Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I have found this group very helpful hence I am here seeking help and advice.   I got myself into a situation where I have now more than £50k in unsecured debts (personal loans & credit cards) and things are now getting out of control as I am struggling to make payments. This is purely my own created situation and I am taking 100% responsibility for it. I am keen to get out of this situation as soon as possible hence I would appreciate any help and advice in this process. I am employed at the moment and don’t want to risk going into IVA or bankruptcy as this would risk losing my job. Being sole bread earner of my family, I cannot afford to lose my job. I have been trying to keep up with the payments so far and had few missed payments instances until 3/4 months ago but got caught up with missed payments somehow using my savings. All my debts are still with original lenders. However I know I am getting into same situation again shortly and won’t be able to get out of it again. I have started exploring Debt Management Plan (DMP) option through StepChange but haven’t submitted it yet. Based on budgeting, I have around £820 available to make payments to all lenders after taking care of all other essential expenses. This is definitely lot more affordable than what I am currently paying to different lenders. 1. Is DMP right option for me in current situation? 2. what are the negative consequences of availing DMP? 3. is there something else that I can do to get out of this situation? I’m determined to clear out all my debts but need bit of breathing space and time. Let me know please if you need any additional information. Thanks in advance for all your help and guidance. MM  
    • Bookmakers use betting on political events to entice new customers, and say it is growing.View the full article
    • nope  and  neither dx
    • Ok Thank you DX will do just that . will keep you up dated.
  • 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

Gross Misconduct hearing - ** REINSTATED AFTER APPEAL WON **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3031 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

Dear all.

 

I am enquiring on behalf of someone else. Sorry for late notice, I know that this might not be seen in time, nut I thought I'd reach out for some advice anyway.

 

Person (X) is an employee of a high street bookies as an Assistant Manager in a branch.

Has been employed for 11 months and is rated highly by her direct line manager.

Had a squeaky clean disciplinary record until recently.

 

Final Written Warning issued late Dec

 

In early Dec, the shop had a 'mystery customer' and the shop failed.

X was working alone at the time.

The shop scored badly in the mystery shopper test along with nearly all other shops in the area

(this is a typical retail structure: shop managers, area manager looking after a dozen shops and regional manager above that).

 

X was investigated and using CCTV, she was seen talking on her mobile phone behind the counter.

A hearing took place and she was told that she would receive a Final Written Warning (this is a first offence).

 

Seems harsh to me when a first written warning is an option but that's just my opinion.

 

She is still waiting for the letter confirming this and has not been given a chance to appeal this decision as yet.

 

Next incident - early Jan - Gross Misconduct

 

One evening, again working alone, a group of men came into the shop.

 

It turns out later that one of them is a known conman who goes around bookies trying to defraud.

I know many who work in this industry and the betting shops are not interested in pursuing fraudsters

and are instead focussed on prevention. It is normally the staff who take the bullet.

 

One of the group placed a bet just before a race and then used a trick (involving distraction techniques by the group)

to alter the selection after the race had finished.

 

 

The result is that the customer walked out with £1.5k of ill gotten gains.

They also tipped X £20.

It is common for a winning punter to tip the cashier in this industry (I mention this because it comes up later).

The known fraudster always stayed in the corner of the shop and avoided the counter.

 

Errors made by X include:

 

X paid out on the basis of the altered slip rather than following correct procedure.

There happens a lot apparently but is not good practice.

 

X also failed to run it past security who would have likely spotted the fraud.

There is some mitigation here as the race track in question is a new one and not on the 'call security list' yet.

 

Investigation

 

X has been investigated and evidence (incl CCTV) collated and a hearing for Gross Misconduct is due tomorrow (is currently suspended on full pay).

X will be accompanied by her manager who wants to keep her in the organisation.

 

Accusations in the letter are:

 

1. Allowing the customer to defraud the company with the intent so that X can personally gain

(I wonder if they are suggesting that by receiving a tip, X was 'in on it'.

We feel can successfully challenge this point as it is simply not true)

 

2. Not using correct procedure to put the bet on the system so that the altered slip was used instead of the scan of the original

 

3. Not phoning security

 

Mitigating factors:

 

2 is bad practice and other staff often use the paper slip to put the bet on the system as scans are often faded and difficult to read.

This is a weak excuse in my opinion but I wonder whether it amounts to gross misconduct.

A warning combined with training would be remedial, especially as X is of good character and has a good record.

 

3. He manager has a list of tracks whereby if a bet wins, security must be called before pay out.

New track means that the list is not up-to-date so X did not realise.

