Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
    • Incorrect as the debt will have been legally assigned to the DCA and they are therefore now the legal creditor. Read up on debt assignment.   Andy
    • Thanks Man in the Middle and everyone it's greatly appreciated form was filled in online yesterday now just have to wait and see
    • Hi,    I'm almost done. One question is should I include a header with " Claimant's Trial Documents" or something similar and include a copy of my WX from the trial since that has the claim form defence and documents that were relied upon at trial so that the judge can see that? or should I assume they will already have those documents on the file and so simply include a short statement of case to show the case I intend to prove at the appeal should permission be granted. Since I've made a shorter concise statement of case setting out what I intend to prove at an appeal hearing I'm thinking maybe removing the header of "Documents/Exhibits for use for Permission to Appeal   " since the permission to appeal focuses on the grounds of law and so I'm thinking of just having   Appellant's documents Statement Of Case Skeleton Argument    Then a seperate category named Trial Documents Claim Form Defence Claimant's Witness statement Exhibibts to Claimant's trial witness statement   I'm wondering you think would be better, only because I don't reference a single exhibit in my appeal statement of case since I am just explaining the undeveloped points of law around why the judge is wrong since the  statement only focuses on permission, not the outcome of the appeal so there is no reference to any exhibits?   Or should I just remove exhibits and not add trial documents or exhibits on the understanding the judge will already have the trial documents and that if permission is granted I then include them in my appeal bundle.   Thanks   N/B My statement of case doesn't have the claim form or defence or any witness staements in. it is simply a short 4 page document setting out the claim history and the points I intend to prove at the final appeal hearing should permission be granted.
  • 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

Work disciplinary.....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2030 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

Here's the deal...

 

 

I made a mistake, not denying it at all. First actual mistake i've made at this employer.

 

 

It turns out this same mistake has been happening for years, I believe the root cause is their database/system, which takes no action to mitigate against such mistakes and actually in this particular case encourages mistakes.

 

 

 

The root cause is defined as the non-human element that would have absolutely prevented the error if removed from the equation. So for example, if you were told to cross a narrow foot bridge and fell off because there was no hand rail, where does the fault lie?? hmmm?

 

 

What's annoying is that there is no willingness to fix the problem, what's more annoying is that it's happened so many times with different people that you have to wonder why the bloody the problem (which it turns out has been complained about multiple times) has never been identified. As a former quality engineer I find this extremely frustrating.......

 

 

 

The company has a pretty toxic blame culture, it's always "who" not "how" or "why", people try to cover up mistakes and push responsibility down onto someone else, every now and again someone gets sacrificed to the blame gods so that a certain person can appear as though they are doing their job.

Some people even go so far as to establish an email chain before doing anything they're asked to do by this person, in the misguided belief that this protects them from blame, when in fact they're not the only people with access to said emails.

 

 

 

My mistake was basically in forgetting a screw up had occurred when I got back into work on Monday, having had barely any sleep due to a constantly screaming 3 week old baby which has had to be put onto medication for severe reflux (i hate mentioning that, but it's relevant to explaining my tiredness).

 

 

Should well designed, robust systems and processes fall over as soon as someone comes into work sick or tired? I think not.

 

So here we are, facing a disciplinary for a minor mistake (which is being trumped up into something bigger), knowing full well that had they investigated previous mistakes properly and implemented corrective actions, it wouldn't have happened at all.

 

 

The primary "complaint" is not the cost of the mistake, but the "personal embarrassment" caused, which i'm finding it very hard to not say "well suck it up snowflake, fix your sh*t and stop blaming people who fall into the cracks".

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to mistake proof your own system should you not have some way of leaving yourself reminder notes ?

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

Sorry, that's not a fix, it's a sticking plaster.

 

 

I'm not kidding myself, I understand it's hard for most people to see this when they haven't work my sort of background, but systems should be robust enough to mitigate against mistakes happening, to the point where the only way to screw up is deliberately.

 

 

When the same problem occurs again and again (even going back before I joined), you have to wonder why there is a reluctance to even consider fixing it.

 

 

In both the automotive manufacturing sector and the defence sector, if you went back to a customer with "oh we found the person and punished them", they'd tear you a new ********, starting with "ok, how do you plan on making sure nobody does this again?" and your response is "post-it notes", you'd lose a million £ contract.

