Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Sneaky colleague is after my job, disciplinary hearing due


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4162 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello.

 

I have worked with the NHS for 9months. Sometime during October 2012 I began working alongside a colleague (NC), we were discussing some workplace issues they were having regards their team leader. In particular, this colleague didn't get on with their team leader and proceeded to tell me how they would have preferred to be offered my job (we were hired during the same recruitment drive). At the time I said that if they were really unhappy with their base of employment I would be willing to swap as I got on well with all staff. They said they would think about it. Around the same time this colleague became aware of my sexuality, and remains one of only two members of staff who I have disclosed this information to.

 

Around the same time I began having trouble with my own team leader (an admitted control freak) who, due to my line manager not communicating my absences or holidays, requested that I begin signing a register each time I started and ended a shift. No other member of staff has, or was requested, to do this. During some of my absences NC and my team leader arranged for them to cover my shifts, this continued long after I had returned to work. During a week long holiday in December 2012, I discovered that my team leader and NC had arranged between themselves for NC to begin working at my base during one of my shifts on a regular basis, thus making me surplus to requirement.

 

In November 2012 during a break I updated my status on facebook with an insensitive remark. The remark did not identify any confidential data, nor did it reference any person whom I worked with. Although insensitive, the comment was bland and would not have raised much concern from any of my friends or family who were able to view it. As I am wary of security settings on Facebook, my employer remains visible only to myself. I had only one work colleague added, but my posts were visible to the general public. (You can probably guess where this is going!) This colleague has reported the comment made, citing that it could bring the Trust into disrepute. Less than 24 hours later I was brought before my line manager and read the riot act, I was immediately remorseful and apologised profusely. Agreeing with all requests that I remove the post and make a formal apology.

 

I attended an investigatory interview in December 2012, during which I felt that I should mention to the investigating officer that the person who had reported me had also made such remarks in the passed as for me to question their intention. I was told to "park it" and told that raising this would "not make things easy for me". This was not noted in the minutes provided after the meeting. In response to this I told the investigating officer that I felt it was relevant, as I felt it was part of a wider act of victimisation. This was misconstrued in the meeting notes as me saying that I felt that the insensitive remark was relevant. Something I did not say, and have asked to be redacted. During this interview I remained regretful and apologetic, demonstrating that I understood the seriousness of the matter and did not wish to dispute that what I had written was insensitive.

 

During the interview I was told that the likely outcome would be a sanction, and that if I agreed to Fast Track this then there would be no need for a hearing. I agreed to the Fast Track. This was denied, and my Union Rep was notified in December 2012 as to why. I was not told this until January 2012 when I received new paperwork pertaining to a disciplinary hearing in March 2013.

 

The main reason for the disciplinary is stated as "bringing the Trust into disrepute", however if my employer was only visible to myself, and only the work colleague who reported me knew exactly where I work I am unsure how this can be the case.

 

I do not wish to take my Union rep along to the hearing as they are utterly useless. I am at a loss as to what to do though. I have already begun searching for a new job as this process has affected my mental health adversely. I have had to increase my anti-depressant medication, been attending staff support for counselling, and have become very anxious, stressed and depressed.

 

I don't know if anybody will read all this, or be able to suggest something but I just needed to "offload" as I cannot trust anybody at work at the moment. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, only you know what you wrote. I've known the NHS give written warnings over Social Media 'transgressions', but if what you updated related to the Trust in a negative fashion, or patient care or confidentiality then you could be on a sticky wicket, I'm afraid.

 

In what way is your union support useless?

"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:

Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way is your union support useless?

 

He wasn't very helpful in backing me up when i tried to raise concerns about motives and victimisation, even as a separate grievance. He also failed to pass on the fact that, despite what they had said during the interview, the investigation officer would not be willing to accept a fast track soloution. Something my rep was made aware of in december, but which i only found out about last week by accident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...