Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Interesting question regarding what Government accounts opposition parties have access to, before an General Election. From what I understand, Government department accounts that are published are always lagging behind and would not include some amounts which are classified as 'commercially sensitive'.  Therefore opposition parties and Parliamentrary select committees would not have access to accounts which contain real time up to date information. If a new Government have found £20 billion of spending liabilities they did not know about, this could be true, as £20 billion is not that much when you look at total Government expenditure. Government department are making decisions on spending all of the time and it could be the previous Government were planning tax changes and/or spending cuts to balance the books.  Jeremy Hunt has recently said that if the Tories had stayed in Government and held an Autumn budget, it would have been very difficult to cut taxes as some had wanted.
    • Everyone knows the tories were hiding the costs - and even added 4 billion quid to the taxpayers high interest credit card to fund a chunk of the NI tax reduction - prime example - look at how much cost was hidden re the Rwanda dogwhistle -10 Billion quid     and re the handful of rebels on the benefit limit If the disasters (like the Rwanda rubbish) of Tory dogs being wagged by the extremist minority ERG tail doesn't highlight the issues .. Enlighten yourself here .. (fat chance) Sir Keir Starmer is right to show Labour rebels the door WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Editorial: Suspending seven MPs following their rebellion over the two-child benefit cap is more than a prime minister flexing his political muscle. It is a...  
    • Trump instigated that didnt he @theoldrouge despite losing the election - and Biden mitigated as much as he could within his boundaries?   "President Donald Trump ordered a rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Somalia in the wake of his 2020 election loss"   “The order was for an immediate withdrawal, and it would have been catastrophic,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., one of two Republican members of the special panel. “And yet President Trump signed the order.”   Trump ordered rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan after election loss WWW.MILITARYTIMES.COM The memo was among the latest revelations from the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol building.   Although i agree that Biden should have done more to mitigate Trump driven disasters
    • ok your WS is wrong. Paragraph 16 and 17 says  you did not contract with evri but this is not true - see below  Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (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 post 251 of occy thread - £844 lost    you should also add a paragraph on donough v Stevenson talking about the fact that even without contract there is still duty of care to goods and by failing to deliver this duty has been breached.   Make those changes and post it back up here and I'll check over things again
    • no we cant add the occy thing because leicster are being difficult people so we're just going to go without it for now
  • 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 
        • 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

Accrued Hoilday problem


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3762 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 everyone

 

I wonder if someone can advise me?

 

I work for a recycling company. The companies workforce is supplied by an employment agency. I am one of the workforce.

 

The company decided to cease working with this agency and brought in a different on. I shall call the first agency.. Agency A and the newer second Agency B.

 

None of the workforce knew that the company was bringing in a new agency. The first we heard of it was when we were brought into the office one at a time. This new agency told us that come the end of the month (March) they would be supplying the company with workers. We would be working for this new agency from 1st April and everything would be the same . They also advised us to take all our holidays before they took over because this new agency based their holiday year from April to March. So in effect we would start with a clean slate.

 

Agency A called into the company on the last day of their contract and spoke to us. They said that no matter how often they called Agency B they could not get together to discuss TUPE. I was advised to sign the TUPE agreement to protect my rights, which I did.

 

As it was already the middle of March not everyone could take their holidays in so short a time so I emailed/telephoned Agency A and asked them to pay me for the outstanding holidays I would not be able to take.

 

Anyway, I am now working for Agency B and all seems well except that when I mentioned my accrued holidays they said I should contact Agency A and get them to pay up.

 

I have now received a letter from Agency A stating that under TUPE any accrued holidays transfers to the new employer.

 

So I am at a loss what to do. Agency A says TUPE applies Agency B says not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Employee related liabilities do pass over from the transferor to the transferee upon a TUPE transfer. However, this does not apply to workers or subcontractors, or any other third parties, as the TUPE Regulations are designed to protect employees - not third parties or any other type of worker, and you are not employed by the transferor, but you are engaged by the agency. Therefore, as neither you nor your agency worker colleagues are employees in the legal sense, as you are workers employed directly by an agency, TUPE cannot apply to you. There cannot therefore have been a TUPE transfer in this situation, and I believe the agency is incorrect in its assumption that TUPE applies.

 

You also cannot be working for Agency B unless you agree to do so, as your "employment" does not automatically transfer under TUPE. You would effectively be commencing a new engagement with Agency B, under whatever terms and conditions they offered you. This is entirely separate from the engagement with Agency A (save for accruing rights under the Agency Worker Regs).

 

The only way I can see that they are muddling TUPE here is that, rather than assuming you are "employed" by the recycling company, they are assuming that you are "employed" by Agency A and that your "employment" transfers to Agency B (although logically, I cannot see any reason why Agency B would agree to continue engaging the same workers when undoubtedly they have their own list to choose from). I don't think this is correct either as it is a tripartite agreement which, IMO, is incapable of amounting to an employment relationship (technically, agency workers can be employed by no-one!).

 

Anyway, I cannot see any circumstance whereby Agency A would not be liable for the accrued holiday pay. It's important that you do not lose this by missing the three month time limit for claiming in the ET, however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies

 

@Becky. I have 'googled' for more answers based on your reply and I believe you are absolutely right. I should have mentioned in my opening that the company I work for have a 'core' workforce of permanent employees, and the rest including myself are agency based.

So from your reply and from what I have read, TUPE does not apply in this case. Therefore Agency A owe me for the accrued holidays. Unfortunately Agency A ended their letter to me stating that would not discuss the matter any further.

 

I guess that I will have to go down the legal route although I have no idea where to start other than Citizens Advice. Or perhaps the local paper?

 

Once again, many thanks for your reply, it helped me a lot.

Edited by jonbr
Link to post
Share on other sites

What do your employment contracts say about the nature of your engagement/employment and holiday? Also, what is this 'TUPE agreement' you signed? The answer may well be in there. Please read these documents carefully and let us know what they say.

 

The three months time limit applies to employment tribunal claims but not to county court small claims track. SCT can be used for things like claiming outstanding holiday pay or wages. These days SCT is usually a bit cheaper than going to an employment tribunal ... so a good option if it turns out you have a valid claim against Agency A.

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...