Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks everyone. Will speak with the manager first chance I get later today and let you know.
    • own topic created  tnx the info. dx  
    • this debt: MBNA Bank of Scotland Card debt- LInk got a CCJ - now want payment review - MBNA - Consumer Action Group and a barclaycard loan - did you ever send the a CCA in all these years.....when was it taken out?    
    • Welcome to the Forum. The PCN must be subject to Bye laws as the warning near the bottom of the PCN does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Under Section 9 [2][f[] of the Act it should say: (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver ,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Their version states they are pursuing you as the driver [because of the Bye laws they cannot transfer the liability from the driver to the keeper] even though you are the keeper. Should it go to Court Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. Obviously on many occasions another member of the family may be driving instead of the keeper. Indeed anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car. if any of the three cars were not driven by the keeper they are not liable to pay the PCN only the driver is.  as long as they do not divulge who was driving those lovely people at Alliance haven't a hope of winning against them in Court. What a shame. However while those keepers who were not driving are in the clear all is not lost for the other keeper drivers. Alliance still have to prove who was driving which is difficult providing those keepers do not appeal.  It is quite often that on appeal the keeper may say "I entered the car park at....."  immediately giving away that they were the driver. Plus even if you appeal it won't be accepted as a] they lose £100 straight away and b] mostly all the major car parking companies are dishonest scrotes. In the meantime you will be on the receiving end of threatening letters from Alliance, unregulated debt collectors and fifth, sixth or even lower rated solicitors all trying to frighten the life out of you to cough up. They can all be safely ignored since if you don't contact any of them they don't know who was driving so have no information that the can use in Court to identify the driver. Some time in the future they may send you a Letter of Claim which must not be ignored. Just let us know and we will advise a suitable snotty letter to send them which will show that you are not afraid of them and are happy to turn up in court knowing that you will win. Sorry it was a bit long winded.  
    • He’s still At it from a bungalow on Haslingden Road. Changed name to Bamberbridge cars with a Preston based phone number (01772) but dodgy dealings at the bungalow are still a go.
  • 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

Currys and 6 hour contracts holiday pay


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4016 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

Currys have this thing where they employ people on 6 hour contracts but then all other working hours are classified as overtime. If I work 35 hours a week for last 6 months and my contract says I am only entitled to holiday pay for my contracted hours. Is this legal or does it breach the 'Part-Time Working Regulations 2000' whereby Part Time workers are entitled to the same contractual rights as full time people? And what can be done about it.

 

If Curry's have been doing this for years across the country, they are making a fat packet off loads of staff all over the UK and are not fulfilling their obligation as an employer to pay holiday pay relative to the hours worked and it needs to be stopped. The law needs to be changed to prevent these kind of contracts. Local MP doesn't seem to be interested, Citizens advice couldn't advise on it and ACAS said it was obviously a legal loophole and said 'hope you sort it soon'. WTF?

 

Any advice anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/practice-notes/holiday-entitlement/#cc2.1

 

 

Rates of statutory holiday pay

 

A worker is entitled to be paid during the statutory annual leave at a rate of a week's pay for each week of leave (Reg 16).

This is calculated in accordance with the method of calculating a week's pay in sections 221-224 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). However, there is no cap on the amount of a week's pay for the purposes of the WTR 1998.

 

  • Workers with normal working hours, whose pay does not vary with the amount of work done, are entitled to their basic salary without any additional bonuses or commission payments.
  • Workers who have normal working hours but whose pay varies according to the amount of work done or time of work, are entitled to holiday pay based on their average pay during those normal working hours over the previous 12 working weeks, including any commission etc which varies in amount.
  • Workers with no normal working hours have their week's pay calculated as an average of all the sums earned during the previous 12 working weeks, including any overtime payments and commission.

You should note that 'normal working hours' include guaranteed overtime payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is all about arguing what constitutes 'normal' working hours. You will need evidence to indicate that 35 hours a week is what is 'expected' of you, so what would be the situation were you to refuse to work the hours? Are you offered the hours or 'told' to work them? How are the additional hours broken down on your payslip?

 

I have no doubt that you SHOULD be getting holiday based on your hours worked, and you could almost certainly argue custom and practice sufficiently to get the employer to reluctantly allow you the proper holiday entitlement. I also believe though that for putting them through hoops over this you may well find that they immediately realise that they only need you to work your contracted 6 hours a week!

 

You are absolutely right that it is a racket and it is rife in retail at present. Flexi contracts are the norm, where you are guaranteed core hours and then work extra as required. It is lawful, but open to a challenge - the problem being the term 'normal working hours'.

 

Probably best to try and resolve the problem informally at first - raise a grievance and push them on the WTD rather than the Part Time Workers Regs - that only provides for PT staff getting the same terms PRO RATA as are given to FT staff.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...