Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

overtime not offered to all


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4059 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

Right.

 

The point that has been missed - repeatedly, and as pointed out many times, potentially dangerously, is that you persist in using the term 'Discrimination'. Whilst it is accepted that your advice is well intended, and your sentiments regarding the rights of the normal working person to stand up to perceived injustice are indeed noble and substantially correct, you MUST accept that where your advice and statements regarding suggested courses of action need to be soundly based in LAW, not just in emotion or morality.

 

You will, naturally, be aware that this forum, as with many others, serves a primary function as a source of advice and information for many people who, whether for reasons of their own making or otherwise may be in the depths of despair . In such circumstances, it is entirely possible that maybe not on this occasion, but due to the nature of the internet, many months hence, somebody may cherry pick the comments or suggested actions from this thread and apply them to their own situation. The consequences of that may be not merely an employee looking silly in a disciplinary hearing, but maybe losing his job through a misguided militancy because some internet forum caused him to believe that he had the right to argue that black was white. It may indeed cause a desperate employee looking for retribution to lodge an ill-founded case at an Employment Tribunal and plead a completely unwinnable argument based on the fact that CAG led him to believe that his was a clear case of discrimination. We have a responsibility to suggest an appropriate resolution, and where there is a suggestion of unlawful behaviour, then we must be correct about the legal basis of that standpoint. Ambiguity is a luxury that many who visit the site cannot afford, and in some cases it is more than just a reputation at stake.

 

Whilst you may know what you mean, discrimination has a very strict legal definition in employment and equality law. An employer can quite lawfully treat people differently in the workplace in certain circumstances, but when advising on that we MUST be very clear about unfavourable treatment and discrimination - they are two very different things in law, and for the reasons outlined above, and several times within this thread unless it is in the legal sense of the word we must avoid suggesting that one is the same as the other.

 

Rather than accept this from people whose day to day job relies on them knowing the difference and being to interpret what is law and what is merely good practice, you have tried to justify your arguments by trying to tie them in with tenuous legal arguments and by trying to apply legal principles where they are irrelevant or just plain wrong. Where people disagree with this, it is for good reason. For the most part it is because they know better and in many cases do this for a living.

 

If an answer is not to your liking, appears critical or is delivered in a curt manner, it is not because they need a 'chill pill', but because people need to understand in very simple terms whether they have a case or not. When dealing with something as important as one's job and livelihood it is not always the right thing to sugar-coat a response and to suggest that there are grounds to pursue an unwise or likely fruitless course of action. Sometimes it is necessary to simply say that yes, you have been hard done by, but realistically the thing to do is to move on and learn lessons for next time. The same goes whether this is aimed at the person delivering erroneous or misleading advice, or to the OP looking for an all-guns-blazing argument with the boss.

 

As with anybody else willing to give up their time to offer help to others, your input is welcomed, but please have the good grace, common sense or sound legal knowledge to know when to persist and when to withdraw, rather than to remain in an entrenched position and divert a thread away from its purpose and more towards arguing your own case in the face of more qualified opinion.

  • Haha 1

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

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Caring Guy, You have been very patient bearing with us throughout this exchange of views and opinions. Especially when most of what you initially enquired about seems to have been overlooked or forgotten.

 

That initial enquiry was:

 

 

You have since explained why you feel aggrieved about this:

 

(a) The extra work was offered to one person without any opportunity given to anyone else who might have been interested or equally, or even more, entitled to be offered it.

 

(b) No reasonable explanation has been given to justify the manager’s decision despite informal conversations and questions among those concerned.

 

The first question then is; do you have a grievance? I say you do.

 

(i) Because you believe you have and you say you have.

 

(ii) You raise and discuss the issue with colleagues who are equally put out.

 

(iii) You have taken the time and trouble to seek advice about the course of action you should take on this forum.

 

I have yet to hear what this is if not a grievance.

 

The next question is; how to resolve your grievance?

