Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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
      • 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

Shambolic Disciplinary hearing - advice needed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3194 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 All,

 

I am looking for advice for a family member of mine who out of the blue has been handed a disciplinary hearing letter today to attend the hearing on Monday at 10am.

 

Ok so let me tell you all the story so far -

 

This lad has just turned 19 years old and has been employed by a financial advice business as an administrator since September 2014. He was taken on with the promise of further training to further his career in the finance world - as yet no training whatsoever.

 

This Monday just gone out of the blue they had a new lady start with the business - it is a small business with around 6 employees in total with approx 3 in the office at a time including him but typically none of the management are in the office as they are out visiting clients. There have been numerous times when he has been left on his own in the office with nobody doing any lone worker checks throughout the day to see if he is ok and not hit his head and in need of urgent medical attention.

 

So the new lady started Monday and has been for the whole of this week telling him how she wants to learn all of his work he does and he had no idea so has been happily showing her what it is he does - so basically training her in his role unbeknown to him.

 

Then today as soon as he walked in his boss took him outside and said to him that he had a letter for him and it was very very very serious - bit of scaremongering thrown in to the mix here - obviously thinking because he is young he might get scared and just hand his notice in.

 

Anyway he has opened the letter in front of his boss and had a bit of a chuckle and said you cannot be serious etc and told him to his face the answers to each charge on the letter. He remained at work for the rest of the day.

 

So the content of the letter goes like this -

 

I am writing to inform you that you are required to attend a disciplinary hearing on Monday 27th of July (Less than 48 hours notice given) at 10am at blah blah (names not shown for obvious reasons)

 

The purpose of the hearing is to consider whether disciplinary action should be taken against you in respect of the alleged misconduct or gross misconduct.

 

The allegation is that -

 

You failed to turn up for work until 11.30am on Wednesday 14th of July and you did not notify me or anyone else of your absence

 

You were asleep at your desk when I came in to the office on Thursday 15th of July

 

I understand that following an alleged assault on you last week you took money from the assailant in return for withdrawing a statement to the police. You were then seen counting rolls of cash at your desk during working hours. (He was assaulted outside of the work place - at the weekend and nothing to do with work and the lad that did it offered a good will gesture of £200 if he didn't go to the police as he was on bail at the time of the assault. No proof of cash changing hands as he has done nothing and left it to the police - the money he had was his birthday money which was the day before this alleged incident which he was counting during his dinner break at his desk)

 

You have on numerous occasions fabricated information which has led to various problems including invoices being unpaid

 

I have previously spoken to you about comments you made to blah blah (former co - worker left the business 3 months ago) that were deemed inappropriate

 

You have been seen on numerous occasions visiting non business websites during working hours. In particular you were warned about this on 29th of April and 05th of May

 

If there are any documents you wish to be considered at the hearing please provide copies as soon as possible. If you do not have those documents please provide details so that they can be obtained.

 

The hearing will follow the disciplinary procedure which is attached. If you are found guilty of misconduct we may decide to issue a written warning or a final warning or dismiss you with notice, or pay in lieu, however if you are found guilty of gross misconduct you may be dismissed without notice or pay in lieu of notice.

 

Now for me I would say they are cutting costs and just going straight for gross misconduct.

 

The case they have is pretty pathetic and has no real substance. This appears to be an underhand tactic to get rid of him via gross misconduct on Monday.

 

I have his responses here to the allegations and will await a response to the initial post before posting his response.

 

It is key that you all know that not once have they advised they are investigating him nor have they given a verbal written or any form of warning to him. they have had an informal chat nor addressed any of these issues they have been investigating with his knowledge.

 

Thanks for your input

Edited by Daveeddie1978
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me this is a fact finding rather than a full disciplinary

 

I cannot see how they can dismiss without a fact finding before a full disciplinary but the problem is:

 

You have less that 2 years service so expect to be walking mate with no come back

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt here that the employer wants your friend out - either justifiably or whether the charges have been fabricated.

 

One has to ask whether there is ANY substance to ANY of the allegations mentioned?

 

Irrespective of whether any warning was given at the time, Did he turn up late without notice? Did he fall asleep at the desk? Was there anything mentioned about internet use? Did he make 'inappropriate' comments? What about the allegation of assault?

 

Was the 'new' colleague perhaps a plant, put there to report back?

 

You say that there is no REAL substance but how substantial are we talking, as any one of these criteria could justifiably result in dismissal - don't like you, face doesn't fit, hair too long, wrong aftershave, can all be masked by a trumped up or exaggerated charge.

