Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Have we seen your court bundle?   If we haven't then it's probably an idea to post it up here especially the index page and the witness statement so we can see if there is anything which might need adding or changing 
    • "Care to briefly tell someone who isn't tech savvy - i.e. me! - how you did this?" Its pretty simple although not obvious. You open the google maps app > click your profile picture > Click Timeline from the list > click today > choose the date you want to see the timeline from. Then you'll see your timeline for that day. Often, places you have visited will have a question mark beside them where google wants you confirm you have actually visited. You either click 'yes' if you have, or you click 'edit' to enter the actual place you visited. Sometimes, you'll see 'Missing visit' This probably happens if your internet connection has dropped out at that time. You simply click 'Add visit' and enter the place. The internet on my crappy phone often loses connection so I have to do that alot.   OK dx, understood mate. 
    • I have now been given a court date vs Evri, 4th Sept 2024. I have completed my court bundle, when am I expected to send copies to the court and Evri and should it be in hard copy or electronic? The Notice of Allocation states that no later than 7 days before the directions hearing both parties must send to the other party their final offers to settle. Does this mean I will have to tell Evri what I'm willing to settle? Rgds, J
    • Ok how about this to the CEO? I know it sounds super desperate but lets call a spade a spade here, I am super desperate: Dear Sir, On 29th November 2023 I took out a loan of £5000 with you. Unfortunately very early into 2024 I found myself in financial difficulty (unexpected bills and two episodes of sickness and the tax office getting my tax code wrong resulting in less pay for two months) and I contacted you (MCB) on 13th February 2024 asking if there was any way I could extend the length of my loan to 36 months. I fully explained why I was requesting this and asked for your help. I did not receive a reply to that email so I again contacted you on 7th March 2024 to advise you of a change in my circumstances which resulted in me having to take out a DMP and asking you to confirm that the direct debit had been cancelled. You would have also received confirmation of this DMP from StepChange but you did not acknowledge receipt of my email. I have only managed to make one payment from my loan but did try and contact MCB to discuss extending my loan, help etc.  I have now therefore fallen behind on several of my debts, yours included, and as a result you have lodged a Cifas marker against my name for "evasion of payment", which has resulted in me having to change banks, which has been an extremely difficult process because of the Cifas marker. I do not feel you have been fair or given me the opportunity to fully explain my situation to you before you lodged the marker against my name. I appreciate it is a business and you have acted accordingly, but I did try to make contact to arrange alternative arrangements and at no point, not even to this day, did I ever intend to not repay my loan. I cannot stress to you enough how much this has affected my mental health. I am having trouble sleeping and my existing health condition has been exacerbated by all of this. What I would like you to do is to please, please remove the Cifas marker and let me make arrangements to pay the loan back through a DMP.  Please sir, I am begging for your help here. I am not a dishonest person and I have never been in a situation like this before. I am desperately trying to make things right but this marker is killing me. Please can you help me? I look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully,
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Where do we stand?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4062 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

Hubby has been in his job for 3 years, he's a carpenters assistant. It's good pay and he loves it. He works hard and only had two days off sick in the three years.

 

So him and the other carpenters assistant was called into the office on Friday, and told because of lack of work they are letting one of them go and keeping the other on, fair enough, on the same day the main boss employed two of his best friends for outdoor work.

 

OH has worked his butt off, he spends every lunch making things with off cuts of wood. The other guy is off work alot but has been there 6 years and is friend with one of the bosses. I really feel like OH will be let off. Surely they can't get rid of someone when he's just taken on two mates and agency workers?! :.(

Edited by honeybee13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

What roles have the agency workers and his friends been placed into? Has hubby said what criteria, if any, the company are using to decide who is made redundant?

 

They have been put on off hires, meaning they out down whatever comes back to the yard.

 

There going on points, like work, attendance, experience

Link to post
Share on other sites

Length of service should also be a valid criteria - longer serving staff are more expensive to get rid of!

 

I would be using any consultation to ask PRECISELY what criteria are to be used, and if length of service isn't to be taken into account, ask why not? During redundancy consultation, the gloves tend to come off in terms of asking questions that might otherwise be a little sensitive. Get the employer to justify their reasoning.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was send home on Friday until weds, the jobs that have been offered out are different, but OH does them when there's no work normally. But there the main bosses best friends that's been brought in, or agency workers x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Length of service should also be a valid criteria - longer serving staff are more expensive to get rid of!

 

I would be using any consultation to ask PRECISELY what criteria are to be used, and if length of service isn't to be taken into account, ask why not? During redundancy consultation, the gloves tend to come off in terms of asking questions that might otherwise be a little sensitive. Get the employer to justify their reasoning.

 

From my redundancy dealings (2 yrs ago) this became a no no as it opens up potential age discrimination claims. I know the legal advise i got when i wanted LOS Negotiating in was "NO CHANCE"

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a grey area. Basically, there needs to be a reduced need for employees to do that role. They also need to consult over the redundancy. That includes exploring alternative vacancies.

 

Your husband should ask for one of the new employees to be bumped out of their role if he's interested in doing their jobs. He can also ask why agency staff have been recruited for a role he could potentially do. Cost alone isn't usuly justification for making people redundant !

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's redone his cv and taking tht in too, would that look professional? The other guy is always on about leaving and wanting another job, should hubby tell them this?

 

Taking a CV in isn't usually done in this situation, but if it would help his scores then it wouldn't hurt.

 

It's up to your husband whether he wants to get involved in mud slinging to save his own job - moral dilemma for him to face, I think!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grounds for challenge as unfair dismissal as it isnt properly redundancy as the work is still there. However, the words "operational reasons" can come into play and employing agency staff can be used as an argument that the work is not there and only limited hours/short term etc.

Cant really offer much that will help as his smployer seems to have made the decision already. i hope that it goes well though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He lost his job, he went in with his cv ect and his bos wouldn't even listen to him. He would hear what he had got to say. X

 

Sorry to hear that. Might be worth a free consultation with a solicitor to see if he has a case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my redundancy dealings (2 yrs ago) this became a no no as it opens up potential age discrimination claims. I know the legal advise i got when i wanted LOS Negotiating in was "NO CHANCE"

 

It depends on the other criteria that are used. LOS can be used legitimately as one of a range of criteria, but should not be used a sole selection method.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole process from start to finish seems to have taken less than a week. Questionable?

 

for a small company? no.

 

general change principle for bad things - get it over with. uncertainty causes stress and drop in performance. Let people move on with their lives.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The size of the company and the numbers involved do not alter the fact that a recognised procedure and consultation process be followed.

 

Check out ACAS Guidelines:

 

Consultation - Good Practice

In all organisations, regardless of company size and the number of employees to be dismissed, employers should consult with appropriate trade unions or employee representatives as soon as practicable and as fully as possible. Employers should consult at an early enough stage to allow discussion as to whether the proposed redundancies are necessary at all.

The consultation process should precede any public announcement of the redundancy programme and the issue of notices of termination. Such notices should not be issued until the consultation process has been completed.

 

Consultation - With Individuals

Employers should ensure that employees are made aware of the contents of any agreed procedure and of the opportunities available for consultation and for making representations. Case law has shown that dismissals have been found to be unfair where a union has been consulted but not the individual. It is therefore best practice that individuals who are to be made redundant are consulted, irrespective of the size of the company or the length of service of the employee. They are more likely to react in a constructive way following consultation and may be able to suggest alternatives to redundacy.

 

 

 

 

A tribunal would more than likely find the dismissal to be unfair in the first five minutes where it can be shown that not even a semblance of a procedure was followed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...