Possible fabrication of documents

[Tinkerb]

Thanks Becky. I'm sure they cannot comment or advise, they just act as 'piggy in the middle' so to speak. But they definitely are pushing to for us to accept wording we're not comfortable with. Eg, insisting that the settlement is full and final (which I agree to), for now and the future, but only on my side. I think it should be full and final on BOTH sides. Although I'm not sure if there is some way of them retaliating, but I don't trust them not to.

[steampowered]

Yes, I think you should be asking for full and final settlement on both sides. If the employer wants to bring a claim against you they should reveal it now.

 

Also consider whether you need to ask for a clause that the employer must provide a neutral reference if asked as part of the settlement.

[becky2585]

If you haven't agreed wording yet then the full and final settlement clause absolutely should be reciprocal. It should also expressly state that the parties agree to bear their own costs. As SP says, an agreed reference can be attached, and you would also usually include a confidentiality and a mutual non derogatory or disparaging statements clause.

[Tinkerb]

Good morning, and thank you both. All the usual confidentiality stuff is there, together with a 'basic' reference, which actually only confirms the length of employment, which is disappointing, and they're refusing to move on the wording. There were no issues throughout Hubs employment (love that little name that Emmzzi (?) gave earlier, but their pride is hurt and it must be sticking in their throats to say anything positive.

 

Hubs has been asking around too, and we're both coming up with the same answer, full and final on both sides. The fact they are refusing that wording (because they say it would stop them taking action if the agreement is breached), makes me wonder what they could do in retaliation.

 

I may be 'over thinking' this, but given the lies and fabricated evidence they have created, I simply can't help but wonder what else they could or would fabricate in an effort to cause me grief and get the monies back.

[becky2585]

There's a pretty easy workaround to that.

 

 

The clause would simply have to be reworded to a clause in full and final settlement of all current and potential future claims, save for claims for accrued pension rights, personal injury of which you are currently unaware, and claims to enforce the Agreement.

[steampowered]

The statement that F+F wording would stop them taking action if the agreement is breached is nonsense. Still, it is easy to address this by including the wording becky has suggested!

[Tinkerb]

The statement that F+F wording would stop them taking action if the agreement is breached is nonsense. !

My thoughts exactly! Either someone doesn't know what they're doing (which I believe is the case, as it's only a junior member of staff dealing with it), or they will try and retaliate, which is unlikely.

[Tinkerb]

Would just like to say thank you to everyone that helped with the various trials and tribulations that Hubs has had to endure this year, and the whole fiasco is now over.

 

Fingers crossed that doesn't turn out to be 'famous last words'

[steampowered]

Well done, good news and thanks for letting us know!

[Emmzzi]

well done!

[Tinkerb]

Can someone explain what this means please? It's taken from ACAS site: I don't understand what is meant about the 'not payable under general contract law'. :-s

 

"How does a declaration by the Respondent affect enforcement of my settlement?

It is possible for the Respondent to make a declaration that the money owed to you is not payable by them under the general law of contract. In order to do this they must make a separate application to either the court or the Employment Tribunal.

If such an application is made then you cannot continue to enforce your settlement in court until the declaration application is determined.

However, if you are sure that no such declaration has been made you can advise the HCEO and the court of this by signing the certification on the Enforcevent form"

[Emmzzi]

all sorts. but for one, are you taking the correct legal entity to court?

[Tinkerb]

Ah, I see. I'm just looking at enforcing a COT3, if necessary, and it seemed to me like a bit of a 'get out' clause. But that does lead me to another question: if there are 2 respondents, that could mean that each will say the other is responsible for paying, couldn't it?

[Emmzzi]

Ah, I see. I'm just looking at enforcing a COT3, if necessary, and it seemed to me like a bit of a 'get out' clause. But that does lead me to another question: if there are 2 respondents, that could mean that each will say the other is responsible for paying, couldn't it?

 

maybe. So you need to be very clear which legal entity (partnership, ltd co etc) you are taking to court and which is awarded against.

[Tinkerb]

Thanks Emmzzi, I'll take some advice on it.