X can demonstrate that correct procedure has been used previously for those on the list.

Also, unlike some, X has not been sent to training course on security

or been given any of the available training.

X has been overlooked

 

Questions:

 

It looks pretty damning, doesn't it? My gut feeling is that X will be dismissed.

 

1. Should this not be found to be Gross Misconduct, is this not a different strand of procedure

meaning that the recent Final Written Warning is not related and therefore X could end up with 2 x FRWs instead of dismissal

 

2. What are the implications if they do not have the above view

and treat as the same strand despite not having the opportunity to appeal the other FRW?

 

3. X has not completed 2 years of service so tribunal cannot get involved at a later date if X feels it is unfair.

However, what if the employer does not follow procedure properly and breach their contract?

 

 

I'm thinking about the right to appeal, not using a first written warning for the original offence

 

4. Any other advice?

 

Many thanks!

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

How much of this is in hindsight ?

 

It is what was known at the time by her ? E.g The companies procedures on bets, security and staff being given money by winning punters. There is a mention of lack of training and this could be important, if the companies procedures were not made aware to her.

 

I would think the companies employees handbook on disciplinary issues would be key. Perhaps using personal mobile phones behind the counter is seen as a bad offence, with a final warning always issued. Then there follows an incident,where she may not have followed the companies procedures.

 

The way to challenge this, is to concentrate on the latest allegation being made and how aware she was of the correct company procedures that should be followed. Each employee should really have a training record to confirm that they have been made fully aware of the companies procedures. If other staff have been taking tips from winning punters and doing things whuch are not compliant with company standards, this is no excuse, unless they trained her in incorrect procedures.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys.

 

To clarify - there is no rule against accepting a tip from a customer. It is very common.

 

I think points 1 and 3 can be challenged, It's point 2 that is damning.

 

To expand:

 

The 'customer' writes a bet out on traditional slip and hand it over.

Cashier then puts it through the scanner.

Cashier is then supposed to 'translate' the bet onto the system

(i.e. marry up what is written on the slip with what the selection and stake is on the system).

 

 

This does not always happen right away and it is normal to translate later when, for example it is busy or there is a queue before a race is about to go off.

 

The customer had written a phone number on the back of the slip and said to X - can I have than back a second,

I think I wrote a phone number on the back,

 

 

There was a phone number on the back so X obliged, the slip was then returned to her

but without X knowing, the slip had been altered subtly.

Remember there is already a scanned version on the system (un-translated).

 

When paying out, X went to translate but the scanned version was not clear so looked at the paper copy

and 'translated' with the doctored slip.

Apparently the scans are not always clear.

This is the critical error: they have it made clear that 'IF IN DOUBT - CALL SECURITY'. X did not.

 

Only mitigation is that there were 4 of them surrounding X, asking questions, getting X to look up prices

- all intended to bewilder and confuse.

They were professional con artists.

 

-----------

 

I firmly believe that if they want to fire X, they will do and there is little that can be done.

They may take the view that it is not procedure or training that is at fault

and that they way to deal with it is to fire the individual at the bottom.

 

If they wanted to keep her, they could on the basis of training, learning lessons.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me".

 

 

From a business pov, perhaps it is less risky to have an employee who knows what it is like to be conned

, gets more training and has a year's experience, than it would be to bring in a novice.

 

I will see if I can get a copy of handbook and get my highlighter out!

 

Cheers

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more factor to consider. X is being accompanied by X's manager who doesn't want X to be fired. What can and cannot the manager say to influence the outcome?

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

X has had 'on the job' training but nothing official. Therefore no record. However, as far as point 2 is concerned, it is drummed into staff that if you are unsure, you call security. X is in the wrong.

 

X started 11 months ago but hasn't been on a security course. Since then it has been made policy that all new starters go on a training course in first few weeks of employment. X started before this became policy.

 

It is usual to work alone. Normally it's two people but nothing staff are required to work alone sometimes unless opted out.

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like insurers, bookies dont like to admit they get defrauded and they cannot recover the monies so they take the easy option and clobber whoever they do have access to, their client or their staff member. I would be amazed if this ends well for your friend but hope that her manager can have some input and the truth is allowed to come out regarding the perils of lone working in bookies. The company knows it but cheaper to take a hit and fire someone than to employ 2 people in the first place. Shopworkers union has raised this umpteen times before but nothing done by courts or govt to improve the conditions

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to bring my personal views about the practices in the industry but I totally agree

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I know what to advise here.

