Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you both. My defence was as vague as their Claim. 1. I am the defendant in this claim and litigant in person. All allegations made by the claimant are denied. 2. The defendant does not recognise the alleged agreement xxxxxxxxxxx as mentioned in the particulars of claim therefore it is denied that any such agreement exists. 3. The defendant has requested copies of the alleged agreement under Data Subject Access Request, Consumer Credit act 1974 s.77/8 and Civil Procedure Rules 31.4 but to date the claimant has failed to provide a copy of this document. 4.The defendant has also requested copies of the default and termination notice for the alleged account xxxxxxxxx as required to legally enforce the alleged debt, but again the claimant has failed to provide either. 5. In addition the defendant has requested copies of statements for the alleged account xxxxxxx showing the amount of monies allegedly owed to the claimant. To Date these have not been provided. 6. The defendants view is that this claim is vexatious and an abuse of process as the claimant has failed to provide any documentation to support their claim and respectfully requests that the said claim be struck out.   As an aside, I noticed that the 'statement' they did provide had a different figure on it to what they are claiming, so I will hopefully be able to flesh out quite a bit in my skeleton argument.   Spam 
    • 80% refund sounds like a very good deal* as they are entitled by law to deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item over the 12 months it has been working.   So you could argue that a deduction of 20% for one year indicates that they expect it to last for at least five years, and probably longer.     * Think about it this way - would you pay 80% of the value of a brand new iPad to buy a second-hand one that somebody else has been using for over a year, or would you expect to get it cheaper than that?
    • Hi WoodDD.. Neither Case was cited in the VSC WS... however, MR D form VCS threw in VCS v Ward & Idle for the Judge to consider during the hearing. The Judge did not have time to review this. I believe he may have had a quick scan but decided it wasn't relevant at the time.. By not relevant, he didn't elaborate if it was not admissible or anything else..   Hope this helps..   Regards Tom     
    • Can I  ask what you mean by "... they recommended a firm... "?   I ask because I'm a bit surprised that Social Services are even allowed to do that.  (I may be mistaken and that this is common practice, but it seems a bit odd to me).   If they did do so and the work has turned out to be sub-standard and unsatisfactory, I would have no hesitation in making a formal complaint to the council and also to my (or your friend's) local councillor(s).  You acted on the council's recommendation and you should have a reasonable expectation that the firm recommended should be reliable and professional.  I would also insist that trading standards be asked to investigate this firm.  (Where I live our local county council trading standards department runs an approved trader database).   A complaint to the council might not directly assist you but it might help to prevent others being taken in by this firm.
    • Hello Susan, welcome to CAG.   Hopefully Paul Walton will see this message and reply to you, but it would also be a good idea to start a new thread of your own so we can advise on anything else connected with your refund.   Best, HB
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Sneaky colleague is after my job, disciplinary hearing due


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2951 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.

 

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...