Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Dave2019   That response to your councillor is short and direct so lets see how your councillor will act with Platform.   I think you have noticed that Platform are not telling the correct facts to news article/MP/Councillor which is absolutely typical of these Housing Association to always give there version of events to make them look as if they have done everything by the book to make them look good we haven't done anything wrong.   This is when you challenge them as you have done and throw there own Customer Community Engagement Strategy in there face and you keep doing this with what I have pointed out in post#67 (as a reference).   The more you do this the more Platform are not going to like it as it impacts their own Customer Care Policy, Complaints Policy and that specific Customer Engagement Strategy as these look more like just a paper exercise to make them look good but putting them into practice they are not just failing but are in fact Breaching those Policies.            
    • Ok! I think it's about there, I've added those final points. Thanks again for looking this over!   Px CLAIMANT
 ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LIMITED – AND – DEFENDANT XXXX WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXX I, xxxx of xxxx, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;   1. The Witness – xxxx states in point 3 that:   “It is noted that the Defendant does not dispute entering into a credit agreement with the Claimant.”   This in not true. I have never entered nor admitted to entering into an agreement with the claimant.   2. The default notice mentioned in point 6 was issued on 26/04/2017 and served 4 years, 3 months and 27 days after the last written acknowledgment of the debt on 30/12/2012 by myself. Thus, the cause of action delayed by 4 years 3 months and 27 days and the Limitations period prolonged to 10 years, 11 months, 16 days. This, in effect, allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.   3. In point 5 xxxx states I was issued with A Notice of Assignment on 22/11/2013. In point 6 he states that a Default Notice was sent to me on 04/03/2014. In point 7 he states I was sent a Termination Notice on 26/04/2017. In point 8 the legal proceedings and transference to Drydens solicitors took place without my knowledge.   I received none of these notices or assignment. It has now come to light that they were all sent to an address I had not resided at since 2001. The Student Loan Company was aware of my current address at the time that the alleged documents were sent.   I have always kept the Student Loan Company informed of my current address.   4. In point 18 the Claimant claims the Termination Notice issued on the 26/04/2017 was the cause of action, this is patently untrue - the termination notice does not determine the Statute of Limitations date.   Pursuing a debt after a 6 years is clear breach of OFT guidelines and CPUT.   5. Addressing points 21,22 and 23 - the claimant contends its unfair to allow a set aside 16 months after a default judgement, yet failed to issue a default notice within the 6 year limitation period therefore breaching the rules of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 87/88.   6. I the defendant, contend that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and
is STATUTE BARRED pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. 
If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.   7. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £2489.03 or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied. 
   8. The defendant’s costs in dealing with the claimants default judgement and their set aside application to be paid by the claimant within 28 days.   (a separate costs sheet is attached).   Statement of Truth   I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   Signed: xxxx Dated: 17/05/2022   Costs Sheet Cost of N244 application form: £255.00      
    • Hi   I hope you are keeping as well as came be expected during this. and even if you want to rant here about this If A2 are still ignoring your letters/emails then that the Housing Ombudsman is now looking into this matter and have requested your evidence so far of their failure in Customer Cara and more importantly their own Complaints Procedure by failure to acknowledge letters/emails.   As you have already spoke to the Ombudsman I would contact them again and just explain to date A2 are still completely ignoring you with your complaint and you take this as a Breach of their own Complaints Procedure.   You look after yourself and even if you just want to have a rant about this to get this out your system you know where we are.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Suspended from work this evening


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2888 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 all,

 

Looking for some honest advice, no judgement.

 

I was suspended from work tonight - I work in a shop and the temperate in there was 32 degrees and the heat was making me feel sick and dizzy. I left the till and asked a colleague to jump on for 2 minutes for me. I went into the staff room and got a drink. While I was in there I phoned my partner to say I wasn't feeling well and I was thinking of telling my manager I needed to go home. I was on the phone to her for 44 seconds and then hung up.

