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

tallyho

investigatory meeting and equalities act

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2479 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

hi everyone - I'm hoping for a little help?

I'm having a really rough time at work- and it is seriously affecting my mental health to the extent I have been signed off for the past 6 weeks. I was told to attend an investigatory meeting with HR regarding allegations that happened approx 8 months ago. the time this dragged on has led to my mental health issues - unbelievably - OH are being very supportive of me! meeting is Wednesday.

basically- on looking at info I SAR'd from organisations OH company- there are two individual reports from two members of staff dated in the month the incident occurred stating that my disability falls under DDA ( equalities act), and pointing out their obligation to me to make reasonable adjustments- and making suggestions.

None of this was put into place ( or fed back to me), the incident that occurred is directly related to my disability- but I am being accused of doing this deliberately.

No action has taken place by the organisation to put in place reasonable adjustments, and a development plan that was devised for me in August of this year included performance items directly related to the traits identified by THe OH people that I needed help with( reasonable adjustments)- but no adjustments have taken place.

Basically - I have been told the organisation are looking to get rid of me - and I am fighting for my job and career here.

I feel I need to raise a grievance here under equalities act - but would like advice when the best time would be to do it?- before the investigatory on Wednesday- or wait till after? also should I raise an Et1 to tribunal - I don't want it to go out of date. Union rep is useless.

any advice is very gratefully received- I can't give much more detail as they are watching my every move!!!!!!:sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be helpful to outline the kind of adjustmet suggested - not all adjustments have to be made only "reasonable" ones - so eg a 24 hour interpreter by your side may not be reasonable, an ergonomic chair or desk may be.

 

I always say whack in the ET1 as soon as you are aware you may have a case, as you can always withdraw it, so nothing lost except ill will - which you already have! Grievance is up to you but I'd be inclined to pop it in on the basis you have little to lose.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many thanks emmzzi.

my difficulties are due to my recently diagnosed hearing impairment. I identified I was struggling in large meetings, particularly when people were talking over each other.I requested an A2W assessment re anything that may help- personal/portable loop systems etc - my hearing aides are wi-fi enabled so it would only require a small ( inexpensive ) transmitter- also OH doc recommended other things such as good lighting to enable lip reading, reduction of background noise, chairman to be aware, and conduct meetings so only ne person to speak at time. all minutes to be given to myself asap after meeting, and opportunity for supervisor to go over salient points to ensure i fully understood them.

I'm not the type of person who expects everything done for me- and am fully prepared to action many of these things myself- if I had received a copy of them!!

the action plan prepared for me, following managers receiving this advice. includes my attendance at all organisation meetings, and monitoring of my performance at them!! without the recommended adjustments in place- talk about setting someone up to fail!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of that seems excessive to me - I think a politely worded grievance, but being clear it IS a formal greivance (for example heading the letter "submission of grievance under company X greivnace policy", would be appropriate


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Tallyho. 8 months is far too long to be dealing with a conduct issue, they need to deal with this within a reasonable time close to the incident so 8 months is very unreasonable. Can you give me a brief details of what occurred 8 months ago which they are now investigating with you? Separately, they need to make reasonable adjustments regarding your disability and in your position, I would raise a grievance immediately about that. Put it in regardless of the outcome of the investigation meeting. I would hold back on the ET1 until they've sorted your grievance out as you don't want to damage the relationship further at this point if it can be sorted internally, but once you have given them the chance to do so and it's still not acceptable, then put in the claim. Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Employ Law.

the investigation is around a large organisational meeting I attended as directed. I was presenting some information as requested, and unfortunately answered 'yes' rather than 'No' to a question asked of me. there were several people talking at once, and a lot of background noise.It wasn't raised with me until nearly 8 weeks after the event-so obviously I don't have a clear recollection of the conversation- or what i perceived I had heard. Unfortunately this scenario is very common to people who are hearing impaired.

I am being accused of deliberately giving false information to colleagues, unfortunately there were a large number of people in the meeting who have been interviewed who have all said- 'X said yes, etc. etc '.

A formal complaint was made by colleagues, and when asked about it by my manager- i immediately said- No- I id not do that ( what I had replied yes to- not to denying i had said yes).

since then ( and before) there has been close scrutiny of me and my work,leading to mental stress at doing something further wrong, and panic attacks at the thought of speaking to colleagues in case I have gotten it wrong!

the department i work in is looking to reduce the number of staff at my level, so I have been increasingly stressed by this also, as well as the investigation, leading to a complete mental breakdown - which both my GP and works OH contribute to 'workplace stressors'

since being signed off- I've been told by a colleague ( hearsay I know - but still worrying) that they have reallocated all my work, and told people i will not be returning:sad:

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...