Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ive locked the old thread post here now. it's how backdoor CCJ's work sadly as he didn't update his 'creditors' he had moved sadly quite legal and to be honest 9/10 nothing can now be done. paying it will NOT resolve the issue a CCJ shows for 6yrs regardless to paid or not or paying or not. you could poss ask whom is refusing his guarantor status for you that if the CCJ is paid, would the issue be resolved, but that will cost you the sum of the judgement. dx  
    • new thread created for this parking CCJ. please only post here now.  
    • So how can the courts then issue a CCJ?! Confirmed by Registry Trust? and issued by CNBC?! 😡  I'll phone again tomorrow and get all the details.
    • dx is wrong there. The reason they did the application with a hearing is likely that they had questions of the application that weren't answered in their wx. nothing to do with your N180 no they are just saying that they want the extension to make it 7.
    • its not a fine! it is NOT A FINE.....this is an extremely important point to understand no-one bar a magistrate in a magistrates criminal court can ever fine anyone for anything. Private Parking Tickets (speculative invoices) are NOT a criminal matter, merely a speculative contractual Civil matter hence they can only try a speculative monetary claim via the civil county court system (which is no more a legal powers matter than what any member of Joe Public can do). Until/unless they do raise a county court claim a CCJ and win, there are not ANY enforcement powers they can undertake other than using a DCA, whom are legally powerless and are not BAILIFFS. Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities etc were decriminalised years ago - meaning they no longer can progress a claim to the magistrates court to enforce, but go directly to legal enforcement via a real BAILIFF themselves. 10'000 of people waste £m's paying private parking companies because they think they are FINES...and the media do not help either. the more people read the above the less income this shark industry get. where your post said fine it now says charge dx
  • 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

Being asked to conduct Health & Safety checks


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2095 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

 

Not sure if this is the right platform for this I am sure someone will advise.

 

My daughter works for an employer whereby she is sometimes required to go offsite and use premises to conduct specific types of interviews etc. This could be a church hall a leisure centre even a cafe virtually anywhere they can get a seat. After some rumblings about health and safety each employee has been sent out a form to complete. It is a full health and safety questionnaire regarding the places they visit. for example here are just a few questions on the form that my daughter is being asked to complete, there are many many more questions. Please bear in mind that she has no Health and Safety training or any associated qualification.

"Does the area to be occupied by us appear to be in a reasonable state of repair and without obvious health & safety hazards?

 

Are there adequate fire arrangements for the site, including:

means of escape from the areas that you intend to occupy, in case of an emergency?

all exits clear of obstructions?

adequate signage on fire exit routes?

clear fire evacuation arrangements, including Fire Action notices and Fire Wardens where necessary?

 

Are there adequate security arrangements, such as CCTV, panic alarms, security personnel etc.?

 

Is there adequate connectivity on site?

 

She has then to sign the form and return it to her employer.

 

To me, these assessments should be conducted by a fully qualified H&S officer prior to any scheduled visits by employees but like my daughter many others are visiting these places on a daily basis and have been for some time now.

 

Anyone give me some advice on this matter, is this the norm or is it bordering on the illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, these assessments should be conducted by a fully qualified H&S officer prior to any scheduled visits by employees but like my daughter many others are visiting these places on a daily basis and have been for some time now.

 

Is she in a union ?

 

If I were presented with a form containing such questions and compelled to compete it, I would sign it off with "I am not trained or qualified to assess the premises". The next stage would be to raise the matter with the union and go down the formal grievance route. Further more, these sorts of questions should have been asked by whoever was sourcing the facilities long before any employee is required to go there.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is she in a union ?

 

If I were presented with a form containing such questions and compelled to compete it, I would sign it off with "I am not trained or qualified to assess the premises". The next stage would be to raise the matter with the union and go down the formal grievance route. Further more, these sorts of questions should have been asked by whoever was sourcing the facilities long before any employee is required to go there.

 

No she is not in a union unfortunately. Totally agree that this should have been done prior to any employee going to such venues. The seating is poor a hard back plastic chair and a makeshift desk and in some cases they are expected to sit there for almost 7 hours

Link to post
Share on other sites

You start off by making a statement that is completely untrue. She DOES have H&S training, everyone in the country does to a certain extent as it is a requirement for any employment. Even if that training is as little as "you press this button and the machine works, you press the red one and it stops"

 

What she is being asked to do here is make a personal risk assessment regarding HER health and safety whilst being upon those premises.This is not the same as conducting a safety audit or inspection that an employer is required to do.

Top be honest it is no tougher than being asked whether she looks to see if there is any traffic before crossing the road to make sure she doesnt get run over. Now, if you told me that this form was to be used to sign off a premises as part of her employment for one of those audits then I would be worried.

 

The questions suggest that the employer will then decide if it is suitable to allow their employees to be there, not some sort of indemnity from being sued as an employer if things go wrong.

I see the form as being helpful because it gives her the power to effectively veto certain places if they dont come up to scratch and have the documentation to support that stance should someone decide that she should be there come hell or high water.

 

 

 

 

With regard to chairs, she can choose on that is suitable for her personal needs as long as it fulfils the requirements of the PUWER and it is arguable that there isnt a cheaper alternative so an adjustable swivel chair would be the norm. It would be considered HER chair as it is PERSONAL. read up on what was known as the "6 pack" for the EU regs that became the updated HASAWA

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...