 

My manager came to the door and flew off the handle, started shouting at me, pointing her finger at me saying that she's had to have several conversations with me about coming off the shop floor without asking (not quite the truth but I'll get to that) and that I should seriously reconsider my position in the company - she said lots of other things about how we were all hot etc and then proceeded to suspend me.

 

I rang my partner to say she'd need to come and get me as I was being sent home and then my manager started shouting at me again, swearing etc. She accused me of all sorts to the point where a colleague who had been stood by watching had to interrupt her and say it was best that it was left there and that I should go home.

 

Now, to put things into perspective - over a month ago I was out the back sorting rubbish. While I was stacking pallets and sorting rubbish I was having a cigarette. It's a pretty common thing that most people do, including the assistant manager and supervisors. I didn't stop working to do it, I was constantly on the move doing the job. She came out then and told me I was a **** taker and that I really didn't want to get on her bad side. She then slagged me off to a colleague but I just let it all go and said nothing.

 

She then spoke to me two weeks later as something had happened with a colleague and I took some time outside to calm down, spoke to my partner and went back in. Nothing was said straight away and then I was spoken to about it by her and the assistant manager. I apologised and since then made sure I didn't use my phone or take breaks when I shouldn't etc (not that I did anyway - it was a one off).

 

Now I've been suspended and I really don't know where I stand - she's making out she's had all these problems with me when in reality, she shouted at me once and I didn't actually do anything wrong and then she spoke to me about the one off incident. Other than that I work my backside off and love my job.

 

Being suspended is obviously never a good sign I just don't know how it will go - she doesn't seem to be a reasonable person and lots of people have had issues with her but sadly seems to make up the rules herself.

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated, sorry for the long post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG. I'm sorry to hear about your problems.

 

My understanding is that suspension is a neutral act while the facts are established. Are you being paid?

 

I hope the employment guys will be along later with advice for you. Please sit tight until they can get here. :)

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

 

I will give some general advice. You may need to provide some more information for others to help you accurately.

 

1) How long have you worked for the employer.

2) Are you a union member

 

OK general advice.

 

A) Write down for your benefit the incdents concerned. You should be told the reason for your suspension. You need to wrtie down the WHO WHAT WHERE WHENs as well as WHO ELSE witnessed it

 

B) Check your companies greivance and disaplinary procedures, normally in the staff handbook if you have one or in your contract. Ideally you are looking to see if your company allows representation or witness at the investigatory stage. If in doubt try and request a copy of the precedures.

 

C) If you are allowed Witness/Union representative then arrange it with the witness (Normally someone you work with)

 

D) Remain calm in the investagatory meeting.

 

E) If you feel you are going to loose it in any way then ask for a small adjournment to compose yourself. (If they refuse make sure they noteit in the notes)

 

F) If they are not taking notes, take some yourself :)

 

G) Tell the truth, no lies

 

H) At the end READ THE NOTES carefully. ONLY SIGN if you are happy they represent an accurate pictture on what was said. If they do not, ask them to make adjustments. If they refuse, sign the notes with "Signed under duress as notes are not accurate"

 

I) Before signing make sure they write in the request for a copy of the notes to be run off and delivered to you in reasonable time before any disciplinary meeting (if there is one) to allow you to prepare.

 

J) Scribble out or draw a big Z under the last sentence of the notes to prevent post signing additions.

 

From the behavior you have mentioned it is out of order in the way you have been treated. Shouting swearing etc is all intimidation and bullying and defiantly not DIGNITY AT WORK and grounds for a later grievance,

 

Others may also make comments on the suggestion that you write a grievance before hand against the manager and insist that in the interests of a impartial investigatory and disciplinary process that you feel the manager should be exempt from the process. But wait and see what others say.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, in order to avoid being sued for "unlawful deduction of earnings" the suspension should be paid if you have not yet been disciplined. "Investigatory suspension" is normally the term used where you are paid.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks,

 

I started in March - I've just passed my probationary period of 3 months. She kept making reference to speaking to me on 'numerous' occasions - making out that there have been lots of issues with my conduct. Other than the telling off she gave me for smoking while doing a job outside and when I was spoken to because I'd gone out after the problem with a colleague there hasn't been anything else.

