Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

care leave (NHS)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3390 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

I work for the NHS and on Sunday my 1 year old daughter ended up in hospital after a visit to the out of hours GP.

 

This was 11pm Sunday night and was awake right through the night while they did tests on her as she was admitted with masdotitis which the doctors their told us it was serious that they needed to start her on IV antibiotics right away which could possibly turn into surgery and they warned us that she could lose her hearing in 1 ear maybe both and worst case she could die from it if they can't get onto of the infection. They said she would need to be in at least 48 hours min on IV antibiotics before they can consider anything else a CT was also req as well as bloods taken. We were awake all night 4am they canulated her shortly after the antibiotics given followed by 6am moved to a ward.

 

I called work at 10am as my shift started 11.30am to inform my ward manager of the problem

I asked for 2 days care leave and her response was where is your wife.

 

I said she's gone home to get a couple of hours sleep then coming back to let me go home and get some sleep. She moaned at me for a bit then said you can have it today but you'll have to take a paid holiday for Tuesday refusing to honour a 2nd day for care leave.

 

I called my union and they said i am entitled to 1 week over the year care leave subject to management discretion and that it might be that she's thinking of other times you might need care leave later in the year.

 

So it was left at that. I was thinking of taking the matter further and don't want to be barking down the wrong tree before i do.

 

Do i have the right to argue that I should be allowed 2 days care leave and not forced to use holidays?

 

Any advice appreciated thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

the leave is to organise cover and not to do the caring yourself, so stictly, your employer is correct.

 

Ths is not technically an emergency, although it is serious and upsetting - see here

 

https://www.gov.uk/time-off-for-dependants/your-rights

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a matter of policy and compassion over law. Legally, time off for dependants is there to cover ONLY the immediate emergency and for you to make alternative provision for care, however it would seem that the NHS actually has a policy written into your T&Cs which covers it. The problem there is the word 'discretion' - personally I hate it because in employment contracts there will inevitably be a concern over discrimination of one person over another, but since it is there it would seem that in this case they have the right to exercise that 'discretion' and allow one day but not the other. The compassion element sadly has been missed altogether and I can only imagine that the person exercising their discretion has not been in a similar situation themselves!

 

Also worth pointing out that emergency leave (or by whatever name an employer calls it) does not have to be paid, so maybe the ward manager in question may argue that whilst one eye was on operational efficiency the other was on the fact that you may not have wished to potentially lose two days pay so offered paid leave instead?

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a matter of policy and compassion over law. Legally, time off for dependants is there to cover ONLY the immediate emergency and for you to make alternative provision for care, however it would seem that the NHS actually has a policy written into your T&Cs which covers it. The problem there is the word 'discretion' - personally I hate it because in employment contracts there will inevitably be a concern over discrimination of one person over another, but since it is there it would seem that in this case they have the right to exercise that 'discretion' and allow one day but not the other. The compassion element sadly has been missed altogether and I can only imagine that the person exercising their discretion has not been in a similar situation themselves!

 

Also worth pointing out that emergency leave (or by whatever name an employer calls it) does not have to be paid, so maybe the ward manager in question may argue that whilst one eye was on operational efficiency the other was on the fact that you may not have wished to potentially lose two days pay so offered paid leave instead?

 

 

 

I looked at the trust policy and this is what it says......

 

1.1. Purpose

The aim of such leave is to provide a caring response to emergency need. The

time should be used to deal with the emergency and if necessary make longer term arrangements for any further days that may be needed. This leave is essentially short term and normally with pay.For most cases, one or two days should be sufficient to deal with the problem.For example, if a child falls ill with chickenpox, the leave should be enough to help the employee cope with the crisis – to deal with the immediate care of the child, visiting the doctor if necessary, and to make longer term care arrangements. The employee is not entitled to take one week’s emergency care leave to look after a sick child.This leave is for unforeseen situations. If employees know in advance that they are going to need time off, they should ask for leave in the usual way. This may involve taking annual leave or some other form of leave.

 

The types of situation that may require special leave include.

(a) illness of a dependant, as defined above;

(b) breakdown of normal carer arrangements;

© making arrangements for longer term coping with a care problem;

(d) to spend time with a child/close relative who is terminally ill; or

(e) other urgent need in respect of the care situation.

 

1.4.1 Up to the equivalent of one working week plus one working day (pro-

rata i.e. based on the working weekly hours of the individual employee)

emergency carer leave may be granted in any one annual leave year. Leave

granted will be with pay.

 

1.4.2 In certain circumstances, staff may wish to spend time with someone,

who is terminally ill, or who develops a sudden, life-threatening

illness/condition, perhaps as a result of an accident. In this situation, leave

with pay may be granted, provided the total period does

not exceed one working week plus one working day.

 

 

So having looked at this again I get at least 1 weeks pay and it says as an example for chicken pox 1-2 days should be enough and further days would at least need you to see a doctor.

 

Of course my situation falls further down the list where it was in fact unforseen circumstancies and I would have fallen into a catagory where I could have infact taken 1 weeks CL if needed under the situation I was in as my daughter while not critical enough to be on ICU we were informed it was critical to the point they said she might end up there if things don't work out over the next 48 hours which is why I asked my manager for 2 days CL to cover the 48hr period and would have informed her as stated to her if anything changed and I needed more time I would have let her know.

 

She was more bothered about where my wife was to look after our daughter as I could have been in work she said.

 

So I'm going to take it up with HR. while I appreciate the fact I had the 2nd day off as a holiday my manager as you stated showed no compassion at all and expected me to attend the 2nd day which for me was a 12 hour shift 7-7 leaving my wife to care for our daughter through the night and all through the day and expecting me to concentrate enough to look after patients while my daughter could have ended up in ICU possibly life changing surgery.

 

So as selfish as I may sound I still think I was entitled to more than 1 days CL and my manager was basically been an ass over it.

 

I appreciate all the advice given so far though thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked with the Head Nurse for our department and it appears that the NHS changed their policy a year or 2 ago and only allow 1 days CL at a time regardless of the situation due to staff abusing it in the past. It's a shame they couldn't take things like hospital addmission into account

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...