Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Winemark the wine merchant ltd northern ireland
    • Hi Sweet and welcome to CAG   Are you willing to disclose the employer in this case ?
    • I was the manager of an off license. We reopened on mon 30th, I received a very large delivery which we weren’t expecting (and I wasn’t told about until 2hrs before by my line manager) all managers received a text from regional manager which stated when deliveries are coming in shops are to be closed. He didn’t ring this info in, I just read the text.   When I saw how big del was (completely covered the floor, could barely move around it) I kept my shutters closed and proceeded to pack delivery away. The store remained closed and we lost 5hrs trading time. I didn’t seek permission from manager to do this, with the current safety precautions enacted (only allowed 1 customer in at a time as manadated by HQ) I didn’t feel this could be safely achieved with 3 members of staff in and all the stock everywhere.  regional manger calls into shop at 4:50, hits roof that it’s closed and storms out of shop after exclaiming I didn’t have the authority to keep shop closed.   Fast forward 1 1/2 weeks later today regional manager comes in at 4pm with prepared questions, I answer truthfully stated I didn’t think it was safe I had the best interests of business at heart that I had turned up for work every day since this incident and nothing had been said. He said that they will examine this information and can come back for more evidence if needed.    He goes away again and at 5:59 (my shift finished at 6) he came back in saying they’d examined all the evidence and that their decision was dismissal, I was to gather my things and there’d be a letter in the post with information should I wish to appeal.  quite a shock.   I will see what this letter states as their reasons I committed gross misconduct, I am a bit at a loss as to what I specifically did to be deemed gross misconduct.   I’ve worked for them for 10years, taken 2 days off sick in that entire time and had a faultless record   I’m just flabbergasted they’d immediately sack me for something which happened in unprecedented times when all I was trying to do was keep myself and my staff safe and safely make their store presentable and adequately accessible for all.   Any thoughts on the above? Obviously this is all too fresh as it happened only hours ago 
    • Hi KL1 and welcome to CAG.   You say the buyer contacted you saying, "...... he had seen it cheaper somewhere else and wanted to cancel the sale."   Do you have this in writing and, if so, in what format ?   It would be useful if you could tell us more about the item you sold.    
    • I wanted to report a success against UKPS that started in Dec 2018 and was concluded today.  I did do a bit of reading through this site for guidance though so thanks for that!    in Dec 2018 a family member reversed onto a private road in Coventry and waited about 1 minute or so to collect their partner.  Meanwhile the owner was loitering and waiting to catch anyone on his land with photos.  2 photos were taken about 40 seconds apart.   With my help I disputed the charge stating that the driver had not "parked" but had only stopped momentarily to pick up a passenger.  I did not state at any point who the driver was.   UKPS from Leamington Spa were trying to enforce this and insisted on the charge of £60 + £100 being paid.  I sent a 2nd letter confirming the position of the 1st letter and that no further letters would be sent.   4 threatening letters were sent from Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith Collections and duly ignored.  The last kindly offered to settle for £136!    Then a letter from Gladstones Sols threatening the same was also sent, and mentioned Beavis vs Parking Eye.  This was also duly ignored.   Finally a Letter Before Action was sent by email.  Aha!  Game on.  They cited Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Nick Idle and Vehicle Control Services Limited v Damen Ward and that stopping for any time is a breach, and it was only the length of time stopped that may affect the value of the breach.   I said that signage said no PARKING, not no STOPPING and that appropriate case law was JOPSON v HOMEGUARD where the judge specifically said "Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it"   They then came back at me with an evidence bundle they were allegedly going to use at court against me, stated the signage was clear,  a nd repeated their "no stopping" case   I came back at them with the same as before and added that, in their world, someone coming onto the land and wanting to read the signage would have precisely NO TIME AT ALL to so as, according to them, even stopping for mere seconds was a breach.  I also threatened that I would claim costs for my wasted time in dealing the case.   Today they emailed me as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good Morning,   Thank you for your correspondence. We apologise for the delay in our response, however as no further action has taken place we trust you agree no prejudice has been suffered.   Please note that our Client has cancelled our instruction on this matter and the matter is considered closed.   No further action is warranted. Kind Regards ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   16 months on and UKPS gave in  
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2171 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

We reported to the council that the tree growing on their land has branches that are affecting the telephone line. The branches were pressing up hard against the line straining it almost to breaking point.

After much arguing with the council who denied all liability, BT Openreach was persuaded to cut the branches which they did but emphasise that it was not their responsibility and that they would probably bill the council.

It has taken several weeks to get the branches cut and we still think that the tree is the council's responsibility and not BT Openreach as after all the tree is maintained by the council and is on council land.

Unfortunately as the tree grows we will be faced with the same problem within the next year or two!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

send the council photos with a letter.

If the branches break the line, BT will repair and send bill to the council no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
send the council photos with a letter.

If the branches break the line, BT will repair and send bill to the council no doubt.

 

I sent photos but the council stated that BT should resolve the issue. I cannot understand their attitude as the tree is on council land and owned by the council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

old post but I have proper advice for you. although the tree is the responsibility of the council and they are responsible for it. they are not legally required to ensure you are receiving phone reception. it is the utility company who is responsible for you receiving a good reception and therefore it is up to them to make sure that the tree is not disturbing the line.

 

 

there is no legal obligation from the council to carry out works to a tree that affects a phone line. the councils obligations to trees are that it is not dangerous or causing/risk of causing damage to property. some councils may carry out works to trees that are disturbing phone lines, but there is no requirement for them to do so. it is the responsibility of the provider to ensure you get your service not the council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually council admitted responsibility as it was their tree that grew and was causing damage. Problem resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the council may have carried out the works, but as I said it is not their responsibility to ensure that people receive phone reception. that is for the utility provider to deal with.

 

 

look up NJUG 10 and the telecommunications act 1984 which detail how a utility company is responsible for carrying out works which disturb their trees whilst causing minimal damage to the tree itself.

 

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...