 

Now even IF there is no substance whatsoever, your friend is seriously disadvantaged by not having completed two years service. That is not to say that your friend shouldn't be treated unfairly, or with due process, but that any possible claim for Unfair Dismissal on grounds of procedural or material unfairness cannot be brought in a Tribunal until two years have been served - unless it can clearly be evidenced that there was an element of discrimination involved. There are very limited legal options available, and even there any awards would be limited.

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

Your post reads like that of an over prtective parent.

 

First step, could you have a gentle chat about if there is any truth on any of the charges? I'd bet a tenner on the internet one being true, we almost ALL do it, and maybe being sleepy having clubbed it a bit hard the night before.

 

Do that and come back with a balanced view of things for us?

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 have his responses here to the allegations and will await a response to the initial post before posting his response.

 

 

 

Why not just tell us so we can give proper advice?

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

Hi,

 

Thanks for the responses so far. Below are his responses to the allegations made by the employer -

 

You failed to turn up for work until 11.30am on Wednesday 14th of July and you did not notify me or anyone else of your absence -

Response -

I tried to call you on your mobile phone before 8am but it was off with no voicemail option. When I attended the doctors at 8am to have my stitches removed from my nose due to the assault that I had happen to me I was unable to call you again due to my phone battery dying. I did send you an email as soon as I was in the office apologising and letting you know when I would be working the hours back - You did not respond to my email but I still worked the time back.

 

You were asleep at your desk when I came in to the office on Thursday 15th of July -

 

Response -

I wasn't asleep I was leaning on my left forearm as I use my right hand to write. As soon as you entered the office I greeted you and instantly asked you if you would like a drink to which you declined. You did not challenge me at all to ask if I were asleep or tell me you thought I were asleep as I was not asleep.

 

I understand that following an alleged assault on you last week you took money from the assailant in return for withdrawing a statement to the police. You were then seen counting rolls of cash at your desk during working hours. (He was assaulted outside of the work place - at the weekend and nothing to do with work and the lad that did it offered a good will gesture of £200 if he didn't go to the police as he was on bail at the time of the assault. No proof of cash changing hands as he has done nothing and left it to the police - the money he had was his birthday money which was the day before this alleged incident which he was counting during his dinner break at his desk)

 

Response -

Yes I was assaulted as you know. I previously spoke to you in general conversation about how the lad that did it had offered me money not to go to the police as he was already in trouble and on bail. I did not tell you I had accepted nor intended to accept any money from this person. I reported the matter to the police and they are dealing with it. I have not had any money from this person. The money I was counting was my birthday money which was £200 which I received from my family members on my birthday on the 16th of July. I was at my desk and it was 12.05pm which was my lunch time. I fail to see how this has anything to do with the company especially as the assault took place at the weekend outside of my working hours and I was not the aggressor.

 

You have on numerous occasions fabricated information which has led to various problems including invoices being unpaid

 

Response -

Your allegation is very vague and shows little substance. Please provide more information as to what it is that I have done to fabricate information. I have printed copies of emails here to prove I have done what has been asked and what I have been trained to do with the invoices. (We are currently awaiting a response as to what the details are of the allegation)

 

I have previously spoken to you about comments you made to blah blah (former co - worker left the business 3 months ago) that were deemed inappropriate

 

Response -

This was banter between myself and my colleague who I got on with and the comments were returned by the colleague to myself. You spoke to us both at the time informally as per the companies disciplinary procedure this matter was dealt with and the comments you made us aware of stopped from this point on. I would request you remove this allegation from the hearing as it is no longer relevant having already been dealt with.

 

You have been seen on numerous occasions visiting non business websites during working hours. In particular you were warned about this on 29th of April and 05th of May

 

Response -

The only time you have spoken to me about this is when you handed me the disciplinary letter. You told me I had been seen using a music website to listen to music. I had been using music websites while doing my work yes. I have been doing this since my colleague blah blah informed me that he did this as it helped him focus and get his work completed and he then showed me how best to do this. He still continues to do this and has no action taken against him. When blah blah (another manager) came in to the office one day she asked what is that and responded with an honest answer of what it was which was a music site - she did not say anything else and did not challenge this nor ask it to stop at all at this point.

 

He has emailed the manager dealing with this asking for the training policy, code of conduct and also the lone worker policy (this has been requested as he has been left alone in the office for weeks at a time with no call from anybody to ask if he is ok and make sure he is ok to open up the building and also lock up at night.

 

So far we have had no response other than to tell him not to go to work at 9am and just to turn up at 10am for the hearing.

 

He has asked if he will get paid still from 9am and again no response.

