Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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

work place and allergies


Guest
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3163 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'm trying to find out where an colleague stands legally in possibly being dismissed for the work place due to a severe allergy ?

 

The person in question has a severe allergy to Chilli powder which has worsened since they started work in our office (around 50 people in the workplace) - they did declare they had the allergy when they started employment in the medical we have to have as part of the job- but it has increased in its severity

 

They have had several severe reactions at work where they had to be given an epi pen and ambulances called , resulting in several A/E visits. Even just walking into our rest room at work if someone has a microwave ready meal that has a trace of chilli powder in can be enough to start a reaction . They have now been stood down from work (with full pay) whilst the HR dept try to figure out what to do. They have been referred to the OHD dept , there own GP , an allergy clinic and a disability advisor who all basically say there is nothing they can do apart from advising them to take anti-histamines and keep an epi pen with them at all times

 

even if they re-deployed them to a different office its impossible to know if someone may walk in that may have had chilli in something they ate ( one severe reaction started after they sat next to someone who had been to nandos for lunch !! )

 

Obviously they are now very worried they may be dismissed on capability grounds , one suggestion they have put foreward is that when they are at work people should not be allowed to bring in food that contains any type of chilli powder ? Which i personally think is un-workable ??

 

From what i understand the HR dept/ senior management are concerned that as they know about this severe allergy and because it becomes life threatening very quickly they cannot guarantee there safety in the workplace and would be held responsible if the person died etc

 

any pointers or does it look as if they may lose there employment due to capability issues ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the obligation is to make reasonable adjustments - not to eliminate any threat altogether.

 

The case law stipulates that an employer can fairly dismisss in these circumstances if no adjustments can be found. Would working from home be an option?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree entirely. If the reaction is SO severe that all it takes is to be in the vicinity of somebody who has eaten chilli, then I do not see that any employer would be able to accommodate your friend in a role which involves proximity to people. To suggest that an entire workforce is forbidden from eating chilli would be an 'unreasonable' expectation rather than a 'reasonable' adjustment.

 

What about treatment? Aversion therapy of some sort?

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

unless the employer is in the business of processing chillies then the company has little it can do to mitigate things. Some people become sensitised to materials they work with that they can seek medical retirement ( knew a person who became sensitised to fur when they worked for a vet so they were released with a small pension) but other than that the employer is entitled to look at the capability route if they wish. Is there an occupatuional pension scheme that may offer some help on severance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the obligation is to make reasonable adjustments - not to eliminate any threat altogether.

 

The case law stipulates that an employer can fairly dismisss in these circumstances if no adjustments can be found. Would working from home be an option?

 

Unfortunately working from home is not an option due to the type of work we do , it has been suggested they get put in a smaller office with less people but still dont see that as a viable option

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the replies all

 

the person has been to allergy clinics , GP , occupational health , and a disability adviser who have basically said there is no further treatment they can offer....

 

They have only been employed around 2 years , probably a bit less . We do have a pension scheme but not sure how much of a pension they would get for under 2 years and declared unfit to work ? So l looks like they may have to go down the capability route :S

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the replies all

 

the person has been to allergy clinics , GP , occupational health , and a disability adviser who have basically said there is no further treatment they can offer....

 

They have only been employed around 2 years , probably a bit less . We do have a pension scheme but not sure how much of a pension they would get for under 2 years and declared unfit to work ? So l looks like they may have to go down the capability route :S

 

That's a highly frustrating situation.

 

Is there any prognosis that the condition might improve? I suspect not when it comes to allergies that severe (which is probably likely to constitute a disability) but it might offer a glimmer of hope!

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is normally a qualifying period for the pension scheme to be considered an option and I have not seen one of less then 2 years. However, get them to have a read through the scheme rules for ill-health retirement but the condition must be considered permanent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem i see here pension wise is we all know this must be a nightmare for the person but rules are clinical. Is it possible that the person could work fully if there wasn't a chilli in the vicinity?, yes

 

That's the problem, no chilli, nothing wrong with them, when your back or knees pack up, your pretty stuffed whatever you do, when it's a triggered condition removing the trigger removes the problem, how you could do that i've no idea but i doubt any pension rules would care.

