Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, Some might remember me I put up a post about buying a seat leon,   Anyway it has caused me hell!!   So I had a new dual mass flywheel and clutch fitted by   Formula one auto center    A couple of days later my clutch is slipping and making noises and smells, so I took it back to the garage and they have offered repair it free of charge under Warranty,   I have told them I had trouble getting the car into them for the whole day the first time they fixed it and I need my car,   I have asked them to provide a courtesy car but they refuse to provide it.   Under consumer rights act 2015    Page 23   paragraph 2   (A) do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer and,    (B) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials and postage)   They must cover the cost of this?   Thanks again    
    • images/posts removed . please do not post jpg picture images directly to a post . read upload and redact in jpg then convert using on of the listed websites there to convert to one multipage pdf only . that way only logged-in,registered and approved caggers are the only ones that can download and see them . else anyone can see them caggers or not. dx
    • OK, I will do now.   I did look to black out certain things, but I was not sure what I should and should not redact and there was nothing on there that was personal enough for me to be concerned with being made public. So I am happy for all to view, but if you are kind enough to redact what is needed as per the forum rules, that would be amazing.     I was planning on collecting up other court cases they have lost, to refer to as part of my evidence, I'm not sure if this is worth doing or could just confuse matters?   But there seem to be many where the judge has ruled against them because of confusing and not clearly displayed signage, trespass, as well as their charge being £100, which is more than the Bevis case said was reasonable.    A quick search found this article as one example KBT cornwall lose case article.pdf   Lastly, I will go to the site to get updated images, but from google earth, you can see from the pictures the entrance states it is for the hotel parking, which I follwed instructions and gave my details to the hotel. Where I think my car was parked (it was that long ago I'm not exactly sure) there are signs on the opposite wall, but it was 12.30am, pitch black and they could not be seen.           Claimants_WS.pdf
    • yes but have the landowner paid this years contract fee. no evidence they have in the ws. pop it back up now if you wish. the forum is quiet i'll redact it for you so we have the info.   dx  
    • Thank you all so much for taking the time to comment and help, I really do appreciate it.   Just to elaborate a bit more on the background, just because my lack of knowledge of the process might mean I've actually done things along the way that I did not know what they were and so hadn't mention it.    When they decided to go to court, I was offered mediation, which I took. I offered to pay the reduced rate, just to make it go away, but insisted it was not an admission of guilt, it was a goodwill gesture to save us all the effort of court. They refused and wanted £250.    A court date was set, but in Leeds, then a couple weeks later I received another letter saying it had been moved to London.   I was not aware I had any say in which court it would be held at, but I now understand i have good reason to request it is moved to a local one to me, which is also local to the offending place, I will call the court tomorrow and explain that. But so far I have only been told what is happening, I've not been given the choice for anything.   They seem to be going down the route of a contract breach, not trespass which is interesting. There is a document in the evidence which has the agreement between themselves which I assumed meant they can pursue me.    I am going to visit the site again shortly, at midnight the time of the offence and take pictures to build a case file of the route I took to enter the car park, how it is in the hotel grounds and no signs can be seen.    Am I right in saying, the fact they do not actually have any pictures of my car in the location they say it was in, just because all of the pictures they have were at 12/30am and it was pitch black, I am going to say my car was parked correctly in the hotel side, not on their land and it is then up to them to prove otherwise, which they are not able to do, because the burden of proof lies with the claimant I think?
  • Our picks

incrediblesulk

Employer wants to meet to discuss absence regarding depression they caused.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 497 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

Finally, look at this blog and see if the employer has carried out the requirements listed below

 

http://www.hempsons.co.uk/news-articles/consideration-reasonable-adjustments-part-performance-management-process-helpful-reminder/

 

 

 

1) Ensure recommended reasonable adjustments are implemented before commencing performance management, and allow for some time to see if this results in an improvement.

 

2) Consider adjustments even if there is only a possibility that the adjustment will remove the disadvantage (resources permitting)

 

3) Dismissal without making all reasonable adjustments is likely to render the dismissal unfair.

 

4) Ensure recommended reasonable adjustments are implemented in a timely manner.

