Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • UK citizens will be subject to the same rules as other Third Country Nationals. Keir Starmer to warn of 'major disruption' risk ahead of new UK-EU border checks | ITV News WWW.ITV.COM Ministers will announce measures to try to blunt the impact of the changes, writes ITV News Deputy Political Editor Anushka Asthana. | ITV National...  
    • Oh I see! thats confusing, for some reason the terms and conditions that Evri posted in that threads witness statement are slightly different than the t&cs on packlinks website. Their one says enter into a contract with the transport agency, but the website one says enter into a contract with paclink. via website: (c) Each User will enter into a contract with Packlink for the delivery of its Goods through the chosen Transport Agency. via evri witness statement in that thread: (c) Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency I read your post at #251, so I should use the second one (and changing the screenshot in the court bundle), since I am saying I have a contract with Evri? Is that correct EDIT: Oh I understand the rest of your conversation. you're saying if I was to do this i would have to fully adjust my ws to use the consumer rights act instead of rights of third parties. In that case should I just edit the terms and stick with the third parties plan?. And potentially if needed just bring up the CRA in the hearing, as you guys did in that thread  
    • First, those are the wrong terms,  read posts 240-250 of the thread ive linked to Second donough v stevenson should be more expanded. You should make refernece to the three fold duty of care test as well. Use below as guidance: The Defendant failed its duty of care to the Claimant. As found in Donoghue v Stevenson negligence is distinct and separate to any breach of contract. Furthermore, as held in the same case there need not be a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant for a duty to be established, which in the case of the Claimant on this occasion is the Defendant’s duty of care to the Claimant’s parcel whilst it is in their possession. By losing the Claimant’s parcel the Defendant has acted negligently and breached this duty of care. As such the Claimant avers that even if it is found that the Defendant not be liable in other ways, by means of breach of contract, should the court find there is no contract between Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant would still have rise to a claim on the grounds of the Defendant’s negligence and breach of duty of care to his parcel whilst it was in the Defendant’s possession, as there need not be a contract to give rise to a claim for breach of duty of care.  The court’s attention is further drawn to Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), 2 AC 605 in which a three fold test was used to determine if a duty of care existed. The test required that: (i) Harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct; (ii) A relationship of proximity must exist and (iii) It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.  
    • Thank you. here's the changes I made 1) removed indexed statement of truth 2) added donough v Stevenson in paragraph 40, just under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 paragraph about reasonable care and skill. i'm assuming this is a good place for it? 3) reworded paragraph 16 (now paragraph 12), and moved the t&cs paragraphs below it then. unless I understood you wrong it seems to fit well. or did you want me to remove the t&cs paragraphs entirely? attached is the updated draft, and thanks again for the help. WS and court bundle-1 fourth draft redacted.pdf
  • 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
      • 162 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

Gross misconduct advice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3774 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

Sorry for a long first post but really need help...

 

Basically I have done something incredibly stupid. While logged into work Wifi on my phone (with a personal login) I have accessed an inappropriate website on several occasions over one month.

 

The website is adult in nature and has a shopping section where you can purchase goods. After buying a load of ridiculous stuff for a blokes stag do I was never sent the items and got into a long dispute with the seller back and forth on the site's email system.

 

The front page of the site has adult images however, my path was always the same - log in and respond to the email. I would never have downloaded or watched anything. Furthermore I would never have knowingly used the work internet. We have the cloud in the same building and I just didn't realise. I doubt that any of that matters really though and it's still no excuse.

 

So now I'm stuck, I know I've been in the wrong and undoubtedly broken company policy, but just don't know whether to come out and tell my manager or wait and ignore it. I know I'm well thought of in the company and have been there almost 2 years but I am terrified of losing my job all the same.

 

Any advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that everything that you need to say to your employer is contained in your first post. Clearly you acknowledge wrongdoing, but have a plausible mitigation. You know that the buck stops with you and seem willing to make amends for what seems to be an error of judgement.

 

You don't actually say but I assume that the employer has found out? Have you been suspended? You say this is against company policy, but what does the policy actually say?

 

I would always say in circumstances such as this that honesty, grovelling and heartfelt apologies go some distance to keeping one's job, especially when there is a degree of mitigation and an otherwise good work history, and I see no reason to suggest otherwise here.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that everything that you need to say to your employer is contained in your first post. Clearly you acknowledge wrongdoing, but have a plausible mitigation. You know that the buck stops with you and seem willing to make amends for what seems to be an error of judgement.

 

You don't actually say but I assume that the employer has found out? Have you been suspended? You say this is against company policy, but what does the policy actually say?

 

I would always say in circumstances such as this that honesty, grovelling and heartfelt apologies go some distance to keeping one's job, especially when there is a degree of mitigation and an otherwise good work history, and I see no reason to suggest otherwise here.

 

My employer hasn't found out and no action has been taken. The majority of logins to the site were over 3 weeks ago now as well.

 

I can't remember the exact policy but I work for one of the largest companies in the UK, so it's pretty comprehensive. Normal use of the net etc. is allowed at work at most times, but obviously nothing inappropriate.

 

I think honesty and just owning up in advance of anything come out is the option I'm leaning to. At the moment it's really not making me sleep easy that it could just come up at any time. Many thanks for taking the time to respond - it's much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That does indeed give you a bit of a dilemma!!

 

My experience is yelling at me that inappropriate use tends to get flagged at a very early stage - keywords tend to generate a big flashing light and a pretty instant report - so I would imagine that even if it was noticed originally then it has been deemed insufficiently offensive to warrant further action, especially if there has been no recurrence. It may also be the case that as the access was via a device not registered with the company that it would be difficult to identify the owner (although the fact that you need to log onto the network might give some clues!).

 

On the other hand, and it would bring peace of mind, pre-empting trouble might stand you in good stead. I would though be extremely careful exactly 'who' you speak to. It might be better going to IT rather than to your direct manager. This might then result in a conversation along the lines of 'don't worry about it, the logs have all been deleted by now anyway' which would then avoid it having to go further.

 

It may also be worth changing the emphasis of 'how' you come present your case.

 

Basically I have done something incredibly stupid. While logged into work Wifi on my phone (with a personal login) I have accessed an inappropriate website on several occasions over one month[/Quote]

 

This portrays the picture in one's mind that you deliberately accessed a site knowing it to be inappropriate and suggests pre-mediated wrongdoing, whereas:-

 

"I had ordered some joke items for a friend's stag party from a website and was in dispute with the company over the order and only realised later that I had communicated the complaint via their website via the company's network, even though this was on my personal phone. I am concerned that in doing this I may have inadvertently breached the company's internet policy so wanted to explain at the earliest opportunity"

 

To my mind sounds more the actions of somebody who is genuinely concerned at having made a mistake, rather than coming from one who knowingly accessed an iffy website only realised later that he might get into trouble.

 

Your call, but I am sure you will be OK with this. Let us know what you decide to do and the outcome if you do come clean!

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, it strikes me as unlikely that work would find out about this unless someone specifically reported it. It sounds unlikely there will be anyone actively monitoring which web pages people visit.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...