Edited by Strider440
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, I have experienced the same problem.

Unfortunately bosses are not interested in fixing these sort of issues even when life is at risk.

It's usually because of money but also because if they keep things open to accidental mistakes, they can get rid of people more easily.

Sad but unless there's a government organization supervising and taking in whisleblowers' complaint, there's nothing you can do rather than highlight the problem in your disciplinary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the deal...

 

 

I made a mistake, not denying it at all. First actual mistake i've made at this employer.

 

 

It turns out this same mistake has been happening for years, I believe the root cause is their database/system, which takes no action to mitigate against such mistakes and actually in this particular case encourages mistakes.

 

 

 

The root cause is defined as the non-human element that would have absolutely prevented the error if removed from the equation. So for example, if you were told to cross a narrow foot bridge and fell off because there was no hand rail, where does the fault lie?? hmmm?

 

 

What's annoying is that there is no willingness to fix the problem, what's more annoying is that it's happened so many times with different people that you have to wonder why the bloody the problem (which it turns out has been complained about multiple times) has never been identified. As a former quality engineer I find this extremely frustrating.......

 

 

 

The company has a pretty toxic blame culture, it's always "who" not "how" or "why", people try to cover up mistakes and push responsibility down onto someone else, every now and again someone gets sacrificed to the blame gods so that a certain person can appear as though they are doing their job.

Some people even go so far as to establish an email chain before doing anything they're asked to do by this person, in the misguided belief that this protects them from blame, when in fact they're not the only people with access to said emails.

 

 

 

My mistake was basically in forgetting a screw up had occurred when I got back into work on Monday, having had barely any sleep due to a constantly screaming 3 week old baby which has had to be put onto medication for severe reflux (i hate mentioning that, but it's relevant to explaining my tiredness).

 

 

Should well designed, robust systems and processes fall over as soon as someone comes into work sick or tired? I think not.

 

So here we are, facing a disciplinary for a minor mistake (which is being trumped up into something bigger), knowing full well that had they investigated previous mistakes properly and implemented corrective actions, it wouldn't have happened at all.

 

 

The primary "complaint" is not the cost of the mistake, but the "personal embarrassment" caused, which i'm finding it very hard to not say "well suck it up snowflake, fix your sh*t and stop blaming people who fall into the cracks".

 

I really don't understand this post

You seem to be moaning and not specifying the issue

Are you admitting you made a mistake and stating the mitigating factor?

or

Are you stating that the system wasn't robust enough to pick up your mistake?

These two are different approaches and the response you get depends on your company and the culture that prevails there

Your approach really matters

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand this post

You seem to be moaning and not specifying the issue

Are you admitting you made a mistake and stating the mitigating factor?

or

Are you stating that the system wasn't robust enough to pick up your mistake?

These two are different approaches and the response you get depends on your company and the culture that prevails there

Your approach really matters

 

 

It was more of an open ended post, to get responses on the general situation.

 

 

There are personal mitigating factors (at that time), such as recent involvement in a serious car accident and lack of sleep due to a newborn baby (2 weeks old at the time), which they know about and makes what they're doing even more of a [removed] shot below the belt.

 

 

The system failures which I raised, those that preceded the mistake, are issues that (it turns out) many people knew about but have been too worried to mentioned for sake of retribution.

 

I believe that a robust "system" should easily mitigate against people being sick (especially considering their draconian sick pay policy), people being tired and momentary lapses of concentration.

 

 

I don't think that this is merely about a mistake, I think it's more of a "shut up and stop rocking the boat", because of the issues I raised.

Edited by honeybee13
Offensive word removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more of an open ended post, to get responses on the general situation.

 

 

There are personal mitigating factors (at that time), such as recent involvement in a serious car accident and lack of sleep due to a newborn baby (2 weeks old at the time), which they know about and makes what they're doing even more of a c*ntish shot below the belt.

 

 

The system failures which I raised, those that preceded the mistake, are issues that (it turns out) many people knew about but have been too worried to mentioned for sake of retribution.

