Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A web search came up with a limit of 120 days, so probably not feasible.  It was just an idea.
    • my concern is that if i lose case, it will  be logged on credit file
    • Name of the Claimant :       vehicle control services limited 2 europa court  sheffield business park sheffield  s9 1xe     Claimants Solicitors: (if one is stated)   Date of issue –  28th may 2020   Date for AOS - 15th june 2020   Date to submit Defence - 29th june 2020     What is the claim for –    The claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land.   The defendants vehicle xxxxxxx, was identified in the Berkeley centre pay & display on the xx/xx/xxxx in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle on site.   At all material times the defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver.    The terms and conditions upon entering the private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations.    The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct.    The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability.   The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   What is the value of the claim?   £160 + £25 court fees =  £185 total   The claimant beleives that the facts stated in this claim form are true and i am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement signed   jake burgess  (claimant)
    • no you don't respond to DCB(l)'s willy waving. yes Mcol will show progress.
    • Am looking for some advice, and i know you guys are always helpful   My parents moved into a rented accomodation back in the early 80's and have a standard tenancy agreement covered under the 1977 rent act.   As a sitting tenant, the landlord did virtually no work to the property, with my parents maintaing when needed. We lost my dad a few years back, and my mum is struggling to maintain. We have had major issues with electrics and drainage which we approached the landlord for with no replies for last 18 months. We did all we could to work with them.   I have done as much as i can do, but am aware it is quite unsafe and we managed to get the local council to help. They assessed the property remotely, and sent a list of repairs that the landlord needed to perform within 6 weeks. After tradesman have reviewed the repairs Include: Removal of an unsafe conservatory Rewire of entire property - including new mains Repairing a partially collapsed sewer. Repair/replace damaged single glazed windows. Making fire safe   The landlords have been in contact and started some works, however - am very aware with mum being on her own, with COPD we need to keep her sheilded.   Are the landlords obliged to put her in alternative accomodation while the works are carried out? What precautions can i make to ensure the tradesman are compliant with COVID-19 regualtions (We have not allowed any internal works to begin as yet)? Is there an alternative way out of this? Can i approach the landlords asking to move her into a more suitable property considering the works needed (4-5 weeks probable). Should i seek advice of a property solicitor at this point? Can they immediately raise the rent to market rate? (I think they/we need to appoint a rent officer) as its quite low at present. Is there anything we need to be careful of not to break the tenancy rules?     My parents have been benefiting from the low rent, but have installed central heating, new boilers etc, lots of repairs to drive ways and maintenace. The place is on a fairly large space and they have always maintained the gardens. Personally, i would prefer to move mum into more suitable accomodation - but she loves this place and i know will struggle to leave.   Any tips on how to handle any of the above!   Thanks!              
  • Our picks

Conniff

Len McCluskey gets 800 men the Sack

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2412 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

Len McCluskey and the Unite Union tried to bully and blackmail a Scottish company into increases in pay and bigger pensions despite the company losing £10million per month.

 

This stupid person and his Union who will lose nothing and is assured of his pay and pension had their blackmail threat of strikes backfire on them when the company said it was closing with the loss of all those employed.

 

So 800 men now face a bleak future because of one mans intransigence.

 

They are at the moment trying to backtrack on their demands and say that isn't what they meant.

 

More ...

 

This plant is the mainstay of Scottish Economics, so a country wants to go independent with one factory to support them - I can't see anyone falling for this stupid independence rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Grangemouth (about 5 miles away from me) contributes £16 billion pa to the Scottish GDP. Annual Scottish GDP is about £235 billion. So no, Scotland is not "supported by one factory". And I say this as a wishy-washy opponent of independence.

 

As far as I can see, neither Ineos nor Unite have covered themselves with glory here.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just the financial contribution though. If Grangemouth should remain closed, Scotlands main supply of fuel dries up plus all the thousands of small businesses that trade with them, including the burger van that comes at lunchtime, will probably all be forced to closed or scramble desperately to find other clients who more than likely aren't there.

 

I agree neither has covered themselves with glory, but you don't try to blackmail your bread and butter especially when it is on it's last leg. Those out of a job relied on the Union and the Union got it wrong just as they usually do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm struggling with the business position, pay freeze and adjustments to pension scheme.... even an inflated guesstimate of a 10k saving per head per annum would only release £13.7mil operating capital yet it states a £170mil annual loss across the operation.

 

Perhaps its long term investment interests lay elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the plans put to the Union were the import of US Shale oil at half the price they are paying for oil at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was the plan from day one to eventually close the plant once you know who was basically given it

and £Ms of gov't handouts too to do so.

 

don't be fooled.

 

same game as icetech and the rest of 'em.


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it is the cost of running the Grangemouth site and there has been a threat before to move the operation to the US, where due to better fuel prices, it would be far cheaper to run.

 

The workers were threatened with reduced pay and pensions or face losing their jobs. The Union were just sticking up for the workers, which is surely their role. They are now working with all interested parties to see if the site can stay open, with jobs saved.

 

The company who own the site moved their head office to Switzerland in 2010, to save themselves £100 million in tax. The owner has made a huge amount in the UK, but is now acting like a bully.

