Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
    • Frankly I think you should go to a hearing unless you feel especially nervous . If you have any worries then you should follow our link to find out about a county court familiarisation visit     You shouldn't forget that county Court judgements are very helpful but they are not binding. They are only persuasive.  It is difficult to see you losing but it might be better to be there in order to counter any arguments from the other side
  • 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 
      • 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

sickness and disciplinary


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3475 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

After some help if anyone can.

 

My work colleague and friend hurt her shoulder in January and had 4 weeks off sick, she consulted her doctor, who signed her off for this period. On return to work she came back on reduced hours and light duties for several weeks. Eventually, she went back to her job on normal hours and duties. However, it quickly caused pain to her shoulder again, after seeing her doctor again, she was treated with a steriod injection, where she had to take a few days off work on the advise of her doctor. She returned to work, and several weeks later was back in the same situation with her shoulder, and had the same steriod injection and 3rd occassion of absence, as advised by doctor.

When she returned to work, she had the usual back to work interview, where she was informed that Occupational Health would be come involved.

She later in that week, received a phone call from OH, who assessed her problem with her shoulder over the phone and came back with a list of light duties for her to do until she saw the consultant at the hospital. ( she was referred in Jan, when the injury first happened).

However, these light duties were not followed and she was put on normal duties, and has since ended up off sick for 4 weeks, due to the pain in caused her.

Today, shes returned to work, shes been told that light duties will be followed, however, they are now taking her through the disciplinary process.

We work for a huge week known company and have a union, who she is going to contact when she gets home.

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this, or any advise or support that I can pass on??

Many thanks for any help given.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi jules

 

It sounds very genuine, also the company has been kept informed with the involvement of Occupational Health. The company probably know as much as your friend does about her health. I wouldn't be overly concerned, it might merely because they can and it's part of their procedures.

 

Have a read of the following:-

 

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4197

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most large companies should have a procedure for Prolonged illness or Linked Absence

 

The danger here is that she did not stick to the light duties. The rep would have to fight against the company accusing her of making her injuries worse by not following the return to work plan.

Ideally when asked to operate outside the agreed return to work plan she should of refused and called the union in as part of the grievance process.

The union will obviously have to investigate how this breach happened. My Counter argument would be that her line manager owed her a duty of care and therefore should not have asked her to deviate from the return to work plan.

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

The disiplinary I suspect will more than likely focus on her not stickingt o light duties. Be ready to argue the counter point with the rep...

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

Most large companies have an absence management policy where (for instance) 3 episodes of absence in a specific period (6 , 9 or 12 months), triggers an absence investigation process. It does not necessarily mean the employee will have a disciplinary warning, it usually just means that they have to follow the procedure with every employee in order to be fair. More than likely once it is evident that the periods of sickness are linked due to recurring injury I think it unlikely they will take it further.

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

The above is certanly also true, but normally there is an investigatory meeting before the disciplinary.

 

IT would help to know the ocmpany as we have peopel here that know how their procedures run. I for one know how the procedures run for One of the biggest retail chains

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 is no requirement for an investigatory meeting - a return to work interview (provided there's a completed form or notes), will suffice.

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

Depends on the comnpany.

 

If it is attendance related they must follow thier procedure (Esp if they recognize the trade union there and have a partnership agreement)

 

My old company process was Welcome back > If trigger point reached > Attendance Review Investigatory Meeting > If needed Disciplinary

 

Any breach form that procedure led to successful appeals and in a few of my cases reinstatement after 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'm not disagreeing with you SS, if the company says in their procedure that they will have an investigatory meeting before deciding to proceed with disciplinary then of course they must adhere to what their policy states. I was only saying that there is no requirement for an investigatory meeting to be included in a procedure.

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

Doh ok HoneyBee, Wasnt aware of that :)

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...