Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I did not receive a notice via post but in my claim status it shows my claim was transferred to a court I requested in my DQ, as it is closer to me.    Defense I filed:  1.       The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. 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. 2.       The defendant paid the lead tenant a fixed sum monthly bill without fail for the extent of the rental period of the accommodation their contract was associated with who was responsible to make payments to the claimant, ending in June 2023. 3.       After moving out, a month later, the claimant wrote to state that an outstanding sum existed. Further stating, as one of the 10 tenants at the time, I now owed them the full sum instead of my 1/10 proportion of said debt, as 10 students were at the dwelling. They also intimated that they were legally allowed to charge me the full sum if the other renters were not to pay their share under some equal and joint severity rule. 4.       Despite sending numerous requests prior to the court claim being raised for copies of said bills for said utilities covered by the agreement, the claimant failed to send any clear bills. This included a CPR 31.14 on xx/xx/xxxx sent via post. 5.       The defendants stress that they acted in good faith to settle the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the confirmation received from the claimant.  Any subsequent demands for additional payments are unwarranted and contradict the claimant's previous acknowledgment of settlement. 6.       Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: - a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. 7.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation                  that the money is owed. 8.It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
    • Paint is a free programme on any Windows PC. But don't worry, the choice here is not either perfection or nothing. As you say, use your scanner, save the file ... and then use the "choose files" option when you post to CAG to add the file. We can do all the redacting and converting to the correct file type at this end.  The important thing is just to get the info to us. Why not do an experiment this afternoon and see if the above works?  
    • I see they're trying to round up asylum seekers and lock them up for about three months so they can be put on planes to Rwanda. I'm a bit surprised that this is legal.  
    • thought for the day "Prime ministers need a big strategy that tells you where you’re going, you need a bunch of tactics that get you there, and you need the ability to take everybody else with you."   Now I know you are all thinking 'why is the  UKs destination Rwanda ???
  • 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 
        • 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

Part Time Contractor Redundancy due to Business Site Relocation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2078 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

Hello all,

 

Posting on behalf of a work colleague. Have passed them site details and suggested they register themselves.

 

The person in question works as a cleaner for a third party company who have a contact with our business.

 

Our business is part of a much larger group who are currently restructuring.

 

As part of the restructure, our business is moving from its current facility to a new shared site along with other parts of the organisation.

 

For this reason our contract with the cleaning company is due be terminated.

 

This now leaves the cleaner, who has 8 years service at this site, all be it possibly with differing cleaning comapanies.

By this I mean that although the contracted agent has maybe changed it has always been the person holding the position and performing the duties. They have essentially moved with the contact.

 

They have now been informed that once the closes they are basically redundant.

It is also being claimed they they are not entitled to any redundancy as it not them, her employer (cleaning company) who are making them redundant but us as we the ones moving site.

 

No other positions are available for them to be relocated / transferred to.

 

What are their rights in this case ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick edit on the above.

The contract has been held by the same company for the 8 years in question and the cleaner has been employed and posted here for the duration of this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little further information.

 

They have been employed with the same company for 8 to 9 years, have only ever been located in this current building.

 

For the past 4 years plus have been working 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. A total of 30 hrs a week.

 

They are not sure of they have a written contract etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little further information.

 

They have been employed with the same company for 8 to 9 years, have only ever been located in this current building.

 

For the past 4 years plus have been working 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. A total of 30 hrs a week.

 

They are not sure of they have a written contract etc.

 

The problem is that many cleaners are on zero hours contacts (workers, not employees) or self employed. We rally cannot guess at this. The differences are enormous, because only employees are entitled too redundancy pay at all, but they're are other issues, for example TUPE, which may apply. If this person posted themselves, and if they knew the answers to some of this, we might be able to help. But giving advice to a third party who doesn't know anything about it isn't going to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, as thay are employed by a contractor the contractor has a choice of redeploying or redundancy. Problem with this particular sector is that many employees are foreign so dont understand their rights and so are told they are now unemployed as the result of the loss of that contract when that isnt actually the whole story.

Probably not a zero hours contract but TUPE'd many times but thatwont cahnge things as far as rights go. However, start redundancy isnt very generous and employers in this sector like to redeploy and the didmiss for spurious reasons rather than pay up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turns out they have a written contract stipulating working hours among some other details.

 

They have been told there is no chance of redeployment as there are no other sites available and that they will be "made redundant".

 

It will only be statutory but that is better than nothing the employer first claimed was payable having seen their error.

 

They are now in line to receive 8 years worth of redundancy along with any outstanding holiday pay etc.

 

A happy, successful and correct outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...