 

He has also advised that as he hasn't had full details of the allegations with dates and times and more detail around the fabrication of information allegation that he would like to request the hearing be postponed to allow him time to review what they have (when they send it) and produce a response - again no response as yet.

 

He has been told by another family member to go to the doctors and get signed off with stress Monday and try to delay the hearing...my thoughts are that this is bad advice!

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

In preparation for Monday does anybody know if they legally should have held an investigative interview first with him? It says in their disciplinary procedure they do do this but as it is they haven't and have gone gung ho straight to the disciplinary hearing.

 

He has also advised that in May the colleague that told him to listen to music on his pc while working was given a bottle of expensive whiskey by the boss and a card but for his birthday he got a mumbled happy birthday and nothing else. Clutching at straws but could this be construed as victimisation potentially?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the advice to sign off with stress whilst this may be a genuine reaction, will only delay the hearing, NOT remove it. If there is a genuine illness, then by all means your friend should seek treatment, but if not, then delaying the meeting will only prolong the uncertainty. A request for a delay might be appropriate if there is a need to gather further evidence however.

 

As previously stated, your friend is severely disadvantaged by the short length of service. An employer could quite literally dismiss for the flimsiest reasons and have very little chance of repercussions, so it is entirely possible that even having plausible answers for each of the charges, the outcome may well be the same.

 

It is still worth defending each of the allegations, but from what has been said so far the employer seems adamant in letting your friend go.

 

IMO the best outcome from this would be to negotiate a parting of the ways with an agreed or neutral reference and with payment in lieu of notice. Others may well have a different opinion

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

In preparation for Monday does anybody know if they legally should have held an investigative interview first with him? It says in their disciplinary procedure they do do this but as it is they haven't and have gone gung ho straight to the disciplinary hearing.

 

He has also advised that in May the colleague that told him to listen to music on his pc while working was given a bottle of expensive whiskey by the boss and a card but for his birthday he got a mumbled happy birthday and nothing else. Clutching at straws but could this be construed as victimisation potentially?

 

Thanks

 

Legally? No. Had your friend sufficient service to bring an Unfair Dismissal case, and if the ET found in his favour, then any failure to follow correct process could lead to an increase in any award made, but on it's own, a failure does not constitute unfair dismissal.

 

However

 

Where the employer has a contractual disciplinary process, a failure to abide by their own process constitutes a breach of contract and potentially wrongful dismissal. This would be actionable in a civil court as a BoC claim and your friend could claim damages resulting from that breach. There can be no punitive award made against the employer - merely any losses incurred as a consequence of the breach.

 

It hasn't been mentioned specifically, but has your friend been given the right to be accompanied at the disciplinary hearing? Has he also been warned that dismissal might be a possible outcome?

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

Hi,

 

Thanks for the responses.

 

So far he has still had nothing back from the manager with regard to the request for more clarification on what the fabrication of information allegation is so he can prepare his response.

 

He has made reasonable requests for information from them but they have failed to send this and it is highly likely that they will not send this.

 

I will be going in with him to support him - they have agreed to this - should we before things start just say - it is pretty evident your intentions are to remove him from your company and we are happy to reach a mutual agreement or you could go through this process and waste numerous man hours and potentially have to visit court.

 

Or should we go in and let them go through this process and then let him give his responses then make the offer to settle it that day mutually.

 

Either way he doesn't want to work for them going forward now as he trusted them and they acted like friends - naive on his part really given they are his bosses - and the working relationship is now gone.

 

It says in their disciplinary policy and procedure that they have a capability process - some of these allegations I feel would fall in to the capability category?

 

It has stated in the letter he has the right to accompanied yes. When he asked if a family member could attend with him they advised they would need to check with their legal department and then came back with - yes don't come in at 9am come in at 10am.

 

I have told him that going off with stress is not the way forward and he has agreed that he won't be doing this.

 

Thanks for the help so far it is appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is his employer David Tennant?, Matt Smith or Peter Capaldi?

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

Ok so now we know the contract is dated for 2017 and not signed by both parties is it advisable to go in there and tell them the relationship is broken for both parties and to save time and money it is best for both parties to agree a mutually acceptable parting of ways with a waiver signed that he will not take any further action with regard to the comments in writing and signed by the manager which could be construed as defamation of character?

 

Or should we take a different approach and say - the contract is not valid therefore there are no breaches of contract as the contract hasn't been agreed.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

there's no defamation - they are stating allegations not presenting facts. I can't see anything he could take them to court for at this stage, so you are playing with a weak hand.

