Possible fabrication of documents

[Tinkerb]

Thanks for your reassurance Pusillanimous. My case is strong, so I need to make sure I don't do something stupidly wrong that affects my case. Would you recommend a deadline required, or does the tribunal set one?

[Tinkerb]

Good afternoon.

 

As the title suggests, as a percentage, what would you suggest is a sensible level to settle a claim, 10 days before a hearing? I know it will be subjective, and each person will have a different view, and it also depends on the merits of the case, but I'd really like to get some opinions.

 

I believe the respondents are now 'panicking', and don't want to attend a hearing as it will be 'inconvenient', but the case is strong, and there have also been attempts to pervert the course of justice, which I believe will be proved at the hearing. There's a part of me that would love that to be proved, as, I understand that the tribunal will have a duty to report that to relevant authorities, although I may be wrong on that.

 

What are you opinions please?

[Conniff]

Would need to know the background to why the tribunal has been called to make any kind of guestimate.

[flooz]

apologies

[Tinkerb]

Apologies for any confusion, using a different device, and used the wrong log in , so, to put it right:

 

Thanks for answering Connif. It's a complex case of constructive dismissalicon, and TUPE. Originally the respondent refused to enter conciliation, then made a derisory offer to settle, then a 'final offer', which was declined. Now it's close to the hearing date, and obviously their offers to settle are getting a little higher, but still only 50% of the claim. Although nothing is ever guaranteed, I have no reason to think I'll lose the case, and part of me would simply prefer to go to a hearing. But I'm aware that if I decline a sensible offer by the respondents to settle, it may go against me at the hearing. Hence my question.

[Emmzzi]

hubs TUPE case? It's easier for u if you keep all your posts to one thread, it'll bump back up the page when you add comments.

 

It seems a simple case to me *but* you have mentioned the faking of documents so you're expecting a dity fight. And you dont always win those.... so really you are asking for the utcome of a gamble.

[Tinkerb]

Thanks Emmzzi, yep, that's the one. I sort of thought a different question might be best with a new thread. Can you delete this one then please?

[Emmzzi]

I am not site staff but I am sure someone will be along soon to merge threads

[Tinkerb]

Ah, I thought perhaps you were. I'm just about to post an update on the previous thread, so this one can just 'go'.

[Tinkerb]

Update: application for disclosure in native format was denied as it wasn't explained in the application the importance of the document. Oh well.

 

After a couple of insulting and derisory offers to settle by the respondent, and now being close to the hearing date (fee for which has been paid), there is currently an offer on the table at just below 50% of the statement of claim (which HASN'T been exaggerated). Obviously, there is never any guarantees, but would that percentage be classed as a 'sensible' offer?

[honeybee13]

Threads merged.

 

HB

[Tinkerb]

Thanks HB. I seem to have made a right pigs ear of things today, my sincere apologies.

[honeybee13]

It's OK, don't worry.

 

HB

[Tinkerb]

Quick question please: once an amount has been agreed, what would you suggest is a reasonable "specified time" in which to make payment? 7 days? 14 days? 21 days? More, or less?

[steampowered]

50% is a sensible offer in most cases.

 

 

I'd say 14 days is reasonable.

[Tinkerb]

Thank you steampowered, that's very helpful, and echoes my thoughts too.

[maleabcd]

C an I suggest you ask under the Data Protection Act and freedom of information act all documentations that they hold about you including memos, emails, and any electronic data.

this will show an audit trail of letters sent and received.

[Conniff]

The freedom of information act is for use against a public body.

[maleabcd]

The freedom of information act is for use against a public body.

I didn't know if the employer was a public body or not however, the data protection act request would show an audit trail of information held. This could be useful in that it can show dates times of emails; or when letters memos etc. were made.

[Tinkerb]

Thank you everyone. The documents are not currently an issue, we know they're fake, and they know that we know, lol

[Tinkerb]

Further quick question: can a respondent, after a cot3 settlement, still make an application for costs?

 

I've googled and searched as best I can, but cannot find a definitive answers.

[becky2585]

Further quick question: can a respondent, after a cot3 settlement, still make an application for costs?

 

I've googled and searched as best I can, but cannot find a definitive answers.

 

Yes they can, unless the COT3 expressly states that the parties agree not to pursue each other for costs.

[Tinkerb]

Thanks Becky.

[Tinkerb]

Why oh why do ACAS appear to be on the respondent's side

[becky2585]

Why oh why do ACAS appear to be on the respondent's side

 

Theoretically they are supposed to be neutral - I suppose it would be out of their remit to actively suggest COT3 wording or offer you advice on it.

 

Unless you behaved unreasonably in bringing proceedings then the chances of a costs award being made are still relatively low.