Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes I understand that, my point is why is the account still be reported on 6 years after the default date has passed regardless of the SB date.   The default expired 4th November, Cabot put a query on the account the 7th November so it is still showing in my history, my question is why are they doing it?        
    • You will have to go to court to get an order  and once that is doen then you both have to abide by it. The actual form filling is not complicated and the first court session doesnt actually make any decisions and you will be advised to reach an agreement that can then be set in stone by the court.   the father has a right to "contact", but this is not the same as having the right to demand a particular set of visits, stopovers etc so decide what you want, and how this is practical and then ask that the contact be limited to this. for example if you work your contact will all be gettinmg them up, feeding them, putting them to bed and have no fun time at weekends if has has them then. The courts will do what is in the best interests ogf the child so you need to stop being jealous of their love for their father and dont try and use the system to punish him or the children. If he was abusive or controlling them read up on the serious crimes  act  2015 about controlling and coercive behaviour and see how amny fo the examples fit his behaviour and use that to get the courts to set lterms that  limit that behaviour instead of using the children as the tools.
    • Does anyone know if a person has the right  to use a lay representative in the family division of the county court? the wording of the Lay representatives(right of audience) order 1999 refers to a county court and stage 1 or tier 1 proceedings and Scots law have a form to fill out for such representation but it isnt clear whether the english system has such a clearly defined right of audience. The MoJ mentions it in some discussion papers as though it is hard and fast but in other documents  it is McKenzie Friends who are written about as if they are the only people allowed other than sols/barristers.   reason why lay rep needed is they can speak and the other side cant object where with McKenzie friend they cant speak on behalf of claimant/respondent and the other party can object to that person being present- which will happen  in this particular case. Ultimately it may well be a discretionary power of the judge but dont want to start off with a bad step.
    • It seems as though the solicitoras want to keep hold of this payday and will do anything to churn it ( make money by continuing an action that isnt in the clients interests).   The land registry will have the record of who paid for the property and how so you will be in the clear on that as you didnt just take the place over, you bought it from the estate of the deceased.   now it seems like your mother is struck by regrets/remorse over her inability to take over the property at the time and what tends to happen is that relatives will sit there and say bad things about the person who they see is the beneficiary of their misfortune and then get into a feedback loop, each reinforcing the wrong opinion of the other.   Your attempts to sort things out logically ahs tempered this somewhat so do continue and keep clear of their  lawyers at all costs, they will just keep the meter ticking over and bring the negative thought back to the surface.   your parents will already be about 2 grand a day down on anything the sols have done so try and get them to  look back to the mess that her father's death left them in and amke it clear that at least the house is still in the family and that she has benefitted from that by receiving money at the time that otherwise she wouldnt have got.   If that still causes friction then I would still write to them rather than responding to the solicitor, the lesson they will learn will cost them less and when the sols have moved on to the next client they will have not lost so much of what they still have left.   Ultimately if they do actually issue proceedings you can ask for the claim to be chucked out as having no merit etc by showing how the place was bought. I do struggle to believe that people dont know who their mortgage was with even after all of this time,  same as I find it odd that people suddenly find details for accounts with tens of thousands in that they had forgotten about. You can find out as again it will be in the Land registry entry for most properties that had a mortgage
    • A claim was issued against you on 30/07/2019 Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 31/07/2019 at 18:14:49 Your acknowledgment of service was received on 01/08/2019 at 08:05:52 Your defence was submitted on 30/08/2019 at 23:17:46 Your defence was received on 02/09/2019 at 01:06:05 DQ sent to you on 27/09/2019 DQ filed by claimant on 27/09/2019 You filed a DQ on 23/10/2019 Your claim was transferred to BIRMINGHAM on 14/11/2019
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2568 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 have just received a first stage warning under my company's sickness/absence policy. I have been absent on three occassions, that is correct. But one of those occassions was when I had to enter hospital for an operation to remove my thyroid gland which had a suspected cancerous growth, biopsy's proved inconclusive. Surely using this period of absence to facilitate this warning means the company are not showing me the duty of care that they are legally obliged to do. What did they expect me to do...wait until February to have this potentially life threatening operation. I am obviously going to appeal this disciplinary measure. Is duty of care the best direction to go.