 

When I went on shift this afternoon she marched up to me, told me that the store needed to be immaculate and that it wasn't up to her standards (I'd only just come in) as a director is coming in tomorrow so she was clearly under pressure today because of that. It's also her first day back after being on holiday for 3 weeks so I'm taking her massive outburst as a combination of those factors. That being said colleagues have said she has zero tolerance and will sack people for pretty much anything.

 

Am I right in thinking that suspension isn't normally used when it's just a misconduct issue? My worry is that my suspension letter will arrive listing gross misconduct as the reason - ok I annoyed her and should have gone to her first to say I was leaving the shop floor but I was literally heaving at the till and just didn't think - does that really amount to gross misconduct? From what I've read on here and other places it clearly doesn't matter whether it's justified or not as I've not worked there for 2 years and can't claim unfair dismissal.

 

The not knowing is what gets me the most.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct sadly that you will not have access to the tribunal service :(

 

Unless there is some form of discrimination covered by the single equality act. Sadly does not look that way.

 

Gross misconduct can mean many things, the way employment law resides on is somethign called the "test of reasonableness" If another person could construe your actions as gross misconduct then they can argue that. Employment law is very weak because of this clause.

 

Regardless

 

You do have a right of appeal after the disciplinary if need be and should be done by someone more senior than the disciplining manager.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have less than 2 years service the employer doesn't need to adhere to disciplinary procedure unless your contract specifically states that the disciplinary process is a contractual right - they can simply give you statutory notice to terminate your employment. What does it state in your contract of employment?

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi sharpz

 

Did you get around to reporting the heat in the store to your manager? You could lodge a grievance, no doubt it has effected other employees too. If your suspension has anything to do with getting a 'drink' and being reprimanded for doing so, then that is wrong.

 

Hopefully they will provide further information on why you have been suspended.

 

Here's information regarding the temperature in the workplace:-

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/index.htm

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/thermal/workers.htm

 

'I work in a shop and the temperate in there was 32 degrees and the heat was making me feel sick and dizzy.'

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the situation certainly seems to be unreasonable it is unfortunately the case that any employee with under 2 years service has no automatic right to discipline and grievance procedures (unless it is specified as a contractual right in the contract of employment.

 

Only if the behaviour of the employer can be proved to be discriminatory (sex, race, religion etc) or if the contract of employment is breaches do they have any right to redress at all.

 

 

Best advice would be to apologise and hope you can keep your job.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the situation certainly seems to be unreasonable it is unfortunately the case that any employee with under 2 years service has no automatic right to discipline and grievance procedures (unless it is specified as a contractual right in the contract of employment.

 

Only if the behaviour of the employer can be proved to be discriminatory (sex, race, religion etc) or if the contract of employment is breaches do they have any right to redress at all.

 

Best advice would be to apologise and hope you can keep your job.

 

 

Not entirely accurate.

 

"

The statutory minimum procedure

6.

Employers are also required to follow a specific statutory minimum

procedure if they are contemplating dismissing an employee or

imposing some other disciplinary penalty that is not suspension on

full pay or a warning. Guidance on this statutory procedure is

provided in paragraphs 26-32. If an employee is dismissed without

the employer following this statutory procedure, and makes a claim

to an employment tribunal, providing they have the necessary

qualifying service and providing they are not prevented from claiming

unfair dismissal by virtue of their age, the dismissal will automatically

be ruled unfair. The statutory procedure is a minimum requirement

and even where the relevant procedure is followed the dismissal

may still be unfair if the employer has not acted reasonably in all

the circumstances."

 

However enforcing this with less than 2 years is difficult without having the access to tribunal. Saying that without 2 years service they have no right to the minimum procedure is an error of fact. They have the right but can not use the tribunal to enforce it.

