Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi there, the company name on the bit of paper is:   Bristow & Sutor   Says the total amount £990.49 and this includes £235 enforement stage fees,  The CTAX was owed to North Tyneside Council. The guy also said that it wasn't just for CTAX. Other debts were combined.   I did leave other debts behind too when I moved. Perhaps a utility bill, credit card debts and a Provi doorstep loan.   I think the guy said that he would be back Saturday too. This is what I'm trying to avoid multiple visits. Don't want my mam to get upset.   Thanks for the help.   Bear
    • Hi   Just to be clear a Tenant cannot refuse to pay rent after they have signed your Tenancy Agreement for the property irrespective if they are claiming no hot water for xx weeks especially when you have evidence to the contrary.   As they are now 2 months in arrears they have breached your tenancy agreement and you could go down the section 8 route for the rent arrears to evict your tenant and the letting agent you employed should be fully aware of this.   The hot water issue sounds more like the tenant didn't have a clue how to operate the heating system within your property   Has the Letting Agent informed this Tenant about the rents arrears and their Guarantor who would also be liable for the rents arrears?   Now the Tenant that wants to leave early as there is no 'Break Clause' in your Tenancy Agreement signed they would have to negotiate with you the Landlord to leave early as they are then in breach of that signed Tenancy Agreement.   Now before doing any of this is they have paid a Deposit it should be protected in a Tenancy Deposit Scheme and they should have been give a copy of that deposit schemes prescribed terms.
    • So a bit of an update as I haven’t posted for a while   I have received a court date of the 14th of Feb 2020 (maybe they will take me for a nice meal afterwards?) so I am starting to prepare my witness statement.    today I have received a letter from BW legal in response to my CPR letter yet again ignoring the fact that their T&Cs do not cover double parking. They are also now starting to hint that I was parked out of the bay yet the images provided on their evidence of the three tickets they are claiming for don’t evidence this as they are such bad quality.  stapled to the back of this is another letter. As a “gesture of good will”, the client is offering an out of court settlement figure of £500 payable in the next 5 days. Me thinks they are starting to realise they may not have a leg to stand on here!
    • firstly , they are not a Debt collector [never confuse the two - a DCA chasing consumer credit debt is totally powerless and have ZERO legal powers to do or take anything - they have no more legal powers than you or I do ] these will be bailiffs and do they have legal powers.   However, the good bit is that unlike what you might have seen on TV, for a council CTAX liability order [please confirm there is or NOT a CCJ registered check your creit file] there is NO right of forced entry. The bottom line is, bar all the arm waving, is, that if you simply totally ignore them, they will eventually go away.   Now what they can do is two fold on CTAX. basically add fees to a set limit.   the first is a notice of enforcement letter. this comes with a fee of £75 and gives you 7 days to set up some sort of payment plan.   the second is an actual visit, where by a further fee of £235, whereby the fees are now £310 , the maximum they can ever add to the CTAX bill. this is typically accompanied by a threat to removed goods, it's cleverly worded or 'explained' to make you 'think' they can waltz in any take anything they like. THEY CANNOT unless YOU let them in. which you don't, nor leave doors unlocked as they can then enter through what is called 'peaceful entry'.   in real term, the seizure of goods is limited to stuff outside like cars YOU might own that are not behind locked gates.   so i'm not too sure what stage you are at  so please clarify. the name of the bailiff company. how much you now owe the county council the CTAX is owed too.   if you have any/all paperwork please scan it to PDF  after redaction - read our upload guide]   one last point. they don't keep coming around they don't keep ringing. neither of those gander them anymore money so they don't bother.   dx      
    • Hi Everybody I moved into my parents house quite recently. My mam is aged and extremely ill (it's just me and her living in the house) and I moved from the North to the South of England to take care of her.   Now I've got a CCJ against me for unpaid Council tax from when I was living in the North and a debt collector has just showed up at the door. Now I don't have the money to pay the entire amount straight away. But I'm willing to try and enter in some kind of payment plan and gradually pay down the debt. However my main concern is that they don't keep coming around and phoning the house threatening and harassing my mam over her sons debt.   However the guy at the door was threatening to seize goods and have them sold at public auction. Getting bailiffs to break in etc.   When I told him that I've nothing of any real value he said he could just take whatever was in the house. Something about if she couldn't prove whatever was hers then they could just take whatever (I'm not 100% this but I think something to this affect).   He left me a "Notification of Enforcement agent visit" sheet of paper.   From the first paragraph it says:   "As an enforcement agent I've attended your premises today with the intention of taking control of your goods in accordance with the taking control of goods (fees) regulations 2014. At this time your goods are bound. You cannot remove, sell or otherwise dispose of them"   Thus I'd appreciate any advice that readers my be able to offer. Does anyone know the law regarding "seizing assets" when the debtor is not the homeowner/tenant?   tia Bear
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1055 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

I wanted to ask for some advice for my husband.

