Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Piers aint that bad (recently amended opinion)
    • It looks as if you have been completely ripped off. I'm sorry about that but frankly I don't think there is much you can do – and believe me, it is not often that I say that on this forum. I think it's fairly clear that there has been a deception here and although it won't help massively, I would suggest that you report the crime to the police. They will try to say that is a civil matter and you will have to stick to your guns and say that no there's been a deception, that this man is selling cars in an unroadworthy condition and probably he is committing tax fraud offences as well. I'm afraid that there doesn't even evidence that you have the correct name. It seems entirely possible that such a person simply doesn't exist. I don't see any point in beginning a legal action because if you don't even have the correct name for this dealer, then a judgement recorded against his credit file will make absently no difference at all and you will simply incur the costs of bringing the claim. I doubt very much whether he would bother to respond to a claim or to put in a defence. If he did put in a defence then if you wanted to move on to the hearing stage you would have to pay another fee and this would simply put you even more out of pocket – probably to the tune of about £250 or so – and as it seems very unlikely that you could ever enforce the judgement, you would never get any of this money back. I'm sure you feel very bad and very upset. The only other thing you should do is start going around the review sites and putting up negative reviews about this person and his business – and business names. At least it will put other people on guard and you never know, you might stumble across other people who know more about him and actually know who he is. If you do decide to inform the police then you should tell the police that he is trading under a false name. In terms of your car, I'm afraid that the only way I can suggest to cut your losses is to have the work done. It means that you are £1000 down on the deal – but at least you will have a driving car. However, before doing that I would have the car thoroughly checked over to make sure that there aren't any other defects which are about to materialise which might eventually make the car is simply not economical to repair. You said that there was an MOT certificate in the glove box. Is it a recent MOT certificate? Are you able to speak with the previous owner at all?  Cagger @Daniel Hanson who has also bought a vehicle from the same person may be able to help you in this respect. It seems that he has been lucky enough not to have any problem so far with the car that he bought. I think at the very least, the lessons to be drawn from this are: Don't purchase a used car – or any car from a dealer who is far away from you make sure you check the car yourself make sure that the dealer is well established and do some research on forums and review sites for negative reviews and positive reviews. However, be suspicious of positive reviews. Don't pay cash/bank transfer. You lose all control of your money. Insist on paying by credit card or debit card and if the dealer won't accept it then walk away. Ignore warranties. They are meaningless and they are simply a red herring intended to distract you from your statutory rights. However, as you are discovering, even your statutory rights are meaningless if you are unable to identify the dealer and if you are able to identify any assets belonging to the dealer against which you could enforce judgement. Please do let us know how this develops and if you are able to track anybody down. As I say, I think you should certainly inform the police – but it will be a hard job to get them to take notice because they will simply try to say that it's a civil matter and there is no evidence of a crime. You will have to push hard.
    • That is one mean spirited individual, looks like what a Dickensian female Workhouse Beadle would look like.
    • I'll reply more fully  later as I'm about to go out. But meantime who was this person who you allowed to drive your car? How did you know him? Was he insured to drive your car? If you are to defend the matter we need to find out if you have a reasonable chance of success.
    • I think it particularly telling that overweight poopulist Tory **** whos worst experience on missing a meal is missing out on cake, biscuit and tea for elevensese between free breakfast and free lunch, and who voted as a decidedly overweight whole to leave British children hungry, STILL claim that its age and obesity, not their own policies and practices, that have generating the 'world beating' British death rates.   Perhaps they are leading up to claiming that them voting for children to go hungry was part of the health drive to reduce the childrens risk of catching Covid? Wouldn't put it past them.    
  • 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
      • 31 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2473 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 there.

 

I try my very best not to take sides, it's what I'm meant to do as site team. But I think words like troll are judgemental. If you think abuse is too strong a term, I will consider removing it.

 

I would like to think that we can have a rational discussion to try and help the OP.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello there.

 

I try my very best not to take sides, it's what I'm meant to do as site team. But I think words like troll are judgemental. If you think abuse is too strong a term, I will consider removing it.

 

I would like to think that we can have a rational discussion to try and help the OP.

 

HB

Naturally, I didn't mean Emmzzi is literally a troll, my comment was on the nature of some of her posts. It wasn't a personal insult, and I don't feel it is abusive.

 

Having a rational discussion and trying to help the OP is what I'm here for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While my personal view is that a written warning was appropriate/proportionate, I do agree with altobelli about the suspension. I am concerned that you are still suspended and query whether this is reasonable. The written warning should have drawn a line under the situation so that everyone can move on with their lives - surely everyone has more important things to do than carry on this petty dispute. Keeping you suspended begins to look like they are pre-judging your future conduct ... they cannot possibly know whether you will fail to follow instructions in future as they have not given you that chance (although I understand why they might be suspicious).