 

5) Ensure that the standards of performance required are realistic and achievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ha ha ha, sorry but what you read in the papers and what happens in real life are two separate things. Her Union said there's nothing they can do so obviously there are no real "rights" in this situation. Best advice for future people: If you have mental health issues keep your mouth shut and try to blag it through.

 

Absolutely wrong.

 

Most people do not have the experience you describe. Most employers now have very good policies around mental health. One of the biggest barriers to seeking help is stigma - telling people to keep quiet about it is the kind of thing that perpetuates stigma, prevents people asking for help, and is utterly irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dondana

Define reasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dondana

Define reasonable

 

 

It would have been courteous to use the word please

 

Reasonable, in Law, doesn't have a fixed definition

 

The Judge looks at the circumstances of the case and determines what is reasonable

 

Asking a person to travel to a far location might be deemed reasonable if she has a car and it is daylight

 

Asking same person to travel to same location at night when she nolonger had the car would be deemed unreasonable

 

Reasonableness is fact- sensitive

 

In order words, the Judge has to hear the whole evidence and rule

 

You can't determine reasonableness without full information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dondana

Define reasonable

 

You are wasting your breath. That's why I am refraining from posting here now. The poster is adept at telling people what they want to hear, as opposed to what they need to hear, and posting random and broadly irrelevant cases to support the contention that they know what they are talking about. This is going to end horribly for someone, and it won't be dondada, who cares nothing about the consequences that other people will reap from following their advice. There is a difference between disagreement and complete denial - dondada clearly, unlike someone like Emmzzi or others here, has no experience of employment law or tribunals but is setting themselves up as some sort of authority on a subject they know nothing about. Unfortunately that happens on sites, and then things can go horribly wrong for people. I am more than capable of googling the theory of nuclear physics, but you'd be an idiot employing me to manage your reactor!

 

And apparently, now, you must say "please" to them when toy speak. Getting above ourselves or what? He or she is an anonymous poster of dubious provenance on a random internet site. Not a High Court judge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely wrong.

 

Most people do not have the experience you describe. Most employers now have very good policies around mental health. One of the biggest barriers to seeking help is stigma - telling people to keep quiet about it is the kind of thing that perpetuates stigma, prevents people asking for help, and is utterly irresponsible.

 

I'm sorry but I disagree. Most employers now have policies. SOME employers have been known to actually follow the spirit of them. Whilst I agree that keeping quiet can have adverse impacts, collectively and individually, there are still many employers who certainly will discriminate against people for both physical and mental disabilities. Having policies doesn't mean that you act well. It means your have a documents to produce at a tribunal to back up your assertion that you are being reasonable! We have had laws on gender and equality for 40+ years and employers have had policies on it for just as long. And look how well that is going....!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I am sangie.

I asked the question realistically in a rhetorical way.

 

I still notice that dondana didn't answer the question on another thread about how many actual ET they have personally been involved in.

They failed to answer the question, posted another couple of times and disappeared off the thread even tho it went on for another couple of pages or so.

 

From this I conclude"armchair lawyer"

And experience in searching on google.

 

Ps I might have a nuclear reactor that needs a manager! 😁

 

Reasonable is subjective to an individuals circumstance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are wasting your breath. That's why I am refraining from posting here now. The poster is adept at telling people what they want to hear, as opposed to what they need to hear, and posting random and broadly irrelevant cases to support the contention that they know what they are talking about. This is going to end horribly for someone, and it won't be dondada, who cares nothing about the consequences that other people will reap from following their advice. There is a difference between disagreement and complete denial - dondada clearly, unlike someone like Emmzzi or others here, has no experience of employment law or tribunals but is setting themselves up as some sort of authority on a subject they know nothing about. Unfortunately that happens on sites, and then things can go horribly wrong for people. I am more than capable of googling the theory of nuclear physics, but you'd be an idiot employing me to manage your reactor!

 

And apparently, now, you must say "please" to them when toy speak. Getting above ourselves or what? He or she is an anonymous poster of dubious provenance on a random internet site. Not a High Court judge!

 

 

This is a classic Ad Hominem argument!