 

http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/l/p/CP01_1.pdf

Edited by SabreSheep
Addition

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There *might* even be a way in some circumstances to mitigate the 2 year rule but you would need a legal professional to do it. If anyone has any more information on hwo accurate this information is it might be of help to others

 

Two years' service not needed if you insist on statutory rights

 

Mennell v Newell & Wright (Transport Contractors) Ltd [1996] IRLR 384

 

 

 

Bullying and fear at work can stem from misunderstandings about legal rights and especially about the two years' service rule normally needed to allow an unfair dismissal claim. What is less well known is that employees are protected from day one of employment against dismissal for asserting a statutory legal right.

 

 

This protection comes from section 60A of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, introduced in 1993, which makes it automatically unfair to dismiss someone for 'asserting a statutory right'. The statutory rights referred to include the written statement of particulars, itemised pay statement, guarantee payments, maternity rights, Wages Act claims, union victimisation or time off, unauthorised check off deductions and political fund opt outs.

 

 

Section 60 was introduced as a partial response to employers who dismissed employees with less than two years' service who 'caused trouble' by insisting on legal rights, for example, a written statement of employment terms. But what does it mean in practice - and what protection does it give?

 

 

The protection applies where the employee has brought a claim to enforce a right or has alleged that the employer has infringed a right. It is automatically unfair to dismiss the employee for making the claim or allegation.

 

 

The first appeal case on this law has now been reported. Mr Mennell, who had less than two years' service, was asked to sign a changed contract which gave his employers the right to make deductions from pay. He refused and was sacked.

 

 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal said this could be a dismissal for asserting a statutory right. A threat of dismissal to vary the contract so an employer could make deductions is an infringement of the right not to have deductions made without consent.

 

 

It did not matter that no deduction had been made or that no right had actually been infringed. In fact it was not even strictly necessary to establish that the employee actually had any right to infringe.

 

 

The key question is whether the employee, acting in good faith, asserted or claimed to have a relevant statutory right. It does not matter whether the employee had the right, let alone whether it was infringed.

 

 

Mennell's case has been sent back to the Industrial Tribunal to consider these points and to decide the issue which is likely to prove the real stumbling block for employees: was the employee's assertion of a statutory right the reason for the dismissal?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ell-enn's advice here is correct. The employer does not need to adhere to a disciplinary procedure unless it is contractual and they can indeed serve statutory notice to terminate (or pay in lieu).

 

I would always advise employers to dispense of any formal procedure during the first two years unless there was any necessity to follow it (for example if the employee in question could assert they had been discriminated against or had raised a breach of a relevant statutory right).

 

There is no "statutory minimum procedure" that employers are required to adhere to anymore. Statutory procedures were repealed in 2009. Employers are now required to follow "guidance" under the ACAS Code of Practice; but again, this is a non-point due to length of service. The dismissal will not be automatically unfair in these circumstances.

 

Asserting a right not to have wages deducted is a "relevant" statutory right as mentioned above, however unless such a right was asserted prior to the dismissal (or at least prior to the circumstances leading up to dismissal) then logically, and chronologically, the dismissal cannot be linked to that assertion. I do not therefore think that it applies to this scenario.

 

Whilst I understand that the advice given here is with the OP's best interests at heart (even if it is perhaps telling them what they want to hear) I do think that the realistic advice in this situation is to apologise and hope that they are reinstated. Attempting to muddy the waters with misconceived legal arguments is unlikely to be of practical assistance!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually becky, yoru right, I was not aware of the "repeal" So thanks for the info. :)

 

I always try to tell the OPs what they need to hear not what they want to hear, but at the same time, I always like to explore options and If i think I find something I will always present it as what I think it is, like in the case above where I mentioned that it *might* of been a work around and needed other people to confirm and discuss it.

 

Coupled with the fact my past Union work was in an organized workplace, sometimes I have to remember that the rules and regulations we had to work with were negotiated to be much more superior than legal minimums.

