Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Which would require a hearing....so the fee would be £255.00
    • When providing a copy of an executed agreement in response to a request under section 78(1) of the Act:   a.     must a creditor provide a photocopy (or other form of complete copy) of the original agreement that was signed by the debtor or at least provide a copy which is derived directly from the original agreement or complete copy thereof? or b.     can a creditor provide a document which is a reconstitution of the original agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself?   It was held that a creditor can satisfy its duty under section 78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself.   The judge accepted that as a matter of law, section 78 does not itself require any particular explanation as to how the copy was made. However, as a matter of good practice and so as not to mislead the debtor, it is desirable that the creditor should explain that it is providing a reconstituted as opposed to a physical copy of the executed agreement. This will also explain why the copy might otherwise look a little odd. The creditor can also explain in the letter that this procedure is satisfactory under the Act. The judge also provided that the following information needs to be included in the reconstituted copy agreement (assuming of course that it was present in the original):   1.     Heading: Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 2.     Name and address of the debtor 3.     Name and address of the creditor 4.     Cancellation clause applicable to the executed agreement.   All of the above may be provided on a sheet which is separate from the full statement of terms and conditions which also forms part of the reconstituted agreement. The creditor may, however, decide to reconstitute the agreement in a different way so that, for example, the information above is populated electronically onto the same sheet as that which sets out the terms and conditions, or some of them. The judge stated that he did not intend to prescribe the precise form of the reconstituted agreement. The key point is what information it should contain, subject to the point that its format should not be such as to mislead the debtor as to what he agreed to.   The judge also considered whether a statement like the one appearing in the reconstructed application form in Carey referring to the agreement to the terms and conditions "attached" needs to be included in the reconstituted copy. Alternatively if the application form had said "I agree to the terms overleaf", should that statement be included. The judge held that this aspect of the form is not necessary for the purpose of the section 78 copy, although there is nothing to stop a bank from putting it in or indeed from furnishing a copy of the type of application form or signature page that the debtor would have signed, as some banks have done. The statement referring to terms and conditions is not itself prescribed information and the supply of the terms and conditions which were applicable at the time will tell the debtor what he needs to know in terms of the content of what he signed up to, including the presence (or otherwise) of the prescribed terms.   In practical terms what this is likely to mean is that if the creditor chooses to use as the section 78 copy the section 63 copy, which would have been provided to that particular debtor at the time following execution of the agreement, this will be sufficient provided that the information referred to above is supplied. This exercise is not a mere formality. The creditor will need to check carefully that the details of the debtor at the time are correct and that those are the particular terms (including prescribed terms) that he/she agreed to. This is to ensure that it is an honest and accurate copy.   Must a creditor provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Regulations) as to form, as at the date the agreement was made in order to comply with section 78?   A creditor need not, in complying with section 78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Regulations as to form, as at the date the agreement was made.   Must the copy provided under section 78 include the debtor's name and address as at the date when the agreement was made, and if so in what form? The section 78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself.     If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, is a copy of the executed agreement as varied, a sufficient copy for the purposes of section 78(1), or must the creditor provide a copy of the original agreement as well?   If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms.     As your agreement is post April 2007  Section 61(1)(a) and 127(3)   Consumer Credit Act 1974 would not apply.   Andy
    • well start a new thread for the court claim.   as for this one i'd await the letter of claim  
    • Useful information...   And....   https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part55
    • nice and ofcourse totally unlawful.   £349.50 is the usual sum RLP try and fleece out of people under some silly civil threats none of goes to the store it all goes in RLP's pocket for their next staff holiday paid for by mugs that fall for their twaddle ignore!!
  • Our picks

stacyluvya

Trying to push him out...?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2518 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

Hello all! I'm new here so please be kind :) Wondered if anyone could help.

 

My husband works for a retailer, has been Assistant Store Manager for years. The Store Manager left last June on long term sick, and has now since left for good. My husband has been working as Manager since then with a wage uplift.

