Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 161 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
  • Recommended Topics

Required to increase availability or be dismissed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3479 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

My mother in law works part-time for a supermarket in England, an has worked there for over 2 years. In July there was a store meeting where everyone was advised that they will be requiring people to offer more availability for the times/days they can work due to business requirements, and that redundancies were on the cards. On the way out of the meeting they were given generic letters for them to fill in with their new availability.

 

Mother in law extended her hours of availability even though she didn't want to and she cannot commit to much more (she cares for my 2 year old a few days a week whilst i am at work). A few weeks later in August there were some redundancies in the store, seemingly for those who didn't offer the flexibility/availability required. Mother in law's new availability was accepted and her shifts she has been given has been based on that new availability since.

 

Last week she was hand delivered a letter inviting her to a meeting with her manager tomorrow to discuss further availability that the store needs their staff to commit to, and that if this is not achieved then the outcome for the staff who cannot fit in with their requirements will be a new contract offered under the new hours the store demand, and failure to sign the contract would mean they are dismissed.

 

I will be going to the meeting with her tomorrow as support. A few points i wonder if anyone could advise me on?:

 

  • I have advised her to give some further offer of availability to show willing, and to draw a line and no futher. But can they ask for further offers of availability despite seemingly accepting what she offered when looking at initial redundancies?
  • Can they make redundancies in the first step, and then in phase 2 (i.e. now) threaten dismall with no redundancy? In my mind there's nothing different to when asking people to change their hours to suit the business in July and doing it again a second time now.
  • I have suggested she writes a flexible working request as she is unavailble 3 days a week due to caring for my child and hand it to her manager in the meeting tomorrow. Is this worth her doing or likely to cause problems?
  • Basically, if she refuses to say she's available for all of the store opening times/dates and they dismiss her for this (as in give her a new contract which she doesn't accept) is this legal and does she have any avenues of recourse?

 

Any advice appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update. I'm sat in the staff room at the supermarket as I'm not allowed into the meeting as not an employee or trade union member. To be honest, this was partially expected despite last week the deputy manager (store manager was on holiday) confirming to mother in law that a family member would be allowed to accompany her.

 

I've given her a list of points/questions she can raise, waiting to see the outcome, hence me sitting in the staff room.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi jacktheband

 

I suspect that it's a large organisation with multiple units?

 

How long has she been working there?

 

Is she in the Union?

 

This sounds very much like the employees are being bullied into extending their working hours.

 

There might be business needs, but in one hand they are making employees redundant whilst extending the hours of other employees.

 

They could just employ new employees to cover the hours they

want covered. They may have various motives in carrying out such actions. But what they will have is very unhappy employees.

 

The other thing is they keep repeating the actions.

 

Even though the Terms & Conditions of employment may allow management to carry out those actions, it's goes against the governments strategy of greater flexability in the work place.

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/workplacehealth/Pages/bullyingatwork.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see what she comes back with. I'm really, really surprised that a big organisation is acting in this way. You need to find out if this is being conducted in all stores or just this one.

 

Yes, is a large organisation with multiple units. She's been working there a few years, approx 4 or 5 I think. She is not in the union.

 

Still sitting in the staff room twiddling my thumbs. :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

jacktheband, this sounds very worrying can you update the thread please :)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best the company can hope for is to threaten people with organisational changes causing redundancy. They dont really want this, they want to create new work patterns and avoid employing more people so if everyone said no and accepted redundancy they would have to shut up shop whilst they took on and trained a new work force. For this reason if MiL really doesnt want to work different or more hours she should make it clear and I bet they will say well you can carry on as you are because there are exceptional circumstances.

A friend of maine had this and he told his manager to give the hours to someone who needed the money as he didnt. he carried on as before when everyone else had to work boxing day, overnight on christmas eve etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for not updating the thread yesterday. Here is the outcome of the meeting, as mother in law came out and chatted to me straight after. Probably easier to bullet point this:

 

  • She has submitted her revised availability - the manager said thanks, he doesn't reckon this will make the grade but he will pass onto HR and will hear back soon
  • He apologised for deputy manager agreeing for me to attend, he will take that error up with the deputy manager
  • When asked what is being put into place to support those with childcare requirements: "Nothing at all."
  • When asked what difference a Flexible Working Request would have on this process: "You cannot submit one, you do not have children under 17". (i have obviously explained to her that the manager is completely wrong as obviously not aware of the changes in law in July this year for which anyone can submit a FWR)
  • She had a Flexible Working Request letter all written in her pocket ready to hand over. Due to the answer from the last point she did not hand it over. I have advised her to read the government website to reassure her that what i say is true (and the manager is wrong), and suggest that she speaks to the manager again with a print out from the website and submit the request.
  • When asked what length of time any new availability would be set in stone for (as when providing her previous increased availability in July/Aug which was accepted, it is only 2 months later when they've come back asking for further availability increases): "There is no length of time. If we accept your new hours, there's no guarentee that we won't be asking for further flexibility very soon afterwards".
  • When asked what the difference is with this current phase compared to phase 1 where redundancy was used for a few individuals (i.e. why redundancy in Aug, but simply dismissal now): mother in law said that they simply said this was two separate phases (i don't think mother in law either asked question properly or understood answer - so she was a bit vague on this one)

 

So, that's it so far. She'll hear in due course regarding whether her new availability she has offered is accepted or not. I have advised her to start applying for as many other jobs as possible as even if she has her hours accepted, the store seems to be on a downwards trajectory and it staying on there doesn't seem to be wise in the long term. It just worries me that if it doesn't work out and she gets dismissed she will have no severance pay (when others in her situation 2 months ago did) and that the whole situation doesn't seem to be balanced/fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a form of bullying, you could also add blackmail to it, if she doesn't agree to further hours then there will be a consequence for her. The manager seems to have the wrong information. There are quite a few things your MIL could do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, i don't think they are asking her to work extra hours (she is contracted for 16 hours) but more of a case they want to her to have greater availability. Currently, she does not work Sun, Mon and Tue as looks after my son. They want her to say she can work those days, so when they publish the shifts some/all of her 16 hours might be on those days. Not sure if this makes a difference, but just thought i'd mention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't make a difference, she's workng those specific hours and days for a reason because they fit around her other commitments.

 

Just to be clear, i don't think they are asking her to work extra hours (she is contracted for 16 hours) but more of a case they want to her to have greater availability. Currently, she does not work Sun, Mon and Tue as looks after my son. They want her to say she can work those days, so when they publish the shifts some/all of her 16 hours might be on those days. Not sure if this makes a difference, but just thought i'd mention.
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK a large supermarket.

 

Im guessing Sainsburys or Morrisons. It sounds more like Morrisons to be honest as that practice was commonplace in Safeway, Naming the company is a good idea as people will be familar with the policies and procedures they have.

 

Once we know the policies they have for "Moving people round the business" it can then be worked out if they have followed their own procedures.

 

If they have not it would then be worth a grievance being lodged officially. As she has 4-5 years service if they do this wrong it could end up a tribunal worthy case.

 

HOWEVER

 

***JOIN A UNION***

 

They can represent at all levels INCLUDING TRIBUNAL and may even pay tribunal costs. It may be too late for this issue but next time having a union rep will make a difference

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...