 

My husband works in a factory.

 

The building is massive.

 

As of late his employer has started turning off the heating during cold weather.

 

His boss is saying that the heating will only go on between the hours of 6AM until 9AM.

 

Nobody apart from the supervisors are allowed to touch the heating without his permission.

 

Today, where he is it was 13 degrees.

 

The boss is also saying that if anyone goes off sick for 10 consecutive days, he will refuse to pay for bank holidays.

 

Is this also legal!?

 

There is also talk of the employer putting up cameras on the shop floor to watch staff. Surely that comes under privacy laws!?

 

We are concerned that by turning off the heating in cold weather, this will affect the health of the workers on the shop floor.

 

Also, the boss is not approachable. His attitude is "If you don't like it there's the door".

 

He also won't recognise unions and threatens to sack anyone who joins one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds a bit Dickensian, lucky.

 

I don't think you can sack someone for joining a union, but the knowledgeable ones will advise. They should be along later.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the HSE website about minimum temperatures, it says if there's physical effort involved, 13 degrees is OK. What does your OH do at the factory?

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/law.htm

 

HB

 

He's a welder.

 

So his job is physical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wanted to ask for some advice for my husband.

 

My husband works in a factory.

 

The building is massive.

 

As of late his employer has started turning off the heating during cold weather.

 

His boss is saying that the heating will only go on between the hours of 6AM until 9AM.

 

Nobody apart from the supervisors are allowed to touch the heating without his permission.

 

Today, where he is it was 13 degrees.

 

The boss is also saying that if anyone goes off sick for 10 consecutive days, he will refuse to pay for bank holidays.

 

Is this also legal!?

 

There is also talk of the employer putting up cameras on the shop floor to watch staff. Surely that comes under privacy laws!?

 

We are concerned that by turning off the heating in cold weather, this will affect the health of the workers on the shop floor.

 

Also, the boss is not approachable. His attitude is "If you don't like it there's the door".

 

He also won't recognise unions and threatens to sack anyone who joins one.

 

The problem he faces in terms of the temperature is that temperatures are guidance only - as such there is no law that he can quote that will mean the employer has to obey.

 

Cameras - provided there are warning notices and they are not placed in certain areas like toilets or showers, then the employer can do this. There is guidance and some law around it, but again, nothing per se stops them doing this. There's some more information here http://www.icaew.com/en/archive/library/subject-gateways/business-management/smes/small-business-update/2015-01/using-cctv-to-monitor-the-workplace

 

If you can evidence that someone is sacked for joining a union, that is one of the exceptions to the two year rule and is unfair dismissal. Proving it, of course, is the problem.

 

I am afraid that with employers like this there are only two solutions:- the entire workforce calls his bluff, joins a union and they all fight back; or you find another job. Being a lone voice crying in the wilderness about guidances and rules will only result in your being sacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem he faces in terms of the temperature is that temperatures are guidance only - as such there is no law that he can quote that will mean the employer has to obey.

 

Cameras - provided there are warning notices and they are not placed in certain areas like toilets or showers, then the employer can do this. There is guidance and some law around it, but again, nothing per se stops them doing this. There's some more information here http://www.icaew.com/en/archive/library/subject-gateways/business-management/smes/small-business-update/2015-01/using-cctv-to-monitor-the-workplace

 

If you can evidence that someone is sacked for joining a union, that is one of the exceptions to the two year rule and is unfair dismissal. Proving it, of course, is the problem.

 

I am afraid that with employers like this there are only two solutions:- the entire workforce calls his bluff, joins a union and they all fight back; or you find another job. Being a lone voice crying in the wilderness about guidances and rules will only result in your being sacked.

 

Thank you for that useful clarification.

 

But what about the fact that the employer has refused to pay bank holiday if a worker goes on sick for 10 consecutive days!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for that useful clarification.

 

But what about the fact that the employer has refused to pay bank holiday if a worker goes on sick for 10 consecutive days!?

 

Ah sorry - forgot that one. No, that wouldn't be lawful UNLESS they get more than 28 days statutory leave (which with an employer like this, I doubt). An employer can sanction what they consider excessive sickness, with, for example, no overtime being allowed. And technically, if they have more than 28 days holiday the employer could amend the contract to make the additional days dependant on levels of sick leave (but they would have to amend the contract). But again, if this happened to him - is he going to make a stand, at the risk of his job? He could take legal action after leaving to recover unpaid wages, but doing it whilst still there, or even complaining about it, is the fastest route to the dole queue.

