Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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
      • 160 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

Employer had employee followed.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3940 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

Employee with 9 years service, no disciplinary's, no absence who has recently been signed off with a seriouse injury.

Unable to drive which is a major part of her job (Sales Executive), employer contacted her doctor to confirm injuries, then sent her to their own occ Health Doctor who confirmed her own doctors diagnosis. However, the company had her followed by a private detective who filmed her being aided from the house to the passenger side of the car to pick up kids from School.

 

The company then called her in for an "informal meeting" whereby they tried to force her to sign a consent form for the Private investigator. She declined and they got nasty with her. The Company has no Surveillance / Monitoring Policy whatsoever, and under the circumstances they had no reason to have had her followed. They have clearly breached the Data Protection Act along with the Human Rights Act. This is nothing short of constructive dismissal.

 

I know for a fact that the Company has been looking for excuses to get rid of this employee for several years. She is an extremely hard worker, who meets targets and there is no complaints.

 

What can she do?

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

[Commercial link removed.]

 

Put a grievance in so there is a paper trail, looks like they gambled and lost, If wouldn't advise CD as she will then be gambling but if they do dismiss her soon she has the grievance to fall back on as part claim of unfair dismissal

 

It really is up to her how many waves she wants to create here, it may be something the ICO writes a strongly worded letter to the employer about, it may even be enough for a CD but i'd not be taking that chance without being sat in front of a solicitor asking them for something of this level of technicality and legal argument

Edited by honeybee13
Link to post
Share on other sites

if she actually cannot do the job, as sh cannot drive, she will lose it anyway over time

 

I'm not following what a detective is needed for in the first place, or why the are asking to use the evidence, which didn't show her driving

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

Thanks for the replies,

 

She will be getting in touch with the ICO tomorrow and also putting in a grievance.

 

Emmzzi, regarding them employing a detective, she does not know why they did this, as usual I may not have the whole story but had been asked to ask for advice on cag.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

If she is still incapacitated this whole story just doesn't add up. I'd do a bit more digging and would be totally unsurprised if it turned out she was in fact driving.

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

oh and as ever - what part of the human rights act *exactly* has been breached? It's the godwins law of HR remember...

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 sounds like stories i have heard about a huge chocolate manufacturer.

Maybe she will lose her job but they should try to redeploy her to a job she can do. That is if possible.

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and as ever - what part of the human rights act *exactly* has been breached? It's the godwins law of HR remember...

 

I would imagine her right to a private life. Often senior management do things that HR then have to try and salvage, not that they would admit it

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

If she is still incapacitated this whole story just doesn't add up. I'd do a bit more digging and would be totally unsurprised if it turned out she was in fact driving.

 

I'll try get more info later, like you say why would they want her to sign a consent form for use of the private investigators findings if they didn't have anything they could use against her.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine her right to a private life. Often senior management do things that HR then have to try and salvage, not that they would admit it

 

Any invocation of the human rights act without a specific clause attached can be safely ignored; 99.99% of the time it is mentioned it's used incorrectly.

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

May i ask how she knows a private detective was following her, and recording her actions

 

Has her employer admitted the use of a private detective in writing, or is this just bluff from the employer to force the situation

 

That may be construed as stalking.

 

Remember

 

It is not an offence to take video or still frame pictures in a public area, anyone can do it.

 

It becomes unlawful if an individuals private space, such as pointing a lens towards an individuals private home is violated. That can be called Voyeurism

 

Section 5 Public Order Act also covers this, alarm, distress, and harassment

Edited by squaddie
Link to post
Share on other sites

They brought her into an "informal meeting" whereby they proceeded to show her the surveillance they and on her which showed only her being helped walking from her house to the passenger side of the car (this was the first time she had left the house in 3 weeks) and went to the School to pick up the kids. They proceeded to bully and harass her into trying to get her to sign a consent form to say that it was agreeable with her that the Private Investigation took place. She decline.

 

This was instigated by the H.R Department which makes it even worse. They have no monitoring policy whatsoever so they took it upon themselves to do this and now they are just trying to cover their ass as they know it was wrong. There was no reason to have her followed as this was the first time in 8 years she has been off sick and she has only been off for 6 weeks.

 

They sent her to the Occupational Health Doctor who's report confirmed what her own doctor had advised, therefore there was no justifiable reason to have had her followed.

 

One other thing is that she was called by the H.R. Manager whereby he stated that she was lying about her condition (despite 2 Medical Reports) and that she was abusing the absence policy (I know for a fact that this is untrue as I am fully aware of what the absence policy consists of). Today, she received a letter from him inviting her to a Disciplinary stating that she said she would sign the disclaimer and has now changed her mind. At no point did she indicate this to him.

 

I am currently preparing a Grievance letter on her behalf and this will be submitted to the company within the next couple of days.

Edited by maroondevo52
Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have shown pictures of her and her house , so they were pointing the lens in the direction of her house,

 

I would be tempted to make a complaint to the police, as stated, recording on the public highway is fine, pointing a lens towards an individuals private property is unlawful, unless through law enforcement measures

Link to post
Share on other sites

makes no logical sense at all.

 

Well, it's not actually illegal to employ a detective. I would assume they are licensed, adhere to code of conduct, and only filmed in public places.

 

Best I can suggest is raising a grievance citing breakdown in trust; but then, it depends what the preferred outcome is.

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

If they have shown pictures of her and her house , so they were pointing the lens in the direction of her house,

 

I would be tempted to make a complaint to the police, as stated, recording on the public highway is fine, pointing a lens towards an individuals private property is unlawful, unless through law enforcement measures

 

Squaddie, I think the specific law you refer to would be helpful here, if you have it

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 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 created two new offences of stalking by inserting new sections 2A and 4A into the Protection from Harassment act 1997

 

Section 5 Public Order Act also covers this, alarm, distress , and harassment

 

we also have Voyeurism

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks squaddie!

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/111/enacted

 

mm. You could argue there was no intention to cause fear and there was an intention to detect crime. Do you know if there have been any test cases that are similar? (not my specialist area!)

 

I'd still kick off with an internal grievance - fastest cheapest route, doesn't need a lawyer to interpret.

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

Actus Reaus/Mens Rea is applicable as the private detectives were aware of their actions. The fact a crime has been committed, and would be in the public interest to prosecute would satisfy the prosecutors code test

 

Pointing the lens towards the private dwelling and recording would be enough for a prosecution

Edited by squaddie
Link to post
Share on other sites

mm. so it depends on the film angle. interesting, thanks!

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

Yes, what would you say if when recording this lady getting into her car, the picture also recorded her daughter getting out of the bath seen through an open window, remember, they will be using a zoom lens

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, what would you say if when recording this lady getting into her car, the picture also recorded her daughter getting out of the bath seen through an open window, remember, they will be using a zoom lens

 

Currently I'd say that's a whole heap of assumptions that we have no basis to think is true!

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

Assumptions are one thing, the truth is another

 

The scenario i gave was just an idea of the possibilities of recording an individuals house without prior permission AND IS WHOLLY SUBJECTIVE

 

A council CCTV operator was prosecuted recently after using a street monitoring camera to peer into a women's house unlawfully, the same situation can be linked to this case

 

To play down the seriousness of this case is unwise as it is a direct breach of privacy

 

If this individual has confirmed the images are pointing towards her abode, and recorded her and her house, without prior permission, then an unlawful act will have been committed by the private detective

Edited by squaddie
Link to post
Share on other sites

let's wait and see what the "if" turns out to be before speculating....

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...