Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Regularly working over contracted hours

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4010 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts


My friend is in need of some advice so I am helping her look for a solution


She is a care worker for a family, employed by a company to look after a child needing 24hr care

There are meant to be at team of 4 working shifts however they can't seem to keep people employed

So there are 2 regular careers inc I'm friend and bank staff / agency staff when they can get them


My friend only has a 30hr contract but is expected to work 40-50 hours every week and has for over a year now

They are doing this so she is not entitled to a full time holiday pay surely this can't be legal

What I am looking for is a law which says she is entitled to a new 40 hr contract or full holiday entitlement


I really appreciate any help you can provide



Action_Man :|

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid there is no 'one size fits all' answer to this, as there would seem to be elements of custom and practice and mutuality of obligation involved.


The Working Time Regulations state that all workers are entitled to a minimum of 5.6 weeks paid holiday per year, with a week deemed to be the employee's normal working week, so the question has to be 'what is normal'?


This is where it gets complicated. To what extent is it 'required' by the employer that your friend works these hours? Is there an obligation to work them, or is it classed as overtime that she would be free to refuse without sanction by the employer? Is an enhanced rate paid for the extra hours? What is detailed on the payslip?


If it is a 'requirement' that she works full time hours, then the case becomes greater for that to be the norm, and any holiday should be based on hours worked rather than merely the contractual requirement.


The same goes for any expectation of an enhanced contract. There is no automatic entitlement to a full time contract, but as it becomes customary that she works full time hours, and if there is a requirement for her to do so then an argument could be made that she is considered by custom and practice to be a full time employee, but there is no fixed time for that to become the case. Both for holiday and any contractual entitlements, it could ultimately be for a Tribunal to determine what is fair, so with that being a significant gamble, it is probably best to look at the grievance route in the first instance, attacking the holiday entitlement as being contrary to the spirit of the Working Time Regs 1998.


How much would she want to rock the boat though? How would she feel if the employer WAS to revert her to contracted hours and got somebody else to make the difference up?


If she is regularly working 50 hours a week without having opted out of the WT regs, then that is another matter, and it also brings the subject of adequate rest into the equation.

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






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

She is still entitled to her holidays and holiday pay, they will be pro rata for the supposed shorter week. If she is contracted for say 5 days of 6 hours then she has an entitlemnt to the same number of days holiday as someone working 5 days a week 10 hours a day. I would say tht as this has gone on for a long time there becomes a point that it become implied terms to her employment and she should formalise the matters, including getting paid for it. The alternative is to give notice that she wont be available to do the hours outside her written contracual obligations

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...