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

NHS employment issues


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3871 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

My sister-in-law was originally on a fixed term contract with no end date and at that time every other employee in the department was substantive. There was a reorganisation in the department which was subject to competitive interview for all jobs. She was unsuccessful in obtaining a substantive role at the same band but was given a substantive role at a band below. The manager let slip she scored more points in interview as another person but did not get the substantive role. She pursued this with the union rep and explained to the manager her grievance at the process as she felt it was unfair. She didn't put a formal grievance in at that time but was allowed to 'act up' to the higher band for another 6 months and left it at that.

 

2 years have passed (She's been on maternity leave and come back) and no opportunity to get back to the appropriate band has arisen until recently. Someone has retired and a vacancy at the correct band is being advertised. This job is exactly the same as the job she used to do (and no-one else has done) so I wondered if she could be 'slotted in'? There are other staff that satisfy the person spec but they are at the appropriate bands and have not been affected by change. She's not at risk but has been affected by change albeit 2 years ago. I understand the vacancy went out to the restricted pool first (which she's not in) and is now being advertised externally. Surely there is a duty to help internal staff who have been affected by change first rather than throwing it open to the world to compete with?

 

She's also discovered some policies relating to this are missing and have already received an apology from HR.

 

Help much appreciated.

Edited by ims21
Link to post
Share on other sites

If she didn't put in a formal grievance - she has in effect accepted the situation.

 

She can apply competitively with everyone else though.

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...