to align our standards with them, which makes a deal with the US harder.   Also 80% of our economy is services.  Try selling financial services to a person in India... or try sending engineers half way round the world just because some numpty has decided trading with the countries geographically closest to us wont work anymore because of immigrants and sovereignty. 
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2588 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 am one of a team of 7 and have been on the team since it was first set up some 3 years ago (I have been with this nationally recognised company for almost 5 years in total). My line manager came to the job about a year ago. There are two part time members on the team. One works 4 days per week and has been with the team from the start. The other was recruited by my line manager about 7 months ago she is part time 3 days per week. In August due to personal issues which only my line manager and head manager are aware of I requested to reduce my hours to 3 days per week.

It was agreed that I could go part time but that I cannot stay in my current job role The solution was offered that I could transfer back to the original job role that I had (same pay). My objective at the time was to reduce my hours and I still feel that if it means going back to my old job then that's the way it has to be. I reduced my hours in September but keep having my transfer to my old job postponed whilst decisions I presume are being made about recruitment etc. I have not been kept informed by my line manager on what is happening. I have told my manager that I would be very happy to stay in my current job role and have good relations with my colleagues and know my work inside out.

However in a team meeting the other day I was told in front of everyone that I would be transferring to my old job in January and they would interview for a full time post to replace me.

I feel as though I have been treated unfairly. I have not been given any of the business reasons for why I cannot remain in my current role. My line manager is unapproachable, in the past she has reduced colleagues to tears with her manner.

My colleagues have expressed surprise to me, but not to her that I cannot remain on the team on part time hours and another manager said in confidence to me, that they could accommodate me if they wanted to. Before I requested part time hours my manager spoke in general of recruiting another person as the workload was increasing so why do I need to be taken off the team?

I would appreciate any advice.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that the business has decided that the role that you were doing HAS to be a full time position, and this is the reason that you have not been able to stay in your current role on reduced hours?

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






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

Yes that could be the simple answer but like I say I have not been given the reasons for not being able to stay on the team part time. I guess I will just have to request another wonderful meeting with my oh so professional team leader to find that out. Believe me when I say that my workplace is not transparent and open with its employees, definitely a case of managers rule and what they say goes. Like it or lump it. All I know is that if I was a manager I would keep my staff informed and try to make them feel valued and understood. I would hate to think my actions or lack of proactive planning would have a detrimental effect on the happiness of an employee. Soapbox :)

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...