Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sorry I'm not sure what you mean - I haven't suggested any of that - I'm just letting you know what letters come next from who. I'm aware what they're doing and that only an eventual LoC matters
    • Hi all   Firstly, thanks for all the helpful threads on here. Whilst there's a lot to read and get through, it's both helpful and reassuring to see so much great advice and support to others in similar situations.   I've received a letter and a Claim Form from Moriarty for an ADCB CC debt. I'm presently in a DMP for existing UK debts and (probably like many others) I truly don't know the best way forward, as time is clearly of the essence - but I don't feel I've 'up to speed' yet on all the other threads, advice, lingo etc. to respond accordingly.   I'm looking at drafting the PAP and getting it of tomorrow, but just want to get into the other threads to see if it's the right thing (and get more info on similar cases).   Please feel free to comment with any advice - all gratefully received of course. Thanks again for anyone that's posted in other threads and great to see so many kind and generous respondents helping others.   PS. Haven't posted/scanned details onto the thread yet as still to read up on the rules/tips, but Claim Form filed in Northampton on 20 Nov.
    • nothing you can do can product against the very rare judge lottery syndrome.
    • not sure why you added the blue line I've highlighted? that's no in the we gave you.   as for your question... PRAC's roboclaim computer knows when the account was taken out, after all it raised the claim and checked everything carefully first before issuing the request via northants bulk courts equally inept roboclaim computer... 
    • I've been researching in preparation of compiling my particularised defence/WS.    I'm none too happy that some judges still seem to be siding with DCAs and seemingly brushing aside anything that we have assumed to be "necessary" for DCAs to have a winning case.    Reading a recent "summary" from another poster (another thread with case similar to mine - very old, illegible application form, no default notice, reliance on their own software to prove it was ever sent) and the judgment made in favour of the DCA and even suggesting that there was no "agreement with the DCA, they simply owned the debt, not the agreement"  Makes me very nervous.    Especially if cases like this will be judged on "probability" - the probability that if I signed the original application form, then I must have taken out the credit card and racked up the alleged debt as shown in statements enclosed in their WS (and dated some ten years later).   Is it ok to post some "evidence" I've found from elsewhere?    This is in line with my fears that regardless of how hard one tries to rebut the "lack of evidence" produced by DCAs for chasing these very old "alleged" debts, it does appear to come down to the luck of what judge you get on the day and how much they can be swayed by the DCA solicitor.    A quick Google search produced the following - from one case - this related to a credit agreement - which resulted in someone being made bankrupt - that person appealed the bankruptcy order on the grounds of defective credit agreement and default notice and this was the appeal judge's decision:   The necessary formalities for the entry into the regulated consumer credit agreement (which related to the debt in issue) were not complied with; The default notice served in respect of that credit agreement was defective.   The First Ground The Appellant argued that she did not receive the terms and conditions when she entered into the credit agreement and, accordingly, section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) had not been complied with and the agreement could not be enforced. The agreement had been entered in 1995 and, whilst it had provided a microfiche copy of the front page of the application, the Respondent had been unable to provide a copy of the terms.   Despite the terms not being produced, the District Judge had found that, in the circumstances, it was very likely that such terms existed and would have been provided to the Appellant when she entered into the Agreement. Mr Justice Mann held that this was a finding that the District Judge was entitled to make.   Further, Mr Justice Mann found that it was implicit from the District Judge’s findings that she considered that the terms and conditions not only existed but had been subscribed to by the Appellant’s signature and, consequently, the requirements of section 61 CCA were fulfilled. Mr Justice Mann held that this was also a justifiable finding which should not be interfered with on appeal.   The Second Ground The Appellant also argued that the default notice upon which the Respondent relied did not comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notice) Regulations 1989 because it stated the full balance of the account rather than the total of the missed payments. The Respondent argued that, as a result of the missed payments, it was contractually entitled to the entire balance subject to the service of the appropriate notice, a requirement which was fulfilled by the default notice itself and, consequently, the sum required to remedy the breach was the entire amount.   Mr Justice Mann agreed with the Respondent and the District Judge, holding that: “If by the time the default notice is served circumstances have arisen which entitle the lender to recover not merely sums which might be regarded as arrears, by which I assume is meant accumulated minimum payments, but also the whole of the sum, then they are entitled to claim that sum, and the sum to require to remedy the breach for non-payment of that sum is the payment of the whole sum due. The bank is not confined, at that stage, to claiming merely the amount of arrears if it has an accrued contractual right to have the whole of the sum.”   Do judgments like these not mean that a lot of what you guys do on here (and for which I and many others are VERY grateful) somewhat redundant. What is happening to judges just accepting "well, the terms must have been there if you signed it" -    Feeling quite nervous now.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2565 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...