Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • why not use our default holding/no paperwork defence in 100's of recent card claimform threads here already? not sure wherever you got that from but its not ours, not present day. dx    
    • This thread has been dawdling along for a year. We ask questions and we don't get any answers. Then the thread goes completely to sleep for about 10 months and we get a request today to reopen it and we are told that there is a court date in June – in just a few weeks. We would like to see please – the claim form in PDF format. The defence – in PDF format. Any documents which you have received and filled out such as directions questionnaires et cetera in PDF format. We also would like to see a comprehensive bullet pointed list of events – what you sent, when you sent it, the value of it, who do you send it to, was it properly declared, was the value properly declared – and any anything else you can think of. I think you need to realise that we are all volunteers here and we have our work cut out helping people who feel involved and committed to sorting out their problems. I'm sorry to say that the impression the moment is that you aren't really very interested. If you can't give us the information that I have asked above and also answer the other questions that I put to you probably a year ago, then I think that we may as well close the thread. I'm sorry you think I'm being tough – but this is a serious forum for serious legal advice. The people we advise on parcel delivery issues always get their money back but they have to take it as seriously as we do. It is not just a piece of social media. I'm closing the thread for the moment. If you have the information that we require then please use the report button and we will open the thread again so that you can post it up. Then we will be able to help you Thank you
    • after a lot o reading the following is my defence statement  as I understand it I need to respond to all points in the particulars   Any help would be appreciated  DEFENCE  1) aa claim for money , the burden of proof in any allegation to the amount of money claimed to be owed remains with the claimant . And be proved unless the defendant Denies it. I deny all allegations made by the claimant  Therefore, the Claimant Is required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed. The Claimants particulars of case  Does not give sufficient information to enable me to properly assess and defend the claim. 2)The Claimants particulars of claim states that the account was assigned from capital one to on 18/03/2021. I do not recall receiving notice of this assignment. A request for this has been under the consumer credit act to the claimant on17/05/2024 And I am awaiting a reply.  3) Similarly to the above point I do not recall being served with a Default notice by capital one as required by s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served on the Defendant And also required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it is in a prescribed form  A request under has been made to the claimant’s solicitor on 17/05:2024 under CPR 31:14 and I am waiting for a reply  4) The consumer credit act also makes it incumbent upon the creditor to send regular statement of accounts to a debtor. Again I do not recall receiving these A request for this information has also been made under CPR31:14 on 17/05/2024… and I am awaiting a reply 5) As no documents that have been requested from the claimant have yet been received by me I ask the court for more time to receive and inspect the documents and have the opportunity to mount a more thorough defence      
    • who did you put as the claimant? was it Parcel22Go.com we'll need theirs and your full WS too if they've been filed yet?
    • Hi everyone, I have a court hearing date scheduled for June regarding this case. The service in question is Evri International, which I booked through Interparcel. However, I am aiming to hold Parcel2Go.com (P2G) liable because they operated the Evri International service. The Evri International website, which is operated by Parcel2go.com Limited (with company number 02591405) under the Evri brand. Given that my booking was made through Interparcel and not directly with P2G, am I still in a position to take Parcel2Go to court? Any advice or insights would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
  • 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
      • 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

Permanent role being made redundant, replaced with fixed term contract. Legal?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2418 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

Hi, thought I'd see if I could find any useful advice here. I'm very anxious so any good pointers much appreciated!

 

I'll keep it as brief as I can: I'm a one-man IT dept for a medium size organisation - permanent position that has risen in seniority over 12 years. My line manager is proposing a reorganisation that will end my current role and replace it with an extremely similar role on a 2-year fixed term contract. Redundancy is an option, and I am unsure as yet if 'they' are keen for me to take it, or take the new role.

 

I want to stay on, and I believe the new role is precisely my current role just with a new job title and an improved job description. My current job description is pretty vague, but the new role describes precisely the work I have been doing for years. The only real difference is that some more junior responsibilities will be removed and given to a new, junior role (which is great).

 

If I take the new role on 2yr FTC, I presume I will not get redundancy at the end of that contract if they choose to let me go. I cannot afford to lose my job security like that!

 

I have a 1st consultation coming up, and I will argue that the new role represents what I do currently. So my questions are...

 

Can they do this? If I can prove that the new role describes precisely what I currently do, can they still make my post redundant and leave me with the choice of changing to FTC?

 

If I took the FTC, might I nevertheless be considered to have been continuously employed for my 12 years+, and would that render the 'fixed term' irrelevant as I would be considered permanent in law? I don't know, but this is a possibility I have gathered might be the case from googling around.

 

If 'they' would rather I left, can they even make me redundant when they are replacing my role with such a materially similar one, albeit FTC? I have absolutely no history of failing to perform or being told of any problems with my work, so there are no grounds for dismissal.

 

As I said I'm going to argue that the new role is my current role, I want it, and I don't want to be FTC. I think I have a good case, but I'd love to be able to reference actual laws that back up this position!

 

Thanks again if anyone has any guidance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what's the rationle for it being a FTC? I can't see the point myself.

 

You shifting to a FTC doesn't eradicate length of service to date, so I think you would be entitled to redundancy after 2 years anyway; so may as well go for it.

 

How large is the organisation you are in? That will affect the consutancy process.

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

Their may be a reason in the company's 2 year plan/5 year plan so they may have a valid reason for making the position redundent.

On the flip side I cant see the point in making you redundent with sound 10ish years service and then taking someone on on a FTC. It will cost them thousands in redundancy even if they offer you the position on a FTC. Your still entitled to your payout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Size: About 100 full time staff.

 

This point about perhaps still being entitled to redundancy at the end of a 2yr FTC is key. If that is the case, much of my fear is erased! But I will need to be sure, as otherwise I would be better off taking redundancy now rather than risk being out of work with nothing in 2 years.

