Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
      • 160 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

The entire team are being made redundant - Why doesn't TUPE apply?!!!?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2372 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

We learned yesterday that our entire catering team are to be made redundant as the contract we are working under has been terminated. But we also know that the new building owner has every intention of providing catering when they take over in a few months! This cannot be fair and surely that is what the TUPE regulations are designed for - does anyone have any advice?:mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

We learned yesterday that our entire catering team are to be made redundant as the contract we are working under has been terminated. But we also know that the new building owner has every intention of providing catering when they take over in a few months! This cannot be fair and surely that is what the TUPE regulations are designed for - does anyone have any advice?:mad2:

 

As far as I know, it is not a requirement to use TUPE. In a company i worked for, one department dealing with a particular Insurance risk, were basically sold under TUPE to another Insurance company. The staff went with the portfolio of work to offer continuity of service to the policyholders. The staff had personal client handling relationships that the new Insurance company wanted to maintain. Therefore TUPE made sense.

 

I have a relative who worked in contract catering for a big company. When they lost the contract they were made redundant, as the new catering company had their own operation. They did not want to take on staff from another company.

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

Its a catering contract. The building is being sold by the current owner and contract holder to a new owner (the current owner's staff will be staying in the building for another few years). They have terminated our catering contract. The new owner is planning to open a new canteen in another part of the same building in a few months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key thing is in your last sentence. " in a few months"

 

So if your protected under TUPE ( and I think its unlikely) what work do you do for a few months before the new building owner opens a new canteen?

You need to clarify what's happening to the company's, not building owners.

I have also found this for you...

 

Can I be made redundancy because of the Transfer?

 

Yes you can be made redundant and new changes to TUPE law have made it possible for you to be made redundant before the handover, i.e. the new organisation can decide it doesn’t need all of the staff from the existing organisation and redundancy consultation will then take place with the existing organisation. For this not to be unfair there needs to be “an economic, technical or organisation reason entailing changes in the workforce

 

 

The key word in the above is economic. Your doind a catering job where, for a few months their is no canteen. No canteen requires no staff therefore economic reasons

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your job with the business where the catering is done or does a catering company employ you ? In other words are you working for a catering company who has a contract to supply staff to the business ?

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for a contract catering company

 

Does the contract caterer operate any other contracts near to where you live ? Can you apply for any positions with the same company working in a different kitchen ?

 

My relative worked for the same contract catering company in more than one place, but had to move to maintain employment, as the jobs available were not close to where they lived at the time. The big contract catering companies run kitchens in many different workplaces.

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

If the business is ending the contract it has with the catering company, then TUPE does not apply as you don't work for the business.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ultimately you are knackered by that word CONTRACT. the building owner buys in a servicea nd your employer sells it. If your employer no longer has work for you then that is redundancy. Doesnt matter what arrangements the new building owner has for the future, this could have occurred at any time and ther is nothing you or your employer can do about it. Sorry but it is not down for TUPE, however your employer should at least try to find you alternative work within their existing organisation so if they are recruiting anywhere else then you lot should be considered before they try and fill the posts externally.. A union rep should be getting to grips with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they key point here is the 'in a few months' bit rather than 'contract'

 

I recall that we once used to use an an outside cleaning company, but the cleaner who used to do the work on their behalf was useless. We gave notice that we were taking the cleaning back 'in house' and soon came unstuck when it was established that TUPE did apply. The substantial role of the cleaner in question was to clean our premises and ours alone, and as the undertaking was transferring to another company - ours - she had to be transferred to us on her existing terms. We then had to take her through a lengthy disciplinary process (legitimately due to the continued poor quality of work) whilst she worked alongside the member of staff that we had taken on to do the role

 

In your case, where the service provision is ceasing the redundancy situation may well be lawful, even if the employer is known to be reintroducing in house catering in future. The break in that provision so long as it is distinct and for valid reasons would most likely be sufficient to remain on the right side of the law

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

If this a 'sham' redundancy, and the break in service provision appears to be there to avoid TUPE, then you may find that the redundancy is in fact an unfair dismissal.

 

Potentially there may be enough there to give your current employer a serious headache. You can speak to a solicitor if you wish to push this forward.

 

Even if it is an unfair dismissal, you'd still be expected to search for a new job. So it might be best to start searching unfortunately.

 

If its any consolidation, the redundancy payment for someone with 36 years service should be pretty substantial.

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

This is what your entitled to

You get:

0.5 week’s pay for each full year worked when you’re under 22

1 week’s pay for each full year worked when you’re between 22 and 41

1.5 week’s pay for each full year worked when you’re 41

 

If you google redundancy pay their is a calculator

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...