 

In the last 18 months he has had no help, no training and just been expected to get on with things. He has lost staff but not been allowed to rehire, resulting in a lot more work and less bodies. He has been performing well but his admin skills are lacking slightly. His Area Manager constantly calls him up swearing, telling him how useless he is, how work should come ahead of family etc etc... My husband is now severely depressed.

 

Anyway, he was told last month that he was being demoted to Assistant Manager and they are putting the Supervisor, who works below him, in his place. Since then, lots of training has been arranged for the new Manager, things that which never came through for my husband.

 

Why has he been treated this way? Does my husband have any rights? Is it fair that he had no updated contract in the 18 months that he's been in Manager position? He's so physically sick now that he just wants to leave but we need him to work, plus he's been there for 10+ years, why should he be pushed out? He says its pointless speaking to HR and they are such a big company, they just look out for the top dogs.

 

Hope someone can help xxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG. I feel very sorry for your OH, what has happened doesn't sound very fair.

 

I hope the forum guys will be along later with some thoughts for you. :)

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

Does he have written confirmation that he was given the managerial position? If he was formally offered the role, they can't just demote him. If he was just filling in informally, though, that could be different.

 

It would be worth getting hold of the grievance procedure though and raising a formal complaint, either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered that your husband may be a better assistant manager than a manager? some people are better at some aspects of a job than other aspects and it may be that the supervisor has more of the qualities that the store are looking for in a manager. That is not being in any way disrespectful to your husband but he may actually be happier with a lot less pressure, also it may be that the new manager dosent work out for some reason and if they ask your husband to act as manager again he will be in a better position to negociate.


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 your help. He is very happy to go down to Assistant Manager as this will ease the pressure a bit. He has been a Manager in the past but was just thrown into this position with no training and very high expectations. It is just very sad that he has been asking for help all this time, to become a great manager, to be told 'just get on with it' constantly... The thing that is really upsetting is that now he wants to look elsewhere for a job due to all of this, I feel like they are pushing him out and he is letting them. I don't know where to go or what to advise him.

 

It just seems his face doesn't fit :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well he was never given any kind of new contract or anything as he was in an 'acting' position? Is there a period of time that you can be 'acting' for? I have been telling him for months that he needs some sort of updated contract, surely they can't keep you as 'acting' for a year & a half? Or maybe they can?

 

Thanks again x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I approve of what has been done to your partner, but do you think maybe given the fact that he's expressed a strong wish to leave, that might be the best thing under the circumstances?

 

We frequently (and I mean 'we' as people in general) get very angry at the notion of being 'pushed out' of a place of work, especially when we've worked hard for someone, but if the relationship has broken down for whatever reason, you have to ask what is there to gain from staying - what benefit is there to your partner?

 

Becky2585 gives brilliant advice, and if she says that he's got grounds for a grievance then he probably has. Going from a strictly non-legal standpoint however, you've already said that he's severely depressed - do you think he's up to going through this, or would it make him feel worse? All I'm saying is, sometimes a clean break is the best thing for everyone.

 

Look at it this way - he's going to be able to produce a CV saying that he has 18 months senior management experience, and might be able to find himself a job where he's not getting phone calls berating him all the time!

 

I'm in no way trying to dissuade you or him from taking it further if you have grounds to. I'm just saying that sometimes, health and happiness is more important than proving a point.


"Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me". Martin Niemöller

 

"A vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting can't be done. A person ignorant of the possibility of failure can be a half-brick in the path of the bicycle of history". - Terry Pratchett

 

If I've been helpful, please click my star. :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think LaughingGirl makes a good point. Long term health needs to come first, and I suppose your husband needs to weigh up the stress of raising a grievance or going down the legal route against the stress of accepting being bullied out of a job.

 

But he shouldn't in any way feel he isn't up to the job of manager - its the manager swearing at him and telling him his work is more important than family who shouldn't be there. Whatever happens, his employer has really let him down - useless people management with HR sweeping problems under the carpet.

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...