 

Strangely enough i thought about this thread in the office last week when i asked what the bowl of what looked like pot pourri was, it was chilli in a form i've never seen before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

thanks again for all the replies. The angle the person is going for after work finishes its risk assessment is that nobody be allowed to bring in any food that may contain chilli - unworkable in my eyes as not only is there all sorts of people goiing in and out the building , there is different departments etc

 

Also IF the workplace did say "nobody can bring food in that may contain chilli" - what if someone says "no" , i like chilli con carne for my lunch and i am going to continue to eat it at work ? would they be open to discip ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks again for all the replies. The angle the person is going for after work finishes its risk assessment is that nobody be allowed to bring in any food that may contain chilli - unworkable in my eyes as not only is there all sorts of people goiing in and out the building , there is different departments etc

 

Also IF the workplace did say "nobody can bring food in that may contain chilli" - what if someone says "no" , i like chilli con carne for my lunch and i am going to continue to eat it at work ? would they be open to discip ??

 

 

Academic, I cant see the employer thinking it's possible. Contractors, customer visits, the postman, the guy that delivers the water. are they all to be chilli free too? They can't hermetically seal the building. Disciplinary is academic when your friend is in A&E, really.

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

Have to agree that this is a completely unreasonable expectation. Not just the fact that this would unfairly restrict others in their freedom to eat their own choice of food, but also the potential scale. What about non-food items containing chilli? I am presuming here that Capsaicin would be the aggravating component, so what about somebody who has treated a muscular ache with Deep Heat? Many medicines also contain Capsaicin.

 

Totally unworkable unfortunately

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

thanks again for all the replies. The angle the person is going for after work finishes its risk assessment is that nobody be allowed to bring in any food that may contain chilli - unworkable in my eyes as not only is there all sorts of people goiing in and out the building , there is different departments etc

 

Also IF the workplace did say "nobody can bring food in that may contain chilli" - what if someone says "no" , i like chilli con carne for my lunch and i am going to continue to eat it at work ? would they be open to discip ??

 

Theoretically that would be a failure to follow a reasonable(?) management instruction and so could be a disciplinary situation. But as others have pointed out, it just isn't workable - it isn't a reasonable adjustment to expect the entire workforce to abstain from all chilli products.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree that this is a completely unreasonable expectation. Not just the fact that this would unfairly restrict others in their freedom to eat their own choice of food, but also the potential scale. What about non-food items containing chilli? I am presuming here that Capsaicin would be the aggravating component, so what about somebody who has treated a muscular ache with Deep Heat? Many medicines also contain Capsaicin.

 

Totally unworkable unfortunately

 

Even if the employer would consider this you say that the allergy is so sensitive that even a trace in a meal can set off an allergic reaction, and sitting next to someone who'd eaten at Nandos. So even if the employer was willing to ban meals containing chilli it wouldn't provide a practical solution. Other staff may be unaware that their meal contained tint traces of chilli - I don't think it's a compulsory allergen warning - and I can't believe any employer would think it reasonable to tell staff what type of food they could eat outside the office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks again for all the replies. The angle the person is going for after work finishes its risk assessment is that nobody be allowed to bring in any food that may contain chilli - unworkable in my eyes as not only is there all sorts of people goiing in and out the building , there is different departments etc

 

Also IF the workplace did say "nobody can bring food in that may contain chilli" - what if someone says "no" , i like chilli con carne for my lunch and i am going to continue to eat it at work ? would they be open to discip ??

 

I agree with you. It's a totally ridiculous suggestion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

UPDATE -

 

Employee was dismissed with a months notice on capability grounds , as the employer could not assure her safety at work ( was put on the "re-deployment list for the months notice period- whilst still suspended on full pay - the idea moving the person into a smaller dept with less people would have lowered the risk, unfortunately could not find a suitable job within the organisation, but was successful in finding another job outside )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for updating us, it is appreciated.

 

I wish I had a helpful suggestion to make, seems a lot of work environments may be problematic.

 

Glad a new job has been found.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...