Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Tangliss, if you can't upload the letter, could you tell us what the heading is please? My understanding is it should say 'Letter before claim' or similar. HB
    • Do you think I should send the CCA request now then instead of waiting? I really can do without the stress. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you for responding.
    • How was the "receiver" appointed and what is their role? Appointed by the lender under the terms of their security on the loan (sometimes referred to as "LPA Receiver")? Or are they acting for you in insolveny? What's the current role of the agent?
    • Wait for more replies, but that letter to me can be interpreted as a letter before action. Ignoring it can have consequences. The court to impose sanctions for failure in responding to a letter of claim.
    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Return To Work Interviews


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3274 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

Hello,

Thanks for adding me!

My question is (and I have tried researching here and others) before asking, so can anybody please clarify, when a RTW has to be completed by, basically my wife has been back at 4 days and still has not been approached to have one.

Is there a time limit for instance, that if her employer has not completed by, then it becomes null and void and the 2 weeks sickness cannot be added to her records. (I only ask as this is "hearsay" at the moment)

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

If she's not in a safety critical role, a rtw interview is usually a "are you better?".

Many office managers don't have time and/or will to sit down and have a proper formal rtw interview.

They're just glad you're back and hope you don't go sick again.

The sickness goes in your wife's record despite not sitting a rtw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as far as the "Back to Work" interview it depends on the specific terms and conditions of the employer. My Employee's state that "Return to Work" will take place no later than four weeks from the date that we return to work, although in reality it takes place within three days. As for anything becoming "Null & Void" I have no idea about that as absence is absence as far as I know. Perhaps a more knowledgeable person will be able to give a more informative answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a chance unless she works under a bizarre procedure which sets out as above.

 

Sickness is always recorded interview or not.

RTW's should be done (check the local policy to see if it is a Must or Should) and can be used as mitigation in sickness hearings where disciplinary action is considered (e.g. you failed to follow your own procedure) and by not doing so your caused the person to be off longer/go back off again.

 

However there is also an onus on the staff member as well to raise concerns if they need support to keep them in work.

 

The local policy is key here but even if it isn't followed i give her zero chance in making those days go "poof" off her record.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will not stop the recording of an absence as it is a record of a true event. The action will probably not be activated and contributory to your attendance record if the absence is a direct result to a disability. For that you would need to be covered under the Equality Act 2010. Occupational health decide those recommendation.

 

Now the fun part as to a back to work interview and dependent if occupational health have done a back to work plan for you

 

A back to work interview on your return and timescales will be dependent on the reason for your absence. If your absence was due to a cold a back to work comment can be all that is needed.

 

If your absence was due say to surgery then management will have to do an immediate risk assesment as to your capability if not already done through Occupational health. You might be on medication, mobility impaired etc

 

The legislation is: The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

 

Risk assessment

 

3.—(1) Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of—

 

(a)the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and

 

(b)the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking,

 

 

 

This is statutory duty on the employer and a Strict Liability Offence if the employer fails not comply

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atlas01, It was not a question of her wanting it to "Poof away" the comment was hearsay and clarification was all that was required. she hasn't been off work for 10 years so hence the question, but thanks for the info

Not a chance unless she works under a bizarre procedure which sets out as above.

 

Sickness is always recorded interview or not.

RTW's should be done (check the local policy to see if it is a Must or Should) and can be used as mitigation in sickness hearings where disciplinary action is considered (e.g. you failed to follow your own procedure) and by not doing so your caused the person to be off longer/go back off again.

 

However there is also an onus on the staff member as well to raise concerns if they need support to keep them in work.

 

The local policy is key here but even if it isn't followed i give her zero chance in making those days go "poof" off her record.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will not stop the recording of an absence as it is a record of a true event. The action will probably not be activated and contributory to your attendance record if the absence is a direct result to a disability. For that you would need to be covered under the Equality Act 2010. Occupational health decide those recommendation.

 

Now the fun part as to a back to work interview and dependent if occupational health have done a back to work plan for you

 

A back to work interview on your return and timescales will be dependent on the reason for your absence. If your absence was due to a cold a back to work comment can be all that is needed.

 

If your absence was due say to surgery then management will have to do an immediate risk assesment as to your capability if not already done through Occupational health. You might be on medication, mobility impaired etc

 

The legislation is: The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

 

Risk assessment

 

3.—(1) Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of—

 

(a)the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and

 

(b)the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking,

 

 

 

This is statutory duty on the employer and a Strict Liability Offence if the employer fails not comply

 

 

What "legally" contributes a risk assessment?

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

Atlas01, It was not a question of her wanting it to "Poof away" the comment was hearsay and clarification was all that was required.

 

No worries it was the shortest (but clearest) version i could think of after typing all day :)

 

When i check my personal employment dictionary for the word hearsay it says "Word used to summarise elements of a procedure or conversation that neither exists or happened"

 

Ignore it at all costs!

 

 

""What "legally" contributes a risk assessment?""

 

Identify the hazard

Decide who can be harmed and how

Implement Controls

Finish at low risk

Review it

 

Guess who was on a risk assessment course last week?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup it shows. :)

 

My father is Nebosh and Iosh and also trains :)

 

However, if employing 5 or less, I believe the "Risk assessment" does actually not need to be recorded :)

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

Hello,

Thanks for adding me!

My question is (and I have tried researching here and others) before asking, so can anybody please clarify, when a RTW has to be completed by, basically my wife has been back at 4 days and still has not been approached to have one.

Is there a time limit for instance, that if her employer has not completed by, then it becomes null and void and the 2 weeks sickness cannot be added to her records. (I only ask as this is "hearsay" at the moment)

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Dave

 

Definitely hearsay. I've never had a return to work interview in my life and there's no legal requirement for one - the sickness absence will just be logged.

 

It's probably a compliment that the employee felt one wasn't needed - my view is that return to work interviews are usually reserved for persistent intermittent absences to prevent malingering, or for long term absences where work adjustments may need to be made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...