Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just looking at the date of the offence 12 December.  Possible was delayed in the post at that time as it was taking me up to 2 weeks to get a first class letter, then the New Year Shut down so to get it early January while the Xmas backlog was cleared seems about right to be honest.  Not that I am telling the police that. 
    • Please take note: I got 2 tickets for 32  miles in a 30 zone on different days.  The police said its their policy to ticket anything over 30!!   I had to pay £100 for one and do the course as well.  Even as a disabled driver there was no give on the tickets. Please stop saying that it has to be 35+ it really does not. West Midlands police in Nuneaton so definitely dont go 1 mile over in that area.  
    • New figures from the Insolvency Service show that early termination rates of IVAs have dropped 11% in the past year, while total IVAs have risen by almost 20,000 in the past two years. View the full article
    • Amigo Loans has posted an £87m loss for the nine months to December 31 2020, a 289% drop on the same period in 2019 View the full article
    • I've had a brief look over the thread and I see that there principle point is that he didn't take out insurance. Your answer to this is very simple – that it is absurd that you are required to pay to protect them against their own negligence or criminality of their employees or the people who are acting for them – in this case, Hermes.Your point here is that any requirement that a customer is required to pay extra to protect against the breach of contract is unfair within the meaning of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act. Please have a read of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act. In In particular, after you have read the sections within the act itself, get a schedule two and you will see examples of unfair terms. These are nonexhaustive which means that they are simply examples and lots of others can be added. An important point is that it forms a significant imbalance between your interests and their interests. They are using a standard form contract which is nonnegotiable. There is no competition because all the courier industry are doing this so there is no opportunity for you to go elsewhere and get a different type of deal. You will need to point out to the defendant – through the mediator – that included in the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act is a provision that gives the court the power – in fact a duty – on its own initiative to examine the fairness or otherwise of any term. Point out to the defendant that if they want to go to court then you are happy about it. That you will then raise the question of unfairness to the judge and also you will invite the judge to look at the entirety of the contract and to pronounce on the fairness or otherwise of the contractual terms. Tell the defendant that you expect that the judge will decide unequivocally that a term of the contract which requires the customer to pay extra to protect themselves against the service providers breach of contract is grossly unfair – and in fact it is ridiculous. Basically they are saying "pay us to deliver your goods – and pay us extra if you don't want us to lose them."   Explain to the defendant that you are fully aware that this is a culture within the courier industry which has developed over 30 or 40 years or more but it's not acceptable and that when you get a judgement in your favour which confirms that the term is unfair, (as will surely happen) that you will then make sure that copies of the judgement find their way all over the Internet including social media that is concerned specifically with complaints against the courier industry and then the game will be up for the loss of them. One the mediator to tell the defendant that once you get this judgement, not only will people be claiming for ongoing lost items, but they will also be claiming retrospectively for legitimate claims which have been rejected on the basis of this unfair term. Make it clear to the mediator – that they should tell the defendant that you're not dealing with very much money here – and you are prepared to risk it all in order to go to court and to demonstrate this principle. If the mediator says that you should compromise then you should tell the mediator that if the defendant pays up in full – including costs and interest – that they will then be spared the problem of going to court and getting a judgement against them which will result in the loss of millions of pounds in the future. Tell the mediator that this is the benefit to the defendant and you are not prepared to hand them any further benefit if it means sacrificing a single penny of your claim. Tell the defendant to take it or leave it – you are happy either way.   It is very important that the defendant understands that you don't care either way whether you settle now mediation or goes to court. The defendant as a huge amount to lose if it goes to court. You have very little to lose  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1539 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I currently work for a Government ran business on back shift (4pm-12am) and all of back shift are having to work day shift for a few days between Christmas and New Year.

While I feel it is unfair that we have to change our shift, this is not my problem.

 

My problem is,

a week ago we had to state what time on day shift we were going in: 7am-3pm, 8am-4pm or 9am-5pm.

 

 

I chose 7-3, only,

today we have found out that the building is closing at 1pm (which it did last year but everyone just worked a half day regardless of time started and got paid a full days pay)

 

 

BUT this time if you start at 7am you work until 1pm, start at 8 or 9 you work until 1pm.

How is this fair?

I would be working 1-2 hours more than those starting later yet getting paid exactly the same.

 

 

Is this level of inequality wrong?

If so, what can I do about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can insist everyone works a full 8 hour day and see how popular you become?