Thanks in advance of any replies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't duty of care, the actual reason isn't the main concern, it's the time off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

How much time off sick have you taken altogether please?

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Conniff - this isn't about a duty of care - that would be more to do with protecting you from harm or distress caused by work or a situation at work - but is a matter of compassion.

 

What you are dissatisfied with is that the employer does not seem to have taken the nature of your absence or the stress and worry caused by your illness into consideration in deciding to discipline you for poor attendance.

 

You can of course appeal that a disciplinary sanction was a little harsh, and I have to agree that if the employer was aware of the circumstances that this does seem to be the case,but the problem with sickness and absence is that staff are often measured against a fixed line with little room to overlook a particular event.

 

Did you follow the company's rules for reporting the absence, the nature of the illness and back this up with appropriate sick (or fit) notes? Did you discuss the condition, the operation and the anxiety that it was causing before you needed the time off? Did you work for as long as possible before the operation or were you off sick before the surgery itself. I think that if you could demonstrate that you met the employer half way and did as much as possible to make up for the absence you could have grounds to complain that the warning was 'unreasonable' in the circumstances.


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

I assume that you have hit a trigger point which is how many employers judge sickness, to some extent it dosnt matter why you were off its just that you were off sick, however a first stage sickness warning does not usually go any further than that it has been mentioned so its not likely to affect you unless you take more time off.


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies:

Our trigger point is 3 occassions in a rolling twelve month period and my absences were for three days, 5 days and two weeks recuperation for the operation. My manager and HR department were kept informed fully that the operation was to remove a cancerous lump on my thyroid and obviously that I was very worried and could not have waited until I was not going to trigger the policy. They fully accepted that I needed to have the operation and at no stage did they warn me that if I had the operation I would be coming back to work facing my first disciplinary hearing in 20 years of working there. I understand that another employee was told that if they went and had their operation it wouldn't count as it was a pre-planned absence and the company could obviously organise themselves knowing in advance that he was to be absent. I gave them two months notice, surely that is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously I wouldnt waste too much time worrying about a first stage sickness warning, seems a bit unfair as you had told them you would be off but as you have said it was a trigger point, you could send a letter to HR just saying that it was a preplanned absence and as such it seems wrong that you have a warning, but the warning will come off your record and unless you intend taking any more time off it shouldnt have any lasting consequenses


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a six month improvement notice with the first stage and who knows what happens in that time. If I am off even for one day then its onto the second stage. if there is a chance of getting it rescinded then it needs fighting. As far as Im concerned they have set a presedence with allowing someone else to have their operation for a cosmetic reason but denied mine for a cancerous lump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it actually cancerous, though? If so then you would be disabled and have extra protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not know until tomorrow, but thanks for asking. I am still anxious and extremely worried yet my employer still puts me under even more stress. Is it getting nearer to duty of care yet???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it will only be a duty of care if your medical condition would have an impact on your working day and if any reasonable adjustmants were warrantied

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question you gave them 2 months notice that a suspected cancerous lump was going to be removed? Seems a long time for somthing that could be cancer? or am I missing somthing?

Also if it is cancer it would be counted as a disability and any absence through this would be treated differently

Edited by assisted blonde

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the good news is the lump was not cancerous. The reason it took so long was that the two biopsys were inconclusive. I have spoke to our MD today and he has said he was not happy with the way the absence hearing was conducted and he will have a look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats good, and very pleased it wasnt cancer


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Squaddie can you expand on this...how is an employer to assess whether claimants medical condition would have an impact on the working day and if the employer need carry out a full risk assessment.

 

if they failed to carry out a full risk assessment when they should have this would be a breach of duty of care. However upon when is it deemed necessary that an employer should carry out a risk assessment?

 

Regards

 

BB

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...