 

I am afraid that the problem with employers like this is that they don't give a **** about the law or about guidance. They maintain the conditions because people are too desperate to hang on to their jobs and too frightened to organise and fight back. And individuals who fight back are picked off one by one. It isn't pleasant hearing, but it's the fact. I wish it wasn't. But wishes don't change that. Sorry.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah sorry - forgot that one. No, that wouldn't be lawful UNLESS they get more than 28 days statutory leave (which with an employer like this, I doubt). An employer can sanction what they consider excessive sickness, with, for example, no overtime being allowed. And technically, if they have more than 28 days holiday the employer could amend the contract to make the additional days dependant on levels of sick leave (but they would have to amend the contract). But again, if this happened to him - is he going to make a stand, at the risk of his job? He could take legal action after leaving to recover unpaid wages, but doing it whilst still there, or even complaining about it, is the fastest route to the dole queue.

 

I am afraid that the problem with employers like this is that they don't give a **** about the law or about guidance. They maintain the conditions because people are too desperate to hang on to their jobs and too frightened to organise and fight back. And individuals who fight back are picked off one by one. It isn't pleasant hearing, but it's the fact. I wish it wasn't. But wishes don't change that. Sorry.

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another issue with the boss has come up today.

 

Because he has turned the heating off in cold weather people having been making themselves hot drink in the canteen.

 

The boss has said that you are not allowed to make hot drinks at least 30 minutes before any break.

 

Is this legal considering he's turned off the heating!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.


It is easier to enter a rich man than for a camel to pass a needle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No.

 

What would this come under?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, not clear in my answer:

 

Yes it is legal for the owner to say this as there are defined legal brakes required in the working day.

 

No it is not grounds for a claim if the owner says when brakes are taken.


It is easier to enter a rich man than for a camel to pass a needle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that you are trying to help your husband. But if you finally come up with something that is actually unlawful, what do you think happens then? Someone still had to do something about it. There aren't any employment police. You can't expect someone else to do something about it. It still has to be him and his colleagues. Which comes back to join a union or find another job. Personally I'd go with the former, but in the cool light of day, I'd suggest the latter. Not even a union can make an employer like this a good one. I doubt people stay long. I doubt many people have great wages. I doubt many people can claim unfair dismissal. He'll think nothing of sacking the whole lot of them because there is always someone more desperate to step into their shoes. What might be my personal inclination doesn't really doesn't measure up in reality in a situation like this. The employer won't back down to a nice chat. It would be industrial action. Who is going to take that? And do you think they would win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I appreciate that you are trying to help your husband. But if you finally come up with something that is actually unlawful, what do you think happens then? Someone still had to do something about it. There aren't any employment police. You can't expect someone else to do something about it. It still has to be him and his colleagues. Which comes back to join a union or find another job. Personally I'd go with the former, but in the cool light of day, I'd suggest the latter. Not even a union can make an employer like this a good one. I doubt people stay long. I doubt many people have great wages. I doubt many people can claim unfair dismissal. He'll think nothing of sacking the whole lot of them because there is always someone more desperate to step into their shoes. What might be my personal inclination doesn't really doesn't measure up in reality in a situation like this. The employer won't back down to a nice chat. It would be industrial action. Who is going to take that? And do you think they would win?

 

He's looking for another job now as he's had enough of the way how the boss treats his staff.

 

He's been there 24 years, and he gets no full sickness pay only ssp, he gets nothing for christmas, and he went for 6 years without a pay rise.

 

He's had enough now and is now looking elswhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everyone jined a union en masse the boss would be inable to sack anyone as the rest of the workforce would be gone. No, production, no-one to train the new people who would be expected to toe the line. However that is not a real expectation so these cavemen continue to get away with things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If everyone jined a union en masse the boss would be inable to sack anyone as the rest of the workforce would be gone. No, production, no-one to train the new people who would be expected to toe the line. However that is not a real expectation so these cavemen continue to get away with things

 

I agree entirely. Although employers have been known to sack everyone AND get away with it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago i worked with a chap whose father owned the biggest machine tool shop in the southern hemisphere. There was an industrial dispute and the managers dismissed a large part of the workforce. Mr P then sacked the managers because he knew that his profits relied on the workers skills, which were less transferrable than those of the managers who had handled the dispute badly.

 

Times change and in most businesses the management has improved massively as the rubbish ones lost their jobs but in many smaller enterprises in mature markets the companies are reliant on low wages and abuse of position to keep going in competition with better managed firms. The bad bosses cant see a different way to progress as TBH their management skill are limited so as they say, when your only tool is a hammer every problem becomes a nail.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...