Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures cosigned by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The DEfendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
    • Danny - point taken about the blue paragraphs.  Including them doesn't harm your case in any way.  It makes no odds.  It's just that over the years we've had judges often remarking on how concise & clear Caggers' WSs have been compared to the Encyclopaedia Britannica-length rubbish that the PPCs send, so I always have a slight preference to cut out anything necessary. Don't send off the WS straight away .. you have plenty of time ... and let's just say that LFI is the Contract King so give him a couple of days to look through it with a fine-tooth comb.
    • Do you have broadband at home? A permanent move to e.g. Sky Glass may not fit with your desire to keep your digibox,, but can you move the items you most want off the digibox? If so, Sky Glass might suit you. You might ask Sky to loan you a “puck” and provide access as an interim measure. another option might be using Sky Go, at least short term, to give you access to some of the Sky programming while awaiting the dish being sorted.
    • £85PCM to sky, what!! why are you paying so much, what did you watch on sky thats not on freeview?  
    • Between yourself and Dave you have produced a very good WS. However if you were to do a harder hitting WS it may be that VCS would be more likely to cancel prior to a hearing. The Contract . VCS [Jake Burgess?] are trying to conflate parking in a car park to driving along a road in order to defend the indefensible. It is well known that "NO Stopping " cannot form a contract as it is prohibitory. VCS know that well as they lose time and again in Court when claiming it is contractual. By mixing up parking with driving they hope to deflect from the fact trying to claim that No Stopping is contractual is tantamount to perjury. No wonder mr Burgess doesn't want to appear in Court. Conflation also disguises the fact that while parking in a car park for a period of time can be interpreted as the acceptance of the contract that is not the case while driving down a road. The Defendant was going to the airport so it is ludicrous to suggest that driving by a No Stopping  sign is tacitly accepting  the  contract -especially as no contract is even being offered. And even if a motorist did not wish to be bound by the so called contract what could they do? Forfeit their flight and still have to stop their car to turn around? Put like that the whole scenario posed by Mr Burgess that the Defendant accepted the contract by driving past the sign is absolutely absurd and indefensible. I certainly would not want to appear in Court defending that statement either. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will do the contract itself later.
  • 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

Charged by employer for property stolen in office during fire drill


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1549 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, thanks in advance for reading and any advice. I'll try to be as concise as possible.

 

I have an iPhone provided by my work. It states on the iPhone Policy that if you lose the phone or it is stolen, you will have the price of the iPhone taken off the next payslip. The only exception is if you can provide a police certificate that it was stolen, but there is a sub-exception here that states you still have to pay if the theft was facilitated to clear negligence on your part, e.g. leaving it unsupervised in a public place.

 

In November 2015 there was a fire drill at work. I immediately left the building. When the drill ended and I returned to my office, my work phone had been stolen off my desk.

 

When I informed Asset Management of the theft, the person at the desk seemed understanding and stated verbally that this should be OK and I shouldn't be charged as when there is a fire drill, you must leave immediately and not stop to pick up personal belongings. I was provided with a new work phone a few days later and there were no other comments made by them.

 

Come end of November, I have £300 taken off my payslip for the cost of a new iPhone 5. Before even considering whether they can do this, the price is not right. They currently retail on Amazon at £251, and I strongly suspect my employer gets them at a far lower price seeing as they order hundreds for their employees. So they are making a profit on this.

 

By email, I questioned the deduction (and the price). In their email reply, they didn't dispute my story but said I was negligent as I should have taken the phone with me. I pointed to the fire regulations, which state, word for word: "...evacuate the building immediately and do not stop for any personal belongings. Delaying the evacuation to gather personal belongings risks the lives of you and your colleagues and may constitute gross misconduct."

 

Their reply to this was that it was "obvious" that small items like your phone don't count in this rule, as your phone will be sitting on your desk (where we have a dedicated power cable for our phones) and so you will lose no time in picking it up. And they said making a police report for theft is pointless as it was now "too long ago" and in any case I was negligent (see 1st para.).

