Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • J&P Credit Solutions are specialists on debt recovery. Either way they seem to be swapping between the JandP and IDR whatever their exact definitions are.
    • Primary and secondary teachers are supporting pupils with their own money, buying food and warm clothing. Eight in 10 primary teachers in England spending own money to help pupils | Education | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Increasing numbers of children hungry and lack adequate clothing, with two-thirds of secondary teachers also supporting pupils  
    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
  • 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 Dismissal, Race Discrimination, Preg/sex discrimination - ** SETTLED **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3727 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

ACAS are there primarily to help with settlement and offering general advice. They won't give specific advice on legal issues which are in dispute, and they will not act like a judge. I don't think they will get involved at all with whether or not the other side should be disclosing investigation documents, that is a specific item of legal advice which is outside ACAS' remit. This is something that should be dealt with through the Tribunal document disclosure process. You shouldn't treat ACAS as an extension of the Tribunal - they are not.

 

If you want to know the Respondent's position on disclosure you should contact them directly. If this proceeds to trial there will most likely be a general disclosure order which is what you use to get the documents. This specific issue may also be addressed at the PHR.

 

Whether NWNF lawyers will take a case depends on (1) chances of success, (2) how much uplift they will get if successful, and (3) if being paid a percentage of your winnings, how much you might expect to get. Obviously all NWNF will want a decent chance of success but 75% sounds quite high to me.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Why? don't you think it's got a 75% chance of success.

 

As for Acas, I would be interested to know if anyone has actually been happy with their intervention.

 

For what SP been saying, my case is "weak".

 

As for acas, I have a sweet sounding case worker but I dont trust him because he is pushy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, the 'you' is meant to refer to the op (panxa).

 

I wouldn't want to say the unfair dismissal aspect is weak or strong without knowing a bit more information about exactly what information the employer was provided with. These things are very fact sensitive; I imagine the employer would try to argue they had a reasonable belief that you weren't entitled to work in the UK which can be enough. The discrimination aspects may be arguable but I'm not sure how much you would get awarded for these or if they can be proved. Not trying to be negative just giving honest feedback.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you SP.

 

I might just wait for the NWNF company to see what they think after reading all my evidence and paperwork. It seems that the respondent will continue to drag their feetabout disclosing the info, I already asked tribunals for a order for disclosure and they said they might consider it.

Anyway, what about the pregnancy element if the claim? I have said in my posts that before my dismissal I was signed off by doc due to pregnancy related illnesses, then on my come back I get suspended and dismissed.

If you look and think about it all is very convenient chain of events.

I know it "could" only be deemed sufficient for an employer to " believe" I didn't have the right to work but I have read cases where the claimant lost but then won at appeal because tribunals failed to point at the law.

Look, I have spent my pregnancy and the first 6 months of my baby's life studying this, I'm not too happy in letting go for a mediocre 5k which doesn't cover half of my SMP. I look at it from a moral point of view now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is concerned with legality not morality.

 

Correlation does not show causation.

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

The law is concerned with legality not morality.

 

Correlation does not show causation.

To "me" personaly is morality, not basing my case on it, I'm basing it on evidence. I don't expect the judge to look at it like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But morality is highly subjective.get your logical head on and look at it again.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

hi again,

 

just to let you know i have had no success with contacting acas, after leaving a couple of messages the case worker has not come back to me, however I have received the internal investigation outcome from ex employer. I dont agree with any of the points because they are outside the relevant point/accusations I made, they failed to provide the evidence to support their investigation and obviously they denied all points.

So where does this leave me? the Tribunal has given both parties to tell our position 14 days from the date i receive the outcome of the investigation, so I have until the 29th march to state my position.

Someone here, I think it was smokejumper, said that to conclude a grivance i have to agree with it, is that true?

Also, the head of the department signed the letter, but she is not longer employed by my ex employer, how can she sign on behalf of the company if shes not longer employed by them? (i know is a fact her contract was moved to a different company on the 2nd Feb) , letter also is not cc to tribunals or their representatives.

Can anyone help me on this please?

 

and to no surprise, NWNF company said they cant help me in my case.

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NWNF usually refuse because they think you have a weak case. Did they give you a %age chance of winning?

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

I mentioned a law firm stated 75% to me, however I found information since then that a person was told 51%, so it may not be a hard and fast rule and more a case of the particular law firms policy ( which makes sense).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned a law firm stated 75% to me, however I found information since then that a person was told 51%, so it may not be a hard and fast rule and more a case of the particular law firms policy ( which makes sense).

 

I have asked them but without success.

what do you make of the rest of my post, reg investigation, the person dealing/signing internal investigation for grievance, 14 days for tribunal? it started to look as if Im destined to take this all the way to FH day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you should get too concerned about what the investigation says. I don't think it really matters in most cases. If you have decided to advance through the ET process then you need to focus on that.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Tribunal the important thing is that you and the company have followed ACAS guidelines (i.e., following and completing the disciplinary procedure) rather than the actual result. After all, iif you had a ''good' result there, you would be unlikely to have ended up at the Tribunal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

could someone help me on this part of my query :

"Also, the head of the department I used to work for signed the letter,(internal investigation) but she is not longer employed by my ex employer, how can she sign on behalf of the company if shes not longer employed by? (I know is a fact her contract was moved to a different company on the 2nd Feb)" ...

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did she sign it before Feb. 2nd?

 

No Grotesque, I only received the internal investigation outcome on Saturday past and shes no longer working for my ex employer, so I dont understand the validity of that investigation.

 

Can I also mention, I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE FACE OF HR AT ALL.

 

Does this make any difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, hr do not need to be involved at all for a process to be valid.

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

No, hr do not need to be involved at all for a process to be valid.

 

-So can any one carry out anl investigation for a grievance on behalf of the company even if they are not employed by them?

 

- As the whole department I used to work for, including ex colleagues were bought by another company, how does it work for a FH then? in the case that ET orders witnesses statements, etc.

 

I trying to find out the difficulties that the company will have now in defending the other elements of the claim: racial and pregnancy/sex discrimination.

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers. Although there's probably a non-disclosure clause in the agreement somewhere so that's more than we need to know...! ;)

 

Well done though- could have been the best move- the future would have consisted of 'stress today vs cash tomorrow', one way or the other.

 

All the best!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you:) its actually more than I was hoping for but it covers what I lost from my SMP and a bit more. All I can say to others is, if you know you are right and have the proof you need, even when told your case is weak just push as far as you can. You dont representation if you know your case more than anyone else would know.If you know you are a victim then don't keep it in. Leason learned, if you raise a gievance,take it directly to HR,and trust no one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad you have settled, I think it a wise decision. Well done!

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...