 

1. Intent to gain and aid is groundless

2 & 3 are procedures that x can demonstrate that X has always followed before. This occasion is mitigated due to being targeted by professional conmen. One element of a procedure is very recent and X (plus all staff) were not made aware. This would have prevented it from happening.

 

X has not deliberately ignored procedure

 

Suggest remedial action to ensure it never happens again.

 

My only q really is: can they add this onto the current final written warning or are they separate?

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You have to prove it. They just need reasonable suspicion, especially for under 2 years service.

 

As for not ignoring procedure, you already said X has ignored it and done it a different way. You could cite that incorrect training was given and there is no written and signed record, but i think as the others did. X needs to be prepared for the very realistic possibility of dismissal. Theyll be using X as a scapegoat and theres pretty much nothing you can do about it.

 

As for disciplinary, they can go from a clean record to dismissal if the infraction was serious enough. They could also add multiple written warnings on file. It all depends on circumstances and what they think at the outcome of the meeting. I hope X has a union rep or a knowledgeable representative.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

X's manager, who is v knowledgeable, is going with.

 

I agree that dismissal is likely. In fact, i think it is almost certain.

 

All one can do in this type of situation is to handle as best you possibly can.

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your friend should be aware of her managers intentions, as it may come down to self preservation. If there is any suggestion of lack of training or bad practice taking place in that betting office, you can bet that the manager will protect their position, even if this means going against your friend. So probably best to support her defence with evidence the manager cannot dispute,

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that stands out to me on both occasions is they were working on there own (Lone Working).

 

So what is the companies Lone Working Policy?, have they been properly trained in Lone Working?, has a proper Risk Assessment been carried out?

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

X has been fired for a second misconduct (not gross misconduct)

 

Not following company procedure by calling security and costing the company money

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope x is appealing as per their legal right?

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intends to apparently. Although I spoke to X once, most of the info I have recd is via X's colleague.

 

New info has come to light.

 

Apparently the previous final written warning was due to X using an e cigarette behind the counter (recently quit), not because of being on phone.

 

There appears to be no company policy on ecigs (although personally, if it was me, I would always assume ecigs are not allowed).

 

Apparently the first offence was treated as gross misconduct under the smoking policy.

 

The second offence has been treated as misconduct and triggered dismissal due to warning on file.

 

Neither disciplinary has been appealed yet as the letter for previous one only just arrived.

 

I have requested copies of letters and meeting notes from X and will review before bothering you lot again! :)

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think they need to dig into company policies and what they knew. It might mean having to put the manager under the bus, if they failed to ensure adequate training on company policies and allowed someone inexperienced with lack of training to be left on their own.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are ecigarettes explicity banned under the smoking policy ? If not, then X should be appealing the first warning. An employer can't just treat them as a lit tobacco product after the fact. They must be either included in the smoking policy or have a seperate policy banning their use on company premises.

 

If the first warning is not valid, then the dismissal for a 'second' offence isn't valid either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I got round to thinking.

 

 

Think thry have made up their minds already and messed it up slightly.

However, with less than 2 yrs service, i guess they are not too bothered.

 

X is out of time for the first appeal as letter was sent to old address and it is X's responsibility to tell head office this.

However, she did give her address during that original hearing and it is on the written notes from that meeting.

 

They have treated it as 'smoking'.

 

There is no policy in handbook hard copy about ecigs.

 

One final thing...

 

X is eastern European.

At the end of today's hearing she was told that she can appeal in writing 'but if it's in too good English, we will know that you didn't write it'

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the last part is true then its discrimination. It matters not who wrotebit

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Renegadeimp, i thought the same about discrimination but didnt want to lead anyone's thoughts. Interesting that you have same reaction.

 

am hearing that it was heard by both the person who accompanied x and the note taker.

 

I will have all the paperwork this evening.

 

Thinking of a general appeal which (a) challenges the outcome and sanction of the first disciplinary and (b) therefore merely challenges the resulting outcome of the second one (but not challenging procedural 'misconduct')

 

I also think that X's appeal has been prejudiced by that comment

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a clever [problem] if it works that easily. I thought that the slip was only to enter bets on the system, and then verified on screen with the punter, and the slip is only then used to bring up the computers record of the bet. That's how it is at my local dogs, not sure why bookies don't have a better system in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest topcat14

X is eastern European.

At the end of today's hearing she was told that she can appeal in writing 'but if it's in too good English, we will know that you didn't write it'

 

 

Disgracefull behaviour.

 

No Policy for the company to follow on ecigs should means that there is no case to answer. As someone has stated the policy is for Smoking lit tobacco products and not Vaping ....totally different

 

This should be appealed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...