 

Many of the problems here have led from a lack of communication. It might be worth getting in touch with the employer to find out what will be required to lift the suspension. If you did end up in Tribunal you would want written evidence to show that you acted reasonably, fairly and in compliance with your legal obligations. A polite letter indicating that you want to return to work is a good start. Of course the other approach would be to sit back, leave it to the employer and collect your pay while you start looking for another job... up to you really.

  • Haha 1

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

steampowered - if breakdown in trust was caused by the big list of compliants submitted *during* the first case - the originals of which contained a lot of unrelated issues but we don;t know what was actually sent in - I'd say it is a new issue, does need looked at.

 

And suspension is still a neutral act.

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

Fair comment. If they are still investigating then suspension is reasonable. I'm not sure what there is to investigate as this stage but I guess I don't have access to all the facts so difficult to speculate.

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

From what I can see, there is nothing new to investigate, and nothing which shouldn't have been dealt with at the disciplinary meeting. The points raised by the OP were, in my view, for the most part valid, and even if they weren't found to be by the employer, the investigation and disciplinary should have weeded out any peripheral issues. The issues raised may have demonstrated areas where the OP has lost confidence in the employer, but I can't see anything which could cause the employer to lose trust and confidence in the OP.

 

Suspension is not always neutral - it is a potentially neutral act, but must be applied proportionately and with common sense. I don't feel this is the case here - the employer appears to be looking for things to investigate. Steampowered, you're absolutely right, this problem has arisen to a large extent due to a lack of communication. Someone from the employer needs to de-escalate the situation and draw a line under things. Endless investigations and suspensions are not the way forward.

 

At the end of the day, this is a charity, and all this investigation and suspending people on full pay for long periods of time costs money. If I as a member of the public knew who this charity was, I would never donate to them if this is how they use their funds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidestepping the last couple of pages i do see a potential employers plan here, OP is given misconduct warning as they are cautious a straight dismissal may be seen as too harsh, they then suspend on what has happened after the first event, hear the appeal reject it and dismiss as the OP already has a misconduct against them and therefore fall back on totting up instead of a straight dismissal.

 

None of this may be the case but if it is and i was the OP i would be very careful during any appeal or further discussions/communications that i did not act in a way to allow them to use it for the secondary investigation. I'd be making sure nothing i did could be spun by them into a defence in a tribunal.

 

Apologies or not i'd be the sweetest, nicest most pleasant sole they had ever come across, and none of that would stop me from raising my points, the aggression/assertiveness meter would be set to null though ;)

 

I see no clear legal breaches in this thread just employers word v employees, I also do agree that the old suspension is a neutral act line trotted out by employers is often "bovine waste" but proving it is near impossible, you can read many opinions across the net from the legal side that it is too often used and often needlessly but you won't find much case law to back it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UD, no problem at all with you posting on other forums. Many opinions are good. But at least give them the whole story... or you will get half an opinion...and what is the point of that?

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
  • 6 months later...

I am being contacted by ACAS this week. Below is their email

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XXXX,

 

Further to my call, I have spoken to the respondent's representative who has indicated that they would only be willing to discuss a commercial level settlement to your claim.

 

The level of compensation that you have already indicated on your tribunal claim form that you are seeking is not a sum that they are interested in discussing .

 

Please let me know if you wish to put forward a proposed figure for settlement that I can discuss with the respondent's representative

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Am I entitled for a legal advise and cost for same to be paid by respondent to give a figure?

 

thanks for reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No - I think you are thinking of a compromise agreement; this is a settlement. You will have to decide for yourself.

  • Confused 1

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
  • 2 months later...

Just an update. I had a pre-hearing last week. Judge looked balanced but was concerned about many items in my compensation sheet. Hearing will be in May. Various dates were given about witness statements exchange etc. Respondent's lawyer indicated that my manager is refusing some important content of telephonic conversation I had with him during disciplinary process.

I am no longer using that phone but I had recorded the conversation using trial version of 'Total Recall' on Symbian. I am waiting for witness statements before I disclose it.

 

They were also indicating unwillingness about meeting recordings. Lawer had put in her blog in August about her client's concerns about recording. But judge agreed that as an admissible evidence. I was suggested by Judge to take help from Law Center federation.

 

Thanks all for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have to disclose the contents of that phone conversation when you disclose all the relevant documents in your posession to your counterpart. You cannot withhold it until the witness statements are exchanged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what happened about the proposed settlement in October?

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
You will have to disclose the contents of that phone conversation when you disclose all the relevant documents in your posession to your counterpart. You cannot withhold it until the witness statements are exchanged.

 

I am not sure how the process works. I am expecting a witness statement from my manager and HR representative first before I tell them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclosure of the relevant documents in the parties posession is ordered before witness statements are exchanged. If the respondent knows that you have the phone conversation in your posession they will most certainly ask you to disclose that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I check - is this the phone conversation you posted up about last April? The one where manager and HR were both there?