 

I also raised the fact that there is CCTV - not in my office, but in the hall adjoining it. I.e. my office door is in clear view of the camera, so can see everyone who enters or leaves the office. This is the only door to the office. Even if the phone isn't recovered, I told them they can at least find out who stole it, on a matter of principle/ethics. They replied "data protection" and were extremely obstructive. What's the point of CCTV in this location if not to stop things being stolen from the premises or find the people who do steal?

 

I issued a written reply by recorded delivery, challenging the deduction by quoting the fire regulations and stating that no exceptions are listed. I received no reply. I waited for my December payslip and there was no £300 refund.

 

Where do I stand here? I was simply following the fire regulations. I am not in a trade union. Would CAB be a good start? Could I also claim interest on the money they are withholding from me? I have been careful not to mention legal threats as I know most people who say this never act on it. I am now at the stage where I would be happy to leave/lose my job to fight this. Threatening with going to the press would be futile as they are a very large company that has had a few controversies in the past and couldn't care less about negative coverage. Even if I can't get a refund on the facts, can I challenge the amount that they deducted as it is considerably more than the retail value of the phone?

 

Thanks in advance, sorry for the long post!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, thanks in advance for reading and any advice. I'll try to be as concise as possible.

 

I have an iPhone provided by my work. It states on the iPhone Policy that if you lose the phone or it is stolen, you will have the price of the iPhone taken off the next payslip. The only exception is if you can provide a police certificate that it was stolen, but there is a sub-exception here that states you still have to pay if the theft was facilitated to clear negligence on your part, e.g. leaving it unsupervised in a public place.

 

In November 2015 there was a fire drill at work. I immediately left the building. When the drill ended and I returned to my office, my work phone had been stolen off my desk.

 

When I informed Asset Management of the theft, the person at the desk seemed understanding and stated verbally that this should be OK and I shouldn't be charged as when there is a fire drill, you must leave immediately and not stop to pick up personal belongings. I was provided with a new work phone a few days later and there were no other comments made by them.

 

Come end of November, I have £300 taken off my payslip for the cost of a new iPhone 5. Before even considering whether they can do this, the price is not right. They currently retail on Amazon at £251, and I strongly suspect my employer gets them at a far lower price seeing as they order hundreds for their employees. So they are making a profit on this.

 

By email, I questioned the deduction (and the price). In their email reply, they didn't dispute my story but said I was negligent as I should have taken the phone with me. I pointed to the fire regulations, which state, word for word: "...evacuate the building immediately and do not stop for any personal belongings. Delaying the evacuation to gather personal belongings risks the lives of you and your colleagues and may constitute gross misconduct."

 

Their reply to this was that it was "obvious" that small items like your phone don't count in this rule, as your phone will be sitting on your desk (where we have a dedicated power cable for our phones) and so you will lose no time in picking it up. And they said making a police report for theft is pointless as it was now "too long ago" and in any case I was negligent (see 1st para.).

 

I also raised the fact that there is CCTV - not in my office, but in the hall adjoining it. I.e. my office door is in clear view of the camera, so can see everyone who enters or leaves the office. This is the only door to the office. Even if the phone isn't recovered, I told them they can at least find out who stole it, on a matter of principle/ethics. They replied "data protection" and were extremely obstructive. What's the point of CCTV in this location if not to stop things being stolen from the premises or find the people who do steal?

 

I issued a written reply by recorded delivery, challenging the deduction by quoting the fire regulations and stating that no exceptions are listed. I received no reply. I waited for my December payslip and there was no £300 refund.

 

Where do I stand here? I was simply following the fire regulations. I am not in a trade union. Would CAB be a good start? Could I also claim interest on the money they are withholding from me? I have been careful not to mention legal threats as I know most people who say this never act on it. I am now at the stage where I would be happy to leave/lose my job to fight this. Threatening with going to the press would be futile as they are a very large company that has had a few controversies in the past and couldn't care less about negative coverage. Even if I can't get a refund on the facts, can I challenge the amount that they deducted as it is considerably more than the retail value of the phone?

 

Thanks in advance, sorry for the long post!

