Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since. I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
  • 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

Unfair Interview


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3776 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

Hi,

I'm new to this forum after stumbling across it on Google and i'm interested in hearing if i have a 'leg to stand on' regarding a grievance i have submitted to our in house HR team.

 

Basically i was referred for an internal job by a manager within our company who encouraged me to send my CV to our recruitment team for a very specific role.

 

At the start i was contacted almost immediately by the recruitment manager who said my CV and skill matched with a job they have had open since the start of July.

After a formal screening period i was successful in gaining a interview with the manager of the department on a Thursday (this is important) at 10am. The interview took place over the phone and i had been given an agenda (prior) of one hour consisting of competency based questions and technical questions. This was fine with as im a manager of a department and have conducted tens of interviews and been on training so i know what to and not to ask and also more imporatntly how to answer questions properly and to score well.

 

The interview started and before any questions of any real importance was asked the manager invited me to ask him questions about the role... I straight away asked why the role had been open for some time and about the growth of the department and he told me there was 2 positions available but one had been taken on the Monday previous.... now this was strange as they havnt seen all the candidates before deciding, but anyway i carried on as i felt confident in getting the remaining role.

 

30 mins into my interview and i hadn't been asked a single technical question on the job or a competency based question... the interviewer was from France and had issues getting his english words across to me at points and asked me questions such as "out of 10 how good are you in excel" "why did you decide to travel after school for 2 years"... things of no real relevance and nature to the job i was applying for. As this was on the phone i had a notepad and was writing down the questions of what he was asking me as this wasn't going to how i thought an interview should do.

 

After that initial 30 mins the interviewer asked if he could be excused for 5 mins... i thought this was a toilet break, however he re-entered the room with another person who introduced himself, said he was only free for a couple of minutes and asked me "what is the proudest moment in your career" before listening, saying thankyou and leaving.

 

The original interviewer came back into the office and said "we have 20 mins available what do you want to talk about" i was absolutely shocked at this and after asking him details about the role and how things worked (to try and present myself across as a worthy candidate because i thought it was some weird test) the interview ended after 52 mins.

 

More interestingly we have a hierarchy chart at work where you can see all the managers and there directs and 2 days after the interview i got nosey and decided to check out the manager and his team and low and behold he had already got 1 new person in that team (knowing he had interviews booked until the end of the week) and more more importantly, the person who got the job is from a company who was recently purchased by our company. Now ive spoken to some people and it seems the manager already had an idea of who he wanted to recruit but to make it "official and legal" he had to open the post up to the internal public...but it seems successful applicants already knew before all other other interviews were done.

 

To be honest that could be nay say BUT one person has the role.

Im concerned i was asked;

 

  • No technical questions
  • No competency questions
  • No questions of any kind regarding the role
  • Lack of communication through language barrier
  • Half way through some random person arriving and asking a question before leaving

When the decision came back as a no, i asked for feedback to why and the recruitment agent said it came with the notes: "not enough technical experience" "we are ideally looking some someone with 5 years as a business analyst" - well i have 8 year experience and was not asked a single technical question even after my prompts.

 

I have requested to see the interview questions and notes and cross reference them with mine as i have no idea how he could have eliminated me from the role.

I have also spoken to another interviewee whose interview was conducted by a different person and was set with questions of a technical and competency kind and seemed very professional.

I feel i was declined based on who i got to interview me, they didn't do it properly and it was a shambles.

 

Any opinion would be great or if i do have that leg to stand on :)

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may well be right but there is little you can do unless you were treated less favourably becuse of your gender or race. I worry more about the quality of the recruitment company and what their role was. As you are already in a managerial position you must know a little about the interaction between your firm and them so do you feel that you can give them honest feedback without amking things worse?

If not leave well alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...