 

I'm looking at your description of that call and thinking it does not help your case.

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

In my experience ACAS are a total waste of time, in my case I feel they are on the Employers side and also want to avoid the case going to a tribunal, to save the tribunal money. I've also seen them get involved in industrial disputes, they are just a formality of the system.

 

They are trying very hard to push the employers wants on me, I guess they are doing the same to you.

 

I expect when they spoke to the other party, it became a stale mate and then thought they could spur it on by getting you to reduce your price, this didn't work and now makes the other side think you are week and it's probably given them more confidence.

 

They are also volunteers, which means they don't have to give you good information as opposed to someone you paid.

 

If you think your price is reasonable stick with it. It seems ACAS are just throwing a spanner in the works.

 

I will say, from experience it seems that even a cast iron case is still difficult to present, you need to present it to the judge as if he was 5 years old and knows nothing of the relevant acts

 

 

 

 

ACAS did contact me couple of times. I reduced my compensation based on their suggestions. But no figures came in from respondent.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I check - is this the phone conversation you posted up about last April? The one where manager and HR were both there?

 

I'm looking at your description of that call and thinking it does not help your case.

 

That was the conversation when I told him that I was stressed for personal reasons and detailed him events related to that in week before alleged issue happened. But he is now denying that conversation. HR person was also present.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In my experience ACAS are a total waste of time, in my case I feel they are on the Employers side and also want to avoid the case going to a tribunal, to save the tribunal money. I've also seen them get involved in industrial disputes, they are just a formality of the system.

 

They are trying very hard to push the employers wants on me, I guess they are doing the same to you.

 

I expect when they spoke to the other party, it became a stale mate and then thought they could spur it on by getting you to reduce your price, this didn't work and now makes the other side think you are week and it's probably given them more confidence.

 

They are also volunteers, which means they don't have to give you good information as opposed to someone you paid.

 

If you think your price is reasonable stick with it. It seems ACAS are just throwing a spanner in the works.

 

I will say, from experience it seems that even a cast iron case is still difficult to present, you need to present it to the judge as if he was 5 years old and knows nothing of the relevant acts

 

Thanks for the advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This phone call? I cannot see what helps you in this call. Unless you are *ill*, not stressed, to the point of it being a disability, there is no legal obligation for them to take it into account.

 

"I apologized. I said I am sorry. He said sorry for what I would have said in past. I said in past 1:1 you had mentioned - its not about your work but the way I go about it. He repeated few things from past 1:1. He said about people's perception about me. But he tried to stress that this is about this current incident. I tried to stress that I didn't intentionally refuse to work.I tried but could not focus. I mentioned about my meeting with on Friday (3 days before the incident) with my daughter's pediatrician. I tried to mention that as scrum master said this task people avoid and is difficult to start and if I had got some support I would have finished it.

 

He said you seem to have more things to discuss and we will discuss it on Monday 15th.

 

He was acting very tough. Probably playing psychological game."

 

Are you aware the ET is not there to decide if they think the organization was right or not - just whether their action

a) followed a procedure which was legal and

b) the action they took was within the range of actions a reasonable employer may take?

 

Your idea of reasonable obviously varies.

 

I know it feels like I am on your case with this a lot. You need a much better case and I want you to frame it to the best of your ability.

 

What are the legal or other points you are relying on? Points - not minor complaints. Are there any procedures they did not follow properly?

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
This phone call? I cannot see what helps you in this call. Unless you are *ill*, not stressed, to the point of it being a disability, there is no legal obligation for them to take it into account.

 

"I apologized. I said I am sorry. He said sorry for what I would have said in past. I said in past 1:1 you had mentioned - its not about your work but the way I go about it. He repeated few things from past 1:1. He said about people's perception about me. But he tried to stress that this is about this current incident. I tried to stress that I didn't intentionally refuse to work.I tried but could not focus. I mentioned about my meeting with on Friday (3 days before the incident) with my daughter's pediatrician. I tried to mention that as scrum master said this task people avoid and is difficult to start and if I had got some support I would have finished it.

 

He said you seem to have more things to discuss and we will discuss it on Monday 15th.

 

He was acting very tough. Probably playing psychological game."

 

Are you aware the ET is not there to decide if they think the organization was right or not - just whether their action

a) followed a procedure which was legal and

b) the action they took was within the range of actions a reasonable employer may take?

 

Your idea of reasonable obviously varies.

 

I know it feels like I am on your case with this a lot. You need a much better case and I want you to frame it to the best of your ability.

 

What are the legal or other points you are relying on? Points - not minor complaints. Are there any procedures they did not follow properly?

 

If it won't help then there is not need for him to deny the conversation. Just want to prove how he is lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to what end?

 

You get limited time in an ET. You need to spend it arguing your case, not proving someone else is unpleasant. His lies are only relevant if they support your case.

 

Focus on the meat, not the garnish.

 

Now. What is the meat of the case?

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...