IMO you need to submit a formal written complaint stating that you did not violate company policy and therefore they were incorrect in deducting the cost of the phone from your pay. Provide a copy of the company fire drill policy and ask them to show where in the policy it states that small items are not classed as personal items under the policy. Also, as the phone was left on company property ask them where in the company policies it shows that the company is not liable or responsible for the loss of the phone as you hold the company liable for the loss due to them not securing the office and allowing the theft of phone. Inform them that you require payment of the £300 within 14 days or you will consider your legal options.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As above. Formal grievance. There was no negligence, apart from that of the company in not investigating a theft of company property.

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

I would also be tempted to report the theft to the police. That way you will have a crime reference number and investigation and it may go further towards proving your employer had no right to deduct.

 

You also need to bear in mind the three month limitation period - I would contact the police and then contact ACAS to start early conciliation for unlawful deductions from your wages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you not able to use "Find my iPhone" to locate it? At least it should be able to be locked and blocked.

 

 

|Snap, I thought these smart phones had some kind of inbuilt GPS. Has there been any use of the phone - phone bills should be able to answer that one ?

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that the policy states you must pay the replacement cost unless you have a policy report, but that doesn't apply if you have been negligent.

 

Assuming that you agreed to the policy when you were provided with the phone, it sounds to me like the employer is entitled to charge you. This is because you do not have a police report. Under the wording of the policy, the question of whether you are negligent or not only comes into the picture if you have a police report.

 

There might be a legal argument that the employer was not allowed to deduct from your wages unless they can prove you agreed to the policy in writing or it is part of your contract (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/13).

 

Ultimately, if you want to push this forward, you can raise a grievance and kick up a stink. If that doesn't get you anywhere, you could raise a small claim against your employer through the moneyclaimonline service. Is it really worth suing your employer over £300? I doubt it, but that's your decision.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that the policy states you must pay the replacement cost unless you have a policy report, but that doesn't apply if you have been negligent.

 

Assuming that you agreed to the policy when you were provided with the phone, it sounds to me like the employer is entitled to charge you. This is because you do not have a police report. Under the wording of the policy, the question of whether you are negligent or not only comes into the picture if you have a police report.

 

 

Sorry I don't agree. The fire drill policy, according to to OP, which is part of a requirement under statute under health and safety regs, states that to leave premises and do not take any belongings with you. This would override any contractual obligation the company set. Imo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, get a crime number and let employer know that you have done so and have a word with whoever is in charge of the CCTV data that you have done this and want the footage kept as potential evidence. They are not obliged to but it would make it harder to defnd their actions and at a pinch get them a warning from the police about failing to help an officer in the execution of his duties by deliberately destroying evidence of a crime.

Mind you, do ordinary police officers investigate crimes any more?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Raise a grievance; you should have also been notified of the deduction before they took it, preferably in writing.

 

I would also call 101 and report to local police explaining why you have to report it.

Really your employer should report it as it is their property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

open

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you BankFodder for your help in re-opening the thread!

 

Just a small update about this. Thanks to everyone again for your very helpful advice.

 

The reason I never reported back was because a settlement was reached with my now-former employer regarding this matter.

I am not allowed to talk about the terms of the settlement, and I was not allowed to mention its very existence for 4 years

 

(hence now I can reveal that, and finally tell my ex-colleagues and friends the truth).

 

But I can say that you helped me in doing this, so thank you genuinely for that, as there were a number of things I would not have thought of without your comments, which helped me in reaching the solution!

 

Have a great day all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update. Of course we are all extremely curious now because we would like to know what the settlement was – and also who the employer was.

It's amazing that they felt that they had to accompany this by a Non Disclosure Agreement. It seems to me that the result was a foregone conclusion. I can't imagine that they penalised you the cost of the phone.

Do tell…!

Link to post
Share on other sites

NDA's are not worth the paper they are written on unless they gave you a lot more than your would have earnt during the qualifying period so reporting their misbhaviour when they have only paid you off a small amount wont cost you if they do decide to try and enforce it because the damages they can recover will be nil. If they paid you a million quid to keep quiet then it would be another matter as they could ask for a sizeable proportion of that back

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...