 

(i) Do nothing; put it down to bad luck and get over it. This is not an option unless you are prepared to accept being treated like a doormat.

 

(ii) Try to have the matter resolved informally. You are being advised to take this course.But you have already tried this option; you have said repeatedly that you have tried over a period in conversations and informal enquiries to have your concerns and questions answered, to no avail. I see no point in continuing to advise this course. A reasonable manager would have set your mind at rest at this stage.

 

(iii) Put your grievance on a formal footing by invoking the grievance procedure.Employment law gives you the right to pursue your grievance through a formal grievance procedure. This could hardly be described as the action of a nonconformist or a revolutionary.

 

At the end of the day all you want at this stage is an answer to your grievance. It may be that you will get an answer that is quite reasonable and will persuade you that your grievance is unfounded. It may be that the answer you get will lead you to believe that you have grounds for taking the matter further. Either way you need to take the first step before you begin seriously considering the second.

 

It seems to me that you have already come to the conclusions and are more or less following the process I have outlined above.

 

The law lists some forms of discrimination as being more serious than others. This is not to say that suffering unfavourable treatment is not discrimination.

 

I suspect Atlas01 has lost the plot. He begins by advising caution and suggesting that making an official complaint might be going too far and has since progressed to advising CG to get his colleagues organised, sort of unionised, act as shop steward with authority to go to management with ultimatums.

 

Of all the advice proffered I find that of the ‘manager within the care sector’ not only sad but worrying and anyone with such an attitude should not be in a position of authority. It shows two traits that are unacceptable in a manager entrusted with responsibility. Firstly, too incompetent or too lazy to set up a fair rota system for overtime, especially since, on his own admission, the need for it comes up all the time. Secondly, what sort of a shambolic setup is he creating and running when his main concern when making decisions is to do the first thing that comes into his head in order to get it out of the way. I hope and pray that I or mine are never in the situation where he or anyone with similar ideas on how to manage has any influence.

 

Anyway Caring Guy, it seems from your last post that you are getting close to a resolution, here’s hoping.

 

Skinnered thanks for ur opinion, which is exactly what it is.

 

But have u ever worked in care, management, care management. Probably no.

 

For ur information when I am dishing shifts out, I feel I have no choice but to prioritise my work. In a sample month I have rotas and wages to do for 8 services - 27+ staff, 8 team meetings, 27+ supervisions, 8 audits (16 pages long), reviews (at least 8 per month), conduct issues, training (self and staff), adult protection issues, finances, staff shadowing, managers meetings, social work meetings, spending time with service users, plus having to answer my phone all day from many people. My phone book has 123 people in it whom I have contact with at least oncer every 6 weeks.

I also cover a distance of 57 miles (shortest route) from my base return visiting my services.

 

I have tried every system known to man but none work as great as you may think.

 

And for ur information I find you lazy and incompetent to give out factual information

 

Again I thank you for your OPINION.

 

Have a nice night.

 

J

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well prehaps i ambeing thick, but if the person who got the overtime was the only one who had expressed an interest in doing overtime then how can it be unfair that he got it? how would anyone know that other people wanted oivertime if they hadnt already said so?

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not necessarily unfair on a one off basis, but I think it would have been better if either there was a policy for allocating overtime or the manager made everyone aware that overtime was available. Its not a major problem as long as the manager thinks about allocating overtime differently in the future. Otherwise, you have a catch-22 situation where the manager will make your point that he didn't know anyone else was interested in overtime, and the employees will make the point that they didn't volunteer for overtime because they didn't know any was available. It just a communication problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks altobelli that makes sense, as with so many things in life it can be communication problem, we all talk but dont always communicate. I agree that a different procedure would help in the future but if this is a one off I can see its annoying but it is one of those things, it may be that the person who got the overtimne asked some while ago saying that he would be interested if some came up in the future, we dont really know but I would suggest that that is the most likely senario.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...