Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I suggested consideration of bankruptcy some years ago. It was not well received.
    • That is a superb WS. However, I have a few tweaks to suggest. In (2) "indicating" not "indication". I think to be consistent with your numbering, in (6) the Beavis case should be EXHIBIT 2. Do you really need to include over 100 pages of Beavis?  I think that would be likely to annoy the judge.  Just try and find the bit where they decide it was not a penalty due to having an interest in limiting the time that vehicles can stay. I'll have a look myself for this bit later as it's highly likely to be in WSs from PPCs who think that that paragraph means all their charges are valid always on every occasion. After your current (7) add this.  It's always useful to refer to a judgment when making a legal point - 8.  In the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6, where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “No parking at any time”, District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.   In (14) if my maths are right the CPR request should be "EXHIBIT 3".  it is missing from your list of exhibits. In (16) the two figures should be £100 and £170.  They are entitled to increase fro,m £60 to £100, they are not entitled to increase to £170.  To make it clear for the judge I would write - 16. The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £170. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. 17. The Claimant has also invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative. You also need ot number your exhibits. The rest is excellent - well done.
    • Did you ever think of walking away? Become bankrupt and in 12 months it'll all be behind you. My feeling is that you may well get nothing from the sale of the property anyway. Going by the date this thread started it looks like eight years of arrears, lender's costs and receiver’s fees on top.
    • Just to clarify - I make use of evening legal clinics. It is not always possible to see a lawyer (they have limited time and days/week).  This means questions one has may never get answered or there's weeks between follow-ups.   To be really clear - I am representing myself; I am playing at being lawyer/ barrister - which means I take help wherever I can get it (and then research it thoroughly). Ae - a judge in a recent hearing pointed out the receiver is not part of my current proceedings - and suggested I have a separate claim v the receiver. Disclosure has presented damning evidence v the receiver  The receiver against whom I have a complaint is not part of the receiver governing body.   The receivership is in 2 names - a joint one.  My complaint is directed at whom I was told is the lead receiver.  The other named receiver IS a member of the governing body.  But he has now left the company.  And the lead receiver has retired - but is still a working consultant on my case.   All the evidence shows it was the 'lead' receiver who was doing all the  work/ the misbehaviour.   But if the appointment was 'joint' would I make a complaint against them both?    I am sure that wouldn't go down well with the other receiver who is at the beginning of his career. The law is very much against borrowers.   But the evidence against this receivership is crystal clear.   I just don't know how and to whom to complain.   The places I've tried so far don't offer much transparency       
  • 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

Group Income Protection - Claim Declined


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2151 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

Thanks Sangie,

 

You have clarified a lot.

 

In terms of reasonable adjustments based on my employer knowing that I am ill, can I make suggestions to them? I have mentioned this to them but to date they have simply dismissed discussing it.

 

I just want to get an idea of what adjustments would be considered reasonable I have an idea of what I will need once I'm well enough to return to work but don't want to be in a position where I request them and they are not granted and then this is then used to dismiss me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

reasonable: can be assessed by size of cost and disruption to business

Assessment criteria: the kind of disability and the size and type of the company

 

 

Which you are not going to tell us.. and which anyway only a court can decide... IF you have a disability.... which stress/anxiety/depression are often not

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

Hmmm,

 

I just got this from a government website:

 

A mental health condition is considered a disability if it has a long-term effect on your normal day-to-day activity. This is defined under the Equality Act 2010.

Your condition is ‘long term’ if it lasts, or is likely to last, 12 months.

 

‘Normal day-to-day activity’ is defined as something you do regularly in a normal day. This includes things like using a computer, working set times or interacting with people.

 

And it describes my illness to a tea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[

You say! Medical specialists for your employers insurers say you are faking it!!!

 

Sorry, but we've exhausted this for now. Without further or more information we are just reiterating the same ground.

 

For example, you really seem to be using a computer quite well just now, so why can't you use one in the office??? It's really simple.

 

The insurers don't believe you and you don't appear to have any real medical evidence to say they are wrong.

 

So this is going to come down to what evidence they have that they are correct. We can't predict that. So you must appeal, go to the FO if you lose, but there isn't really anything else we can say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Honeybee,

 

I have reached the 30 messages requirement but for some reason I still can'y PM, can you help?

 

 

I'll pass that on.

 

 

 

As you are aware, we don't like advice to be given by PM and I and I believe Sangie haven't done this. You should be able to discuss your situation on open forum.

 

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I'm aware and I don't mind discussing here. Thats fine its only so I can forward sangie some information, you did mention that it had been forwarded but sangie is saying that he/she hasn't received it. I tried PM ing you this message but I can't even do that now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had a PM from anyone.

just re sent it

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I'm sorry. This is going to be blunt.

 

In summary, you have been off sick for the best part of two years. This has had nothing at all to do with cancer - it has always been work related stress and that is the cause that you agreed to.

 

Only half way through this period did you submit a grievance to your employer, relating to events that happened a full year before hand. You then went off sick again, also with work related stress. Your employer appears, from what you have said, to have paid you full pay for the first months of each period of sickness, which is an exceedingly generous sickness policy.

 

You have already been offered a settlement, which you declined because you appeared to believe that your employers insurers were going to pay you full sick pay for the duration

 

. Thereafter the insurer said that your problem is with the employer, which it is, and that isn't sickness in their book. Whether that is right or not is a matter for the FO - but be warned, it possibly is.

 

Your grievance has been partially upheld, but you still haven't gone back to work. There is no prospect of your doing so, so the employer had said that if the insurer declines your claim they will start to dismiss.

 

So here's the plain and simple truth - you were offered a settlement, so they may never offer you another one. You failed to mention that offer when both Emmzzi and I mentioned such things. If they offer again, take it. I'd even suggest asking if that offer is still on the table.

 

Because you are not going back to work. You are not entitled to go back to work on your own terms. Whatever the rights and wrongs here, the employer had acted, in law, quite correctly. And you still cannot go back to work. That is, now, down to you. Your grievance has been dealt with.

 

You obviously can't draw a line under that and move on. So you literally need to move on. With the best will in the world, it happens. I am sure that one day you will look back and think that leaving this employment was the best thing you ever did.

 

But you aren't going to recover now whilst with this employer, and the fact that you still have such severe work related stress is screaming that out loud, no matter what you say about wanting to return. If you wanted to return, and if that was a realistic prospect, you wouldn't be so anxious about work!

 

Two years is too long. What is broken now in that employment relationship is not going to get fixed. The employer knows that. That is why you were offered a settlement. The only person who doesn't appear to know it is you.

 

Go back to the employer, ask nicely if the offer might still be on the table, for you to drop the complaint to the FO and any claims against the employer. If they can both guarantee no further expenses, it might still be on the table. If it is, take it, and get on with your life. Get better, find another job, put this all behind you.

 

I can't give you any better advice than that. With the information I now have, if you are genuinely that sick as a result of all this, then you will never cope with the stress of a tribunal or self- litigating.

 

If you aren't, that insurer is likely to rip your position apart - they are experienced at doing so when they need to. So that's it. You must decide. I can't offer any further or better advice, so I'm out now.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the summary Sangie.

 

 

After 2 years of work related stress, I think it is fair to say no adjustments would make it possible to work there again; it has simply gone too far, and for too long. So I would drop that line of thought.

 

 

A clean break, parting of the ways and working somewhere that both suits you and values you, will do more for your health than you could ever imagine. I do hope you are lucky with your job search.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...