Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • UK citizens will be subject to the same rules as other Third Country Nationals. Keir Starmer to warn of 'major disruption' risk ahead of new UK-EU border checks | ITV News WWW.ITV.COM Ministers will announce measures to try to blunt the impact of the changes, writes ITV News Deputy Political Editor Anushka Asthana. | ITV National...  
    • Oh I see! thats confusing, for some reason the terms and conditions that Evri posted in that threads witness statement are slightly different than the t&cs on packlinks website. Their one says enter into a contract with the transport agency, but the website one says enter into a contract with paclink. via website: (c) Each User will enter into a contract with Packlink for the delivery of its Goods through the chosen Transport Agency. via evri witness statement in that thread: (c) Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency I read your post at #251, so I should use the second one (and changing the screenshot in the court bundle), since I am saying I have a contract with Evri? Is that correct EDIT: Oh I understand the rest of your conversation. you're saying if I was to do this i would have to fully adjust my ws to use the consumer rights act instead of rights of third parties. In that case should I just edit the terms and stick with the third parties plan?. And potentially if needed just bring up the CRA in the hearing, as you guys did in that thread  
    • First, those are the wrong terms,  read posts 240-250 of the thread ive linked to Second donough v stevenson should be more expanded. You should make refernece to the three fold duty of care test as well. Use below as guidance: The Defendant failed its duty of care to the Claimant. As found in Donoghue v Stevenson negligence is distinct and separate to any breach of contract. Furthermore, as held in the same case there need not be a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant for a duty to be established, which in the case of the Claimant on this occasion is the Defendant’s duty of care to the Claimant’s parcel whilst it is in their possession. By losing the Claimant’s parcel the Defendant has acted negligently and breached this duty of care. As such the Claimant avers that even if it is found that the Defendant not be liable in other ways, by means of breach of contract, should the court find there is no contract between Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant would still have rise to a claim on the grounds of the Defendant’s negligence and breach of duty of care to his parcel whilst it was in the Defendant’s possession, as there need not be a contract to give rise to a claim for breach of duty of care.  The court’s attention is further drawn to Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), 2 AC 605 in which a three fold test was used to determine if a duty of care existed. The test required that: (i) Harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct; (ii) A relationship of proximity must exist and (iii) It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.  
    • Thank you. here's the changes I made 1) removed indexed statement of truth 2) added donough v Stevenson in paragraph 40, just under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 paragraph about reasonable care and skill. i'm assuming this is a good place for it? 3) reworded paragraph 16 (now paragraph 12), and moved the t&cs paragraphs below it then. unless I understood you wrong it seems to fit well. or did you want me to remove the t&cs paragraphs entirely? attached is the updated draft, and thanks again for the help. WS and court bundle-1 fourth draft redacted.pdf
  • 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
      • 162 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

Overseas Role with UK Company. No Annual leave. Is this contract legal?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3427 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

Hi There,

 

I recently accepted a role for a large travel company working abroad (in Turkey). Staff are put on temporary short-term contracts with wages to a UK bank account. My main concern is the contract and the right to annual leave. As far as I am aware, UK employment law still applies as it is a temporary contract based overseas.

 

In the contract, it says employees work 6 days a week and all employees must take half a days annual leave each week. As a result, all employees essentially work 5 and a half days a week. My question was whether or not this was legal, and if so, why don't all companies do this if they don't fancy paying staff annual leave? It all seems a bit underhand and I am wondering if it is worth challenging either before or after I finish work with the company.

 

I am also concerned about the contract including an opt-out for the 48 hour a week, considering the wage is a few hundred short of £1000 a month. However, accommodation is included. With this in mind, I assume minimum wage obligations are being met by the company? I work it out as £3.50 an hour (exc. free accommodation).

 

Here is a selection of text that I am concerned about. Any advice is much appreciated.

 

 

No Overtime

"Your salary will be paid by equal monthly instalments in arrears less any deductions required by law or agreed between you and the Company. No overtime payments will be made for additional hours worked."

 

Training Costs

"You are obliged to pay a fixed amount of £300 or consent to allowing the Company to offset this amount against your final salary, as a contribution towards trainings costs incurred if:

"The Company dismisses you for poor performance or unacceptable behaviour within your first assignment period.

 

Should your final salary not cover the full amount of the training costs incurred by the Company, the Company will endeavour to recover the outstanding amount from you."

 

Taking Annual Leave

You will generally be required to take 1⁄2 day annual leave per week during your period of employment. Prior to booking any additional annual leave, you should discuss and agree the dates with your Manager. If you do not use your holiday entitlement in the relevant holiday year, the entitlement will be forfeited except in exceptional circumstances where the Company agrees in advance to the carrying over of holiday. Payment in lieu of any annual leave will only be made when you leave the Company. (For the avoidance of doubt, you will not be entitled to any payment in lieu of the entitlement in any other circumstances).

 

 

 

 

Any thoughts or legal opinions shall be much appreciated.

 

:)

 

AnonLurker

Edited by anonlurker123
Link to post
Share on other sites

What does the contract say the employers registered office is?

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

Registered in the United Kingdom.

 

Jurisdiction

Your contract shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with English Law. The parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts

 

 

In addition to the above, there is also the following I am concerned about.

 

Leaver fee

At commencement of each summer assignment with the Company, you will be financially bonded as security, against the event that your employment is terminated by reason of your resignation or dismissal prior to the end of the assignment. A payment of 25% of your first full months salary will be deducted against costs incurred in relation to administration and travel in this event.

 

So if you do not complete the full contract, they want to charge £300 for the training costs + 25% of the first months salary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can well imagine it's the kind of job that peopel leave early as it's much harder work than it looks on the telly... and the reps can be young and overly drunk... and having got a cheap flight out and somewhere to stay in a nice warm place.... I can think of a dozen reasons to dismiss for gross misconduct without trying...I think it's all ok. but it is tough, badly paid hard work.Check the leave stuff here.https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights/entitlement

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

Thanks for the reply.

 

Its not a rep role as such. More office based.

 

I have looked at the holiday entitlement .gov webpage and I am remain uncertain as to whether or not the contract is legal. Can an employer require you to work 6 days a week, and force you to take half a days annual leave per week?

 

If so, the whole concept of holiday entitlement is not legally secure from an employee point of view. Or am I missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am employer can absolutely dictate when you take your holidays and because you are a seasonal worker different rules apply about rest breaks.You sound like you do not want to take the role.. there is no obligation to!

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

I am desperate for a job atm. So I don't have much in the name of leverage. Your assumption that I am under no obligation to take the role is therefore incorrect.

 

This is why we have employment rights, otherwise in the name of economic hardship, the most efficient capitalist organisations would make employees work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week. I'm sure workers in apple affiliated workshops in Asia are under 'no obligation' to take up their role, but the reality is different.

 

I am surprised that a company can essentially withdraw annual leave via a contractual loophole.

 

Any other opinions? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

you're going to be overseas dependent on them for a roof over your head and cash

 

d you really think knowing the letter of the law and your rights is going to make a difference on the ground?

 

Go, or don't....

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

You have been offered a job with rubbish terms of employment as a fixed term contract. You can either walk away from it or accept it and go out there and feel aggrieved about it all afterwards.

Personally I wouldnt touch it with a bargepole but many people will do it and complain afterwards and that is why they dont have to change things. If no-one took up the position they would be stranded up a creek without a paddle and have to offer better terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...