 

If there is a problem running the site because of fuel costs in the UK, this is where we need active involvement of government in the UK to support business.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe its currently quoted at 10 dollars a barrel lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are now working with all interested parties to see if the site can stay open, with jobs saved.

 

I would more say they were back pedalling because their bluff has been called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its one of the reasons i stopped being a senior shop steward a few years ago. They were good when they were the TGWU, now that union thinks businesses should do what the union says under threat of strike action.

 

Trust me when i say, never believe for one minute what the Unite union management say.

Edited by renegadeimp

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would more say they were back pedalling because their bluff has been called.

 

Probably political meddling, if the parties agree the terms the plant 'should' be back in operation.... assuming no other motives were involved in the decision to close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably political meddling, if the parties agree the terms the plant 'should' be back in operation.... assuming no other motives were involved in the decision to close.

 

Yes the company are probably looking for government subsidy for the site. As has been said, the staff taking a pay and pension cut, will not make the site profitable.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not just the financial contribution though. If Grangemouth should remain closed, Scotlands main supply of fuel dries up plus all the thousands of small businesses that trade with them, including the burger van that comes at lunchtime, will probably all be forced to closed or scramble desperately to find other clients who more than likely aren't there.

 

I agree neither has covered themselves with glory, but you don't try to blackmail your bread and butter especially when it is on it's last leg. Those out of a job relied on the Union and the Union got it wrong just as they usually do.

 

This sort of thing has happened before. The closure of Ravenscraig, near Motherwell (also less than 10 miles away from me when it happened) had a dreadful medium term effect on Lanarkshire. It's not fun, but these things do happen and Scotland is no less prepared to deal with them than anywhere else. Hell, Glasgow is the classic example - a prosperous city that lost its main industry and figured out another way to survive. But there's no point in pretending, closure will have a significant effect on this part of the world.

 

As to fuel, as long as people in Scotland want fuel, someone will sell it to them. The closure of Grangemouth won't suddenly mean we can't drive anywhere. You can't help feeling that Ineos was cynically looking for a reason to close the plant (or blackmail the government into providing some corporate welfare) and the union played straight into their hands.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't help feeling that Ineos was cynically looking for a reason to close the plant (or blackmail the government into providing some corporate welfare) and the union played straight into their hands.

 

 

That may well be so, I don't know if this method of getting rid of staff means they have no responsibility for redundancy pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That may well be so, I don't know if this method of getting rid of staff means they have no responsibility for redundancy pay.

 

Not sure about that myself, but it is an interesting question.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they still have to pay the redundancy but that is a spit in the ocean. Every refinery in the UK loses money, god knows how but this is not a unique position for Grangemouth. The oil they refine belongs to others and they contract to refine it, a bit like a windmill in the past grinding corn under contract, the miller did as he was paid to and the lord of the manor paid him less and expected the best flour in return whilst the peasants got lead added to their flour to make it heavier and whiter.

I dont think this is the end of the story but you can gurantee that the pension scheme winding up will make money for Ratcliffe and he will profit from the tax break. Look at how Starbucks, Amazon, ebay and the others claim that the UK business is a subsidiary of an operation in Luxembourg that miraculously fits into a broom cupboard and the UK operations are not profitable because they buy all of their stuff from the Luxy company at an inflated price. Competition Commission should have a say but they dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad times ahead for Grangemouth I was Born and brought up in Grangemouth hard to believe its going to close

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is only Unite's fault. The employees decided to vote against a reduction in pay knowing what the consequences could be.

 

The article suggests that liquidators are being appointed which means the plant is insolvent ... and that most likely any redundancy money would be the bare minimum and would be funded from the public purse.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this is only Unite's fault.

 

The workers are guided by the Union, they do what the Union recommends.

 

On another side, Unite has found a tax loophole and has paid 'NO' tax for the past 2 years despite having £52million in the bank.

 

Len 'Red' McCluskey is just a reincarnation of 'Red' Millibands dad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The workers are guided by the Union, they do what the Union recommends.

 

On another side, Unite has found a tax loophole and has paid 'NO' tax for the past 2 years despite having £52million in the bank.

 

This was achieved because unions are allowed to offset the benefits they offer their members against tax. The same applies to benefits offered by any employer, I don't know any employer that would choose to pay tax on things like illness insurance. I'm not sure I would describe it as a loophole.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was achieved because unions are allowed to offset the benefits they offer their members against tax. The same applies to benefits offered by any employer, I don't know any employer that would choose to pay tax on things like illness insurance. I'm not sure I would describe it as a loophole.

 

But Conniff obviously hates unions for whatever reason and believes that employers can do what they like. Unions came into existence because of the way employees were being treated, particularly related to health & safety. If the Unions were not there fighting for their members, you would see employers going back to the bad old days, where they invited workers to turn up at the factory gate at 7am and the foreman would pick who they needed to work that day, with the rest sent home so they could not earn.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it was just over 50% of workers that wanted to strike. The rest of the country has to make do on their current wages probably with no increase for the past few years, but workers at Grangemouth wanted more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently it was just over 50% of workers that wanted to strike. The rest of the country has to make do on their current wages probably with no increase for the past few years, but workers at Grangemouth wanted more?

 

No, they weren't asking for more. They didn't accept a cut.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they got a cut now, bigger than the original and all because the Union advised them to not accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...