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

New job restrictive covenants


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4142 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 am an account manager.

The account I run was recently lost by my employer.

My employer said "there is not really a lot for you to do now" and " I dont want to pay you for doing nothing".

So, obviously with a young family mortgage etc I am concerned for my livelihood.

 

It turns out the client in question liked me, but not my bosses - so the client got the company who won the account to offer me a job.

I accepted, on better pay :-)

 

I resign, get put on gardening leave, which I sit out.

 

Start with new company, and get written too twice saying I am in breech of contract by working on the account.

My convents say. I "may not accept or solicit orders from any of my associates for a period of 6 months".

 

Now, I certainly have not solicited anyone. I have not contacted a sole outside the main account I am running (shame in a few cases as I was genuinely friendly with a few clients and I have just disappeared).

As for accepting orders - I kind of am I suppose, but I would argue that the work has been placed with my new employer at senior level and I am merely facilitating the process of seeing orders through.

 

My questions.

. Is my covent "reasonable" and therefore enforceable? I cant see how they protecting a "legitimate business interest" by stopping me working on the account?

. They have ben unable to find a signed copy of my contract - likely as I never signed it. Does this matter?

. Are they just peed off and wanting to scare me?

 

I can see how the circumstances might look fishy, and they prob suspect me of orchestrating the whole move - which is TOTALLY UNTRUE. (They have not accused me of this but I can tell they want to)...

 

Any opinions well received.

 

Kind Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Restraint of trade if there is no signed contract end of story they may threaten legal action but without contract and youmore or less being asked to resign your post let them waste money going to court if they dare I wouldn't lose sleep over it my opinion only but look up restraint of trade and a letter from your future employer should solve this problem as it is with a independent company you are to be employed with and not the company in whose account it is

Link to post
Share on other sites

. Is my covent "reasonable" and therefore enforceable? I cant see how they protecting a "legitimate business interest" by stopping me working on the account?

Difficult to give a conclusive answer I'm afraid. I can see a legitimate business reason for not wanting you to solicit or accept orders from their customers.

 

The "accepting orders" part is more difficult. This kind of clause is given closer scrutiny than solicitation clauses, and you would normally need some sort of personal connection with the client. Six months is rather a long time and I think is probably excessive for an account manager, but I can see how it could be argued either way. To give an example, the High Court did uphold a year saying that a senior solicitor could not have any dealings with clients of her law firm for a year following termination of the contract in one case (Allan Janes LLP v Johal), which was only justified because the solicitor was recruited to be developed into a partner and was introduced to a large number of clients.

 

It is slightly difficult to advise because I do not know whether you have replicated the precise wording of the clause. I am unclear on the meaning of the word "associates" and the meaning of "accept orders". Saying you cannot "accept orders" is rather ambiguous, if it is unclear then I would take the point that you have not "accepted orders" your new employer has, and perhaps the point that this client is not an "associate". Are there any more details or are these terms defined? I would read the precise wording of the clause very carefully to see whether it covers your situation.

. They have ben unable to find a signed copy of my contract - likely as I never signed it. Does this matter?

You do not necessarily need to have actually signed the contract - if it was presented to you, then you will be deemed to have accepted the contract by starting work. However, there is an obvious problem of proof if the company is just presenting you with a piece of paper if you do not remember seeing it and you do not have a copy. I would put them to proof on this, ask the employer to prove that the contract was presented to you and that you agreed to it.
. Are they just peed off and wanting to scare me?

Probably. Its not uncommon. I've seen it a number of times but never seen it work and never seen an employer follow through. It does sometimes happen and cases are successfully brought for breach of these clauses, but most employers would not go to the trouble and expense of starting legal proceedings unless there is some good reason for them to do so.

I can see how the circumstances might look fishy, and they prob suspect me of orchestrating the whole move - which is TOTALLY UNTRUE. (They have not accused me of this but I can tell they want to)...

Yes, this will be their concern. It is worth writing back. I think the most important to emphasise is that the client's decision to move had nothing to do with you. If you can prove that even better. Even if you were in breach of the clause, if the client was going to move anyway they would not get any compensation because they have suffered no loss....

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.

 

I can of course see thats it would be legitimate to stop me soliciting their clients.

I am NOT doing this.

I ran one big account for old employer, but also 4 or 5 small ones on the side.

I HAVE NOT contacted any of these people.

Its the big account that left, and I have followed it.

 

 

Regards "accepting orders" from old clients... This I guess is where I am in breech?

 

My exact wording is "you may not for a period of 6 months after termination of employment solicit or accept orders from any of your associates held while working for the business".

 

I do not know why it uses the term "associates" rather than clients / customers?

I suspect they are trying to make the clause as broad as possible while keeping it enforceable.

Its actually a re write anyway as the first version they had essentially said "we own your whole career if you ever decide to leave".

They like to keep control!!

 

""Even if you were in breach of the clause, if the client was going to move anyway they would not get any compensation because they have suffered no loss....""

This is my thinking as well. Even if I was in breech - where is the loss to my old employer? The account has moved on.

They would be suing me for the loss of £0.

 

I have written back saying that I dont believe I am in breech of contract.

That I think its "questionable" that the covenants are enforceable.

And that the client moving had ZERO to do with me.

 

Their letters are full of inference and circumstance but no evidence, and are carful not to actually accuse me of anything.

 

I said, if you want to make an accusation please do so, and show me the evidence. Otherwise push off!

 

Been rumbling on for months now, and while there is some background worry I am just getting on with it now really.

I was very anxious at the start - but life goes on.

 

Thanks again for the comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with you.

 

We can't tell you there is no risk, there is always a chance that the employer could sue you alleging that you caused the client to move. At the end of the day anyone can sue anyone else for anything. However, it sounds unlikely that the claim would be successful. In my experience it is unusual for employers to bother with bringing claims like this unless there is an extremely good reason for doing so, it is one thing to write a stroppy letter quite another to go through the expense of actually instructing solicitors and filing a claim. I think you just have to move on with your life.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...