 

You have not provided evidence to refute my position rather you are attacking my person

 

To put to rest the question of how many Tribunal Claim I have had

 

I have had 3 Tribunal Claims

 

1 Appeal Tribunal Claim

 

I have assisted in over 10 Tribunal Claims to date

 

I have now put in an official request to the MOJ to volunteer at the Employment Tribunal near me

 

I'm not surprised that you are attacking my person rather than my arguments

 

Several times I have provided documented evidence to show your position was wrong

 

You have never proved any of my points wrong

 

Keep attacking my person, it shows me that I'm right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think questioning someone's advice is ad hominem, DD.

 

I didn't know you could volunteer at an ET, what will you be doing?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not Ad Hominem.

Its asking for what real life experiences you have. A bit like references.

 

You can vol thru the FRU.

But this is mainly for juniors looking to gain experience for study purposes. Someone taking their law degree for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry but I disagree. Most employers now have policies. SOME employers have been known to actually follow the spirit of them. Whilst I agree that keeping quiet can have adverse impacts, collectively and individually, there are still many employers who certainly will discriminate against people for both physical and mental disabilities. Having policies doesn't mean that you act well. It means your have a documents to produce at a tribunal to back up your assertion that you are being reasonable! We have had laws on gender and equality for 40+ years and employers have had policies on it for just as long. And look how well that is going....!

 

You're right; I should have said 'many employers'. I come to this as a mental health trainer working with organisations that want to change their culture around mental health, and my experience is that more and more are trying to do better - not just because it's the right thing to do, but because they now recognise that there are good financial reasons for doing so. One of the things that drives presenteeism is a culture of encouraging people to keep quiet about mental health problems, and whilst I recognise that there are some dinosaur employers out there, I wouldn't ever recommend telling someone to try to hide problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think questioning someone's advice is ad hominem, DD.

 

I didn't know you could volunteer at an ET, what will you be doing?

 

HB

 

 

 

Yes you could volunteer at the ET

 

 

I will be assisting self-representing Claimants at Case Management Hearings

 

 

Later, I will be assisting them at Preliminary Hearings on worker status, reasonable prospect of success and other simple PH cases

 

 

I will NOT conduct their litigations for them

 

 

Apparently, I'm allowed to do so but it would take too much of my time

 

 

Since I'm doing it for free, it will be best to help as much people as possible

 

 

PH and CMD are simple hearings which could be over in one or two hours and I move on to the next

 

 

I definitely wouldn't be doing any Full Merit Hearings (takes way too much time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would strongly advise that you do not listen to the advice from dondada. They are wildly keen to quote laws that do not do what they claim they do, and case law that doesn't apply. There is a vast differences between a duty to CONSIDER reasonable adjustments and an obligation to provide them. A difference which the poster appears to not understand. And since this is not about reasonable adjustments but performance, a somewhat irrelevant comment. It's easy to claim to be some sort of expert on a subject you know little about, because you don't have to live with the consequences of other people following your advice. You are right to be cautious and to recognise that the real world doesn't operate like a Google law search! The only reason I'm posting a response is because I've seen too many people here being drawn into unrealistic expectations by this poster, and you have had enough problems over the past year without falling for amateur lawyer hour here.

 

Its not Ad Hominem.

Its asking for what real life experiences you have. A bit like references.

 

You can vol thru the FRU.

But this is mainly for juniors looking to gain experience for study purposes. Someone taking their law degree for example.

 

I strongly believe it is Ad Hominem argument

As you can see Sangie595 claimed #45 that there is only a duty to CONSIDER reasonable adjustments and not an obligation to provide them

That position is very contrary to Section 20 and Schedule 8 of the Equality Act 2010

If it wasn't an Ad Hominem argument, she would have come out to either apologize on her error or clarify her statement

She did neither, which shows she is not interested in facts but to get at a person (Ad Hominem)

She is still welcome to clarify her statement though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its your democratic right to disagree.

But I'm in the no its not camp.

 

You also didn't read sangies statement in the context in which its clearly worded.

 

All employers have to do Is consider an adjustment. Come to the

Conclusion its not reasonable and move on.

 

In your highlighted text sangie was pointing out that there are vast differences.

You should stop speed reading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread is in danger of becoming derailed.....again...and not of any assistance to the OP.

 

Thread temp closed until OP advises it be reopened.

 

 

Andy


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 497 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...