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


Capability dismissal - My story

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2497 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 was dismissed from work last week, with my employer citing capability as the reason.


I worked as a manager for the large, very well known company for 6 years. Until this spring/summer I had not had any absence or performance issues.


However, a new general manager had arrived in October 2011 and had begun to make clear who they appreciated, and who they wanted out. This involved face to face meetings - no notes taken. I was told that my management style did not fit and that I would need to make big changes if I was to stay on the team.


Soon after, I was advised formally that my performance would have to improve. Six weeks later I was given a written warning for poor performance.


This process caused me stress, and I was signed off work with anxiety and depression. I was off work for seven weeks. In that time, I requested an OH referral. I was told initially that I could not have one until I returned to work. After 4 weeks, I was told that a referral would be completed. I returned to work after 7 weeks because the company told me they would cut off my CSP.


The manager dealing with my case told me that she had not completed the OH referral, but would do so. After being back for 3 weeks, the OH referral was completed.


On returning to work, I was told that if my performance did not improve, I would be given a final written warning.


A month after returning, I lodged a grievance at how the OH referral had been handled. I believe that the managers involved were trying to avoid OH getting involved.


The OH report advised that I had an underlying ill health condition and that reasonable adjustments should be put in place.


Following the OH report, my manager advised me that "...I would be managed down a capability route instead of a poor performance route". Company policy states that "where the employee is unable to deliver their full roledue to an underlying ill health (UIH ) condition this should be managed via theUnderlying Ill Health policy and not performance."


I was told that the company had no written capability policy, but that if my performance did not improve I would be dismissed for ill health capability.


No timescales were discussed, but I was told that formal review meetings would be held every 4 weeks.


In the invitation to the first meeting, the letter included the following phrase 'the company may be unable to accommodate your continuing poor performance; that your contract of employment may therefore be terminated".


The main reasonable adjustments were (1) weekly one to ones with my manager to discuss my performance and my health; (2) support with training - attend a competencies workshop and complete various workbooks. In the 15 weeks, there were only 9 weekly meetings. I did not get to attend the workshop and was given no time at work to complete the workbooks.


The most recent formal review meeting was last week. The invitation, like the other invites included the phrase "..the company may be unable to accommodate your continuing underperformancedue to capability; your contract of employment may therefore be terminated. Weare of course keen to work with you to avoid this situation and would like todiscuss this during the meeting."


I did not know that my dismissal was an option at this point. I had discussed the meeting with my union rep - who was unable to attend - and was told to ask for an adjournment if things got too much. Halfway through the 7 hour meeting I asked for an adjournment so that the meeting could reconvene with my union rep in attendance, I was told that the meeting would continue either with or without me.


I said that I could not continue with the meeting and was told later on that the decision was to dismiss me on the grounds that the reasonable adjustments had not improved my performance to a satisfactory standard.


Do you think I have grounds for unfair dismissal. I have already lodged an appeal request and hope that the union will support my claim in an employment tribunal.

Edited by honeybee13

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG. I'm sorry to hear you're going through the mill.


The guys should be able to help you and I hope they'll be along later.


My best. HB

Illegitimi non carborundum




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should certainly discuss this with your union rep asap and also speak to ACAS ( They are very good with advice over the phone and can get further involved if required )

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...