 

there's an implied contract as the man kept working and taking pay so that's a non starter too

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

Ok so the best thing to do is await their decision and if they claim that these are proven facts we are then looking at a different case as it will then be no longer allegation but what they claim to be fact.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might think that's the best thing to do. However to dismiss they only need a reasonable belief; and also for a defamation claim it'd need to be broadcast far more widely. It's not like they're going to publish it in the local paper now is it?

 

Basically, you're trying to wave about a gun with no bullets in the chamber. It just won't work.

 

Have you considered simply asking for a neutral reference without making demands or threats?

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

The aim is to get a mutual agreement and neutral reference. They haven't given him a proper opportunity to defend himself as they haven't responded to his requests for policies and also not given clarity as to what the fabrication allegation is.

 

Their policy states that he will be given the opportunity to respond to the allegations and that if he requires further information to ask within a reasonable timescale.

 

Surely their failure to respond is not following the policy they have in place?

 

The appeal is going to be fun.

 

If they do not take reasonable steps during investigation like making contact with the police to ask if he has made a statement then that would mean they have not performed a proper investigation?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the problem; less than 2 years service. They can literally just say "Sorry, it's not working out, here's your notice pay and holiday pay, goodbye."

 

So while you get yourself into minute details of defamation and policy and appeals to try and find an angle - it's all for nought.

 

Just ask for a decent reference. They are going to know anything else is bluster.

 

No, it's not fair; but that is how the law currently lies.

 

They also don;t have to allow you, a non employee non union rep, to accompany - if you want to stick to strict policy it would probably have to go both ways. At least his way the fella has a friendly face during an unpleasant process.

 

I would at this stage recognise you have no cards to play, zero, nada - and take the meeting accordingly.

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

Sorry to say but you seem to be looking far too far into this

 

Whether they conduct a 'reasonable' investigation is a moot point. This is potentially a wrongful dismissal for the reasons previously stated (BoC). A reasonable investigation is required in order for a 'fair' dismissal where dismissal is within the range of reasonable responses available to the employer - and we have already advised that unfair dismissal is a non-starter due to length of service.

 

Now you can either tip them off as to the potentially wrongful dismissal and failure to follow policy - in which case they may restart the process, conduct an investigation and follow through with a disciplinary. Any dismissal which might result would then almost certainly be lawful. Or you can wait to see what happens, challenge the lack of response to reasonable requests for documents and information at the DH itself and hope to have the meeting adjourned whilst they provide what has been asked for. This MIGHT leave the door open for a potential claim.

 

They are not obliged to go to the police - nor should the police provide details - this is not a work-related incident.

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

Thank you both for your replies.

 

It is pretty much we just go in tomorrow and he gives his responses. I will then let them know they may be looking at wrongful dismissal so if they want it over with fast they can agree a mutual settlement and he will sign a waiver.

 

They can either be full of rage and not care or they can accept it and get it over with and avoid the appeal and the grievance which we will put in.

 

I will let you know how it goes tomorrow.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you can warn them that they are walking into a potential legal issue and they will halt proceedings to take advice, correct their errors, dismiss lawfully and refuse a neutral reference.

 

A combative stance is not always wise that early, neither is showing your hand from the outset....

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

personally I reckon as you're being allowed to go with him - and did you say he had been advised dismissal was an option? - breach of contract is very tenuous.

 

If he has found this stressful - wait til you see court.... and there's no guarantee of justice.

 

Defend as best you can, ask about a reference, move on.... I'd say this is not the battle to pick as it sounds that he is best off out of there. At his age he has plenty more options ahead. Pragmatism is also a good lesson to learn.

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

Or you can warn them that they are walking into a potential legal issue and they will halt proceedings to take advice, correct their errors, dismiss lawfully and refuse a neutral reference.

 

A combative stance is not always wise that early, neither is showing your hand from the outset....

 

Very true. We will get tomorrow over and done with and then take it from there. The more errors on their part the better from our point of view. Thanks again for helping calm the rage and provide rationale

Link to post
Share on other sites

personally I reckon as you're being allowed to go with him - and did you say he had been advised dismissal was an option? - breach of contract is very tenuous.

 

If he has found this stressful - wait til you see court.... and there's no guarantee of justice.

 

Defend as best you can, ask about a reference, move on.... I'd say this is not the battle to pick as it sounds that he is best off out of there. At his age he has plenty more options ahead. Pragmatism is also a good lesson to learn.

 

Agreed. He is better off away from these people that have an agenda to remove him from the company. We found an advert for his job today that they have posted as an apprenticeship back in June for less than half his wage. Perhaps the reason they are doing this is because they are cutting costs. The biggest smack in the face is that the person doing this to him was a family friend before all this and had been for 15 years. Leaves a sour taste in the mouth how he is going about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...