 

The supposed rationale for making the role FTC is because "...it is envisaged that the skills/experience required will evolve in this period." No **** Sherlock, that's always been the case, and I could say that about every role in the organisation! I feel this rationale is extremely weak. Reading between the lines, I believe my (fairly new) line manager is unsure of me - our personality types don't quite gel unfortunately - and wants to leave a door open. I have had a succession of managers over the years as the post above me is a bit like the 'Defence Against the Dark Arts' post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just don't let them give you a break between contracts and you are fine; type of contract not important, length of service is

 

https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights/redundancy-pay

 

See also https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights/consultation - get your rationale ready!

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 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

This is promising, thank you!

 

I will go read and research some more to be as sure as I can.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the 'mastermind' behind this move is unaware of this, and believes they can avoid paying me redundancy if they don't want me in two years.

Otherwise what is the point of making it FTC?

 

Now I'm wondering if I should raise this in consultation, or just keep it in my back pocket knowing that I'm still assured of either a job or redundancy at the end of it.

During 2 years I can also be networking and working on my credentials, to be better prepared for a job hunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You raise it on 1st consultation.

If and its a big if, they can change your contract to a FTC they would have to make you redundent and then re hire you.

 

What they may be doing is changing everyone's contracts to FTC as they don't have to pay redundancy at the end of a contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Younraise it on 1st consultation.

If and its a big if, they can change your contract to a FTC they would have to make you redundent and then re hire you.

 

What they may be doing is changing everyone's contracts to FTC as they don't have to pay redundancy at the end of a contract.

 

I agree. You point out to them that you know this. If they are above board in their proposal, they won't care that you know. If they are up to something it gives them pause - you won't be a walkover. Just be sure, as suggested already, that there is no break between contracts and got are in no worse a position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. You point out to them that you know this. If they are above board in their proposal, they won't care that you know. If they are up to something it gives them pause - you won't be a walkover. Just be sure, as suggested already, that there is no break between contracts and got are in no worse a position.

 

Thanks folks, I think you're right. I'll bring it up and see what they make of it.

 

So if I am still entitled to redundancy later if I take the FTC, my remaining challenge will be whether they actually want me to take it or not. If they don't, then I will be arguing that the role is the same as my current role or close enough that they must give it to me. My understanding is that you can't make someone redundant and then advertise a new role that is clearly the same role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you take the FTC and they let you go at the end of it you will have 14 years qualifying service, not 2 so entitled to that as a redundancy package. This is the point that Emmzi and Sangie were making, a change of contracts doesnt affect the past. Same as if you oved to a different job in the company altogether, still continuous service. What will change is the right to challenge whether the job is redundant at the end of the 2 year contract. they will probably offer you another 2 year contract, or a year or however far into the future they think they can see so it wont really change anything. beware of taking the golden bullet and then accepting the new job offer, that has hidden problems for both sides if it goes badly

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you take the FTC and they let you go at the end of it you will have 14 years qualifying service, not 2 so entitled to that as a redundancy package. This is the point that Emmzi and Sangie were making, a change of contracts doesnt affect the past. Same as if you oved to a different job in the company altogether, still continuous service. What will change is the right to challenge whether the job is redundant at the end of the 2 year contract. they will probably offer you another 2 year contract, or a year or however far into the future they think they can see so it wont really change anything. beware of taking the golden bullet and then accepting the new job offer, that has hidden problems for both sides if it goes badly

 

No it won't change. Someone on a fixed term contract had exactly the same redundancy rights as any other employee. It would be unlawful to treat someone differently simply because their job is on a FTC. So, for example, if there are six jobs that are the same and everyone has two or more years of employment, the employer cannot decided that the one job that is on a FTC is the one to go - all six posts must be put at risk and a fair redundancy process run. Obviously, if this is the only post of this type, then the job could become redundant at any time, but that would hold true of any form of contract. And if this is the case, the employer must look for a suitable alternative role before making them redundant. The distinction between fixed term contracts and so-called permanent contracts died a long time ago - the length of service is what matters now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had my 1st consultation. They agreed the point that I would be entitled to redundancy after 2 yrs if I got the FTC role and it wasn't later renewed. BUT, the current redundancy deal is 4 x statutory, and this is something they would not necessarily have to offer me later. I said that is something I would want to negotiate if I were to be offered the role, as I can't live with the prospect of mere statutory redundancy at the end of it.

 

I also explained my argument that the new role is essentially my current role and that therefore it should automatically be mine if I want it.

 

Nothing I can do now except wait for the 2nd consultation :-( Still, feeling fairly optimistic about the outlook. Thanks again for the advice everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't rate your chances of negotiating a "might happen" in 2 years time

 

Worth negotiating: training that will keep your skills and thus employability current

 

Decide. Do you want to keep the job now or not? Stop trying to butter your bread on all sides and the edges!

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

I don't rate your chances of negotiating a "might happen" in 2 years time

 

Worth negotiating: training that will keep your skills and thus employability current

 

Decide. Do you want to keep the job now or not? Stop trying to butter your bread on all sides and the edges!

 

I agree with this. There is no room to tie them to such a good deal in the future, and any agreement would not be worth the paper it might be written on. Take what is on the table now, or don't. But do not expect anything other than another two years work and, possibly, statutory redundancy. Make your decision based on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't rate your chances of negotiating a "might happen" in 2 years time

 

Worth negotiating: training that will keep your skills and thus employability current

 

Decide. Do you want to keep the job now or not? Stop trying to butter your bread on all sides and the edges!

 

I demand more butter! :-) But yes, I can see that is an unlikely thing to be able to negotiate. I will at least question the rationale for making the role FTC. And yes, I'll be focussing on my employability over those 2 years if I get them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...