Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Terms of employment - is this unusual?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3281 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I recently received an offer letter for a new job. One of the stated terms of employment is: "You may be required to work flexibly and/or additional hours may be requested for the proper performance of your duties for which you will receive no additional payment"


This role is salaried as opposed to hourly pay. Is this a statement typical of salaried positions or is it something more ominous? My primary concern is the 'additional hours may be requested' part - since it is a request does that imply that I can decline the request?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.


When I was salaried, nearly all my contracts had a clause similar to your one. Additional hours are supposed to be 'reasonable' I believe, although that's hard to define.


I expect the forum guys will be along over the course of the day with more informed views for you.


My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with HB, not unusual at all...


The 'request' is likely to come at a time when the organisation is at a critical point like end of year / contract where additional work is required to complete all of the tasks required and to be fair, I'd think long and hard before refusing the 'request' if you see what I mean.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the wording may vary but the essence is the same for most salaried jobs. Overtime may be paid if the extra hours are onerous. The flexibility should work both ways. Often core hours or duties are expressed and the rest is down to individuals to manage their time and workload

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may also find that although any additional time goes unpaid, that you're able to accrue TOIL (Time off in lieu) and then recover hours worked at quieter times.


Watch that you're not going under NMW at any time too. Good luck in the new job.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on the company (usually in corporate-sized firms), I would find it more unusual for those terms not to be included in a contract. You will probably - and hopefully - find however that you are not often expected/required to do a significant amount of overtime, and it is just something they 'force' you to agree to initially to cover their backs should it happen in future.


It's not very fair in my opinion, but when there are several people competing for most jobs, they can unfortunately get away with it.


Hope it all goes well for you and it's not something you need to worry about. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto. Salaried, with a similar clause and not unusual to work 12 hours plus some days, but much less on others.

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






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

As its hot and i've had a few "sherries" my reply must be read or sung to the tune of Mr Tom Jones


It's not unusual to be shafted in this way

It's not unusual for your boss, not to say ok

but when I see them legally withholding your.... salaried pay

It's not unusual to see me cry,

oh I wanna' die

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...