Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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 
        • 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

contract vs. standard practice (holiday issues)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2906 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

Hello,

 

I'm after some insight into employment law please, as I'm at a total loss.

 

I was employed last year on a 24 hour a week contract. (I've now worked about 11 months, so I'm well aware I'm under the two years needed to avoid being fired for any reason for making a fuss).

 

However, every week since I commenced my employment I've regularly worked between 30 and 65 hours a week.

 

I'm also paid weekly.

 

I asked about holiday entitlement yesterday as I've already had two weeks off (10 days) but was only paid 4 of them as holiday. I was told that because my contract is for 24 hours a week my holiday is only pro rata.

 

Taking in to account 45 payslips I've now had, the mean average working hours is 45hrs p/w. Surely I should be entitled to more than my contracted hours of holiday entitlement, or am I just ****ing in the wind?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, but it doesn't really answer my question. I KNOW what my 24hr a week contract entitles me to, but I work up to 65hr a week, EVERY week since I started! Is there no moral obligation to pay me holiday based on my hours worked over a year, or are they simply within their rights to pretend I only work 24hrs, and if I don't like it I can just f off and be a wage slave somewhere else, etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4109

 

Guaranteed and normal non-guaranteed overtime should be considered when calculating a worker's statutory holiday pay entitlement but there is currently no definitive case law that suggests voluntary overtime needs to be taken into account.

 

So if the contract doesnt say you HAVE to do the overtime, it looks like there needs to be a test case.

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, exactly, I spoke with the boss today and he said for a full time contract worker it's 20 days holiday a year plus bank holidays, but because my contract is 24 hours a week (ie part time) I only get a pro rata holiday entitlement.

 

Apologies if I come off a bit aggro but I'm really irritated right now.

 

Appreciate any help offered. I'm just annoyed that with under 2 years service the law says I can basically go whistle if I don't like it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to be the test case! If any of you good people want to have a whip-round for my legal fees I promise you I won't disappoint!!! Ha!

Hopefully, fair play, honour, integrity still mean something in the workplace so it won't have to come to that. Or am I just naive despite being too old school for my own good? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again. I understand you're angry, I would be.

 

Hopefully Emmzzi will be back, but you could also consider ringing ACAS to see what they think. The advice can be a bit hit and miss so it would be good to post what they say so it can be reviewed here.

 

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2042

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to update the thread as promised, I called ACAS and they said if I've worked 60 hrs a week for the last 6 months, then that is my new contract and my holiday entitlement should be based on that.

I talked to my boss with this new knowledge and he said - (to quote) "Congratulations, you are correct, but bad luck you can either **** off or accept my conditions".

 

Great. I'm now correct and without a job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is what is considered regualr overtime. I have a part time jon on a zero hours contract so my holiday pay is based on the hours per year I actually work, rather than on a proportion of a fixed time. essentially add 12.5% to your pay over the year and that is what they should be paying you in total as holiday pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were dismissed because you asked for holiday pay which you are due under the Working Time Regulations, that would be a dismissal for exercise of a statutory right. That would mean you could sue your employer for unfair dismissal even though you have less than two years' service - that type of dismissal is not subject to the 2 years employment qualifying period.

 

Of course, there is something to be said for having a job rather than suing your employer.

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

Your employer wont change their attitude unless someone does something to adjust it. What hurts them the most is losing money and it will cost them plenty of that to defend a claim at an ET and if they have insurance for such things the insurer will send a lawyer along to deal with the matter but it will cost them an absolute fortune in premiums afterwards so they wont be making the same mistake twice.

If you do fancy the ET route you couls also demand your job back and if they dont agree then that will be even more money to compensate you until you find something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although just to advise, a claim on loss of potential earnings in the even of not getting your job back will be limited. You will be expected to mitigate any losses by seeking employment as soon as possible.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...