 

Anyhow less about me, Do not want to hijack OP's thread

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Becky2585

 

Any thoughts on the Health & Safety aspect regarding the OP going to get a drink and not feeling well because of the heat in the shop and being shouted at for doing so?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just like to state the real position so the op doesn't get their hopes up that there might be some process they are entitled to. It's not a nice situation for employees with under 2 years service and I really feel for them as many employers use it unashamedly :(

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

I think the two year thing should be scrapped or certain things made exempt from the 2 year rule.

 

But alas that is not so

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Becky2585

 

Any thoughts on the Health & Safety aspect regarding the OP going to get a drink and not feeling well because of the heat in the shop and being shouted at for doing so?

 

I don't think a pleasant person would have acted in the way that the manager did, but I don't see anything legally actionable there. I think it's just a case that the manager has a total lack of people skills and disregard for their employees' feelings, but that's often typical amongst management :)

 

16 degrees or higher is the ambient working temperature which is recommended by the HSE, but there isn't any prescribed legal minimum or maximum temperature, and therefore I do think trying to mount an argument on this basis is unlikely to succeed.

 

There is obviously the duty on an employer to take "reasonable care" for their employees' health and safety but logically I can't see that not permitting an employee to have a drink at a certain time would be a breach - what would the ramifications be if the employee didn't have a drink? They would just go thirsty until their next break - it's unlikely that they would keel over and die or suffer any significant problems. Sadly, I think in this situation it would be viewed as an employee choosing to leave their shift and have a drink when they should have waited for their break. It would of course be different if the OP had any type of disability which meant that it was reasonable for them to do so.

 

Don't forget as well that, bizarrely, there's no specific statutory right as such to time off work for being ill!

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-issues/health-and-safety/temperature-work-heat-guide-safety-representatives

 

http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-issues/guides-workers/working-extremes-temperature-hot-or-cold

 

 

I don't think a pleasant person would have acted in the way that the manager did, but I don't see anything legally actionable there. I think it's just a case that the manager has a total lack of people skills and disregard for their employees' feelings, but that's often typical amongst management :)

16 degrees or higher is the ambient working temperature which is recommended by the HSE, but there isn't any prescribed legal minimum or maximum temperature, and therefore I do think trying to mount an argument on this basis is unlikely to succeed.

 

There is obviously the duty on an employer to take "reasonable care" for their employees' health and safety but logically I can't see that not permitting an employee to have a drink at a certain time would be a breach - what would the ramifications be if the employee didn't have a drink? They would just go thirsty until their next break - it's unlikely that they would keel over and die or suffer any significant problems. Sadly, I think in this situation it would be viewed as an employee choosing to leave their shift and have a drink when they should have waited for their break. It would of course be different if the OP had any type of disability which meant that it was reasonable for them to do so.

 

Don't forget as well that, bizarrely, there's no specific statutory right as such to time off work for being ill!

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are guidelines, sadly as becky says there's no legal maximum or minimum, only what is "reasonable" (and that's open to much interpretation)

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Thanks for all your help. I still haven't received a suspension letter but hopefully it will come tomorrow and state the exact reason for my suspension (whether it's misconduct or gross misconduct). I've been ill since that evening so I'm assuming it's a bug or something like that - I know what you're saying about the mix/max temperature and I don't think it was the heat that caused it necessarily, I definitely think it exacerbated how I felt though and this is what my manager doesn't seem to understand.

 

She had spoken to me on the one occasion about leaving the floor without permission but I'm finding it difficult to accept her reaction to what happened and the total lack of understanding of what I was trying to tell her - I wasn't leaving the floor to skive off, I covered the til and legged it to the back because I thought I was going to be sick.

 

Is that really unreasonable or am I seeing myself through rose-tinted glasses. I understand that she initially may have thought it was a repeat of the time she had spoken to me but she wouldn't even listen to an explanation as she was too busy shouting.

 

Having thought it all through a bit more calmly I remember she said that everyone was hot and asked if I was saying I couldn't work the rest of my shift. I said I didn't think I could because of how sick I felt and that's when she suspended me. Almost as though if I had said I could work the rest of my shift she wouldn't have?

 

God knows, I'm just twisting myself in knots worrying about it all now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...