  • Haha 1

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

Is this level of inequality wrong? No

If so, what can I do about it? Nothing

 

The additional leave is discretionary. The employer doesn't have to give it at all, and start kicking up a fuss and it could be withdrawn. You asked to work the shift that you are on, and they gave you that shift. The fact that it no longer suits you because you will have to attend work for a slightly longer period is not their problem - you are being paid for the full day anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is not wrong. You picked the shift starting at 7am and might have thought about the site closing at 1pm. Others may have known about the 1pm closing and picked 8am or 9am start times.

 

I guess you are on fixed pay, so it does not matter about the hours worked on this day.

 

There is not much you can do about this, but what i would expect a good management team to do on the day, is allow those who started earlier to leave earlier, if the work volume permits this. So start at 7am and leave at 11am. If they are not doing this, then everyone would have picked a 9am start time only, as there was no incentive to start earlier.

 

I would be surprised if the company were not recognising the extra hours worked in some way, by just adjusting the shift on the day or on another day by the extra hour or two worked previously.

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

Nobody is working any extra hours, so why should the employer recognise what isn't happening? They are being paid for a full day. They are not required to be in work for the whole of that time. The fact that some may get to work less hours in the day does not affect anything, and there is no reason to adjust anything.

 

To be honest, if it is likely to start off this much of a fuss, then perhaps the employer should not close early and make everyone work until the end of their shift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you knew, from last year, that the business closed at 1pm and yet you still picked the longest shift?

Not the smartest choice and guess you will have to live with it now.

Other option is to kick up a fuss, a formal grievance. See how that goes down. I'm pretty sure you will not be flavour of the month either with management or with the employees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure why most people aren't getting my point. My problem isn’t the shift at all, it’s how some are getting a better deal than others , it’s about fairness. No one can make anyone do the full 8 hour shift because the building shuts at 1pm.

 

Choosing the shift has nothing to do with being smart because as I said, last year everyone worked a half day regardless of start time, feel free to read my post properly before you make snide comments.

 

Once again, my post is not about any kind of shift, but the fact nothing about this is equal! God forbid I want equality in the workplace, everyone getting paid the same, everyone working the same. Even the managers who have to do this aren’t happy, no one is happy about it but you all make out like I’m the only one being unreasonable and have no right to be unhappy that some of my colleagues are getting better deal than others and I doubt most people here wouldn’t be too happy if this happened to them as you would want to be treat the same as everyone else.

You got a great forum here guys, very supportive!

Unclebulgaria was the only person who actually got my post so thanks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really sure why most people aren't getting my point. My problem isn’t the shift at all, it’s how some are getting a better deal than others , it’s about fairness. No one can make anyone do the full 8 hour shift because the building shuts at 1pm.

 

Choosing the shift has nothing to do with being smart because as I said, last year everyone worked a half day regardless of start time, feel free to read my post properly before you make snide comments.

 

Once again, my post is not about any kind of shift, but the fact nothing about this is equal! God forbid I want equality in the workplace, everyone getting paid the same, everyone working the same. Even the managers who have to do this aren’t happy, no one is happy about it but you all make out like I’m the only one being unreasonable and have no right to be unhappy that some of my colleagues are getting better deal than others and I doubt most people here wouldn’t be too happy if this happened to them as you would want to be treat the same as everyone else.

You got a great forum here guys, very supportive!

Unclebulgaria was the only person who actually got my post so thanks :)

 

No. We all read your post and there were no snide remarks. What you mean is that Unclebulgaria was the only person who said something you wanted to agree with, despite the fact that there was absolutely nothing at all in that part that was evidenced!

 

You wanted to know if this was allowed? It is. Equality is not about issues like this, unless you are going to claim that the only people getting the "best deal" (in your eyes) are getting because of their gender, race, disability or something like that.

 

And for the record, I would be perfectly ok with it. It's Christmas and I'm not going to be a miserable scrooge trying to wreck some extra time off for everyone just because someone else might get an hour out of it! Just because the building is closing didn't mean they couldn't keep it open; or insist that all the time is worked back in the new year. Your employers are giving everyone a bit of time off. Time that they aren't entitled to. And you are complaining about it.

 

Fine, put in a grievance, fight it to the ground, and see how Christmas works out next year for you! Because next year the same thing might happen, except that when you pick the later shift, you might not get the shift you want. Or there may be nobody getting any time off.

 

Goodness, it's unbelievable that people actually complain when employers do something nice even!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...