 

I believe that a robust "system" should easily mitigate against people being sick (especially considering their draconian sick pay policy), people being tired and momentary lapses of concentration.

 

 

I don't think that this is merely about a mistake, I think it's more of a "shut up and stop rocking the boat", because of the issues I raised.

 

This is still little more than a serious whinge, with sexist profanities now thrown in. What you believe is irrelevant. As are your personal circumstances outside work. That's none of the employers concern. Their concern is that you do your job, you haven't, and actually, you are on something of a hiding to nothing claiming that the mistake was made when you actually know about the problem (whatever it is).

 

This is clearly not the workplace for you. You don't like the employer, you don't like your job, you don't like the terms, and you don't seem to have a good word to say about it. Which is fair enough. So why are you still working there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is still little more than a serious whinge, with sexist profanities now thrown in. What you believe is irrelevant. As are your personal circumstances outside work. That's none of the employers concern. Their concern is that you do your job, you haven't, and actually, you are on something of a hiding to nothing claiming that the mistake was made when you actually know about the problem (whatever it is).

 

This is clearly not the workplace for you. You don't like the employer, you don't like your job, you don't like the terms, and you don't seem to have a good word to say about it. Which is fair enough. So why are you still working there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually your wrong, we're people, not machines, to err is human and any business that does not account for possible mistakes, nay actually encourages mistakes, is utterly foolish.

 

 

And sexist what? Are you feeling ok? would you like a safe space?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

How long have you been employed with your present employer?

 

Have you had any previous warning on record?

 

Exactly what are you up on Disciplinary for?

 

I have to say from your thread if this is going to be your approach to this disciplinary hearing with your employer I can only see it going one way and not in your favour.

 

Outside work hours as mentioned (car accident, 3 week old baby) is nothing to do with the employer.

 

Bringing others in the workplace knew about this issue directly means you were fully aware of this issue.

 

You need to step back and concentrate on exactly what they are disciplining you on and not what others may or may not have done/said, yes you are probably upset about this (to put it politely) but your approach on this thread will get you nowhere in the disciplinary.

 

Do you have a copy of their Disciplinary Policy? (have you read it fully and have they followed there own policy)

Edited by stu007

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And sexist what? Are you feeling ok? would you like a safe space?

 

 

 

 

That'd be your use of the C word. It's entirely valid to be offended by it, and it is a gendered insult.

 

 

Are you always this aggressive at work? Previous posts suggest so but I can't work out if that's you in the real world or just for here. You've had disciplinaries and been let go because "it's not working out" at previous employers?

 

 

 

But many employers will use smaller mistakes to get rid of someone with behavioual issues, because it's just easier.

 

 

 

I get that you are tired. I get that the employer does not match your idea of perfection. However a dose of "I'm sorry", however hard to swallow, woold go a long way towards smoothing word relationships, if that is what you want to do. It's a tough employment market out there if you're not in a few specialist IT areas; and you have a young kid - not the best time to be job hunting?

 

 

Don't get obessed over what you feel is right - right is subjective. Work out what you want the end state to be, and act accordingly.

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

Actually your wrong, we're people, not machines, to err is human and any business that does not account for possible mistakes, nay actually encourages mistakes, is utterly foolish.

 

 

And sexist what? Are you feeling ok? would you like a safe space?

 

It is entirely your opinion and nothing more as to how a business that you do not own should conduct themselves. When you own the business, you may run it as you wish. They are currently running it at they wish, and will continue to do so. Any employee who doesn't realise that is utterly foolish.

 

If you don't know the answer to that you may wish to consider the extent to which your own behavior contributes towards your employers view of your conduct. You clearly aren't very self aware.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the thread does not contain enough information about this issue, then it is difficult to comment.

 

If there is any system issue, then collect any useful information that is available and take this to any disciplinary meeting.

 

I presume any disciplinary would relate to performance and therefore before any such disciplinary meeting, it would be up to the employers to provide notice of what the exact performance issue was, that needed to be addreessed. This would enable the employee to gather any information they needed, so that any discussion on performance could be fairly held.

 

In regard to performance disciplinaries, perhaps it would be useful to understand what is required of employers legally and what is just good practice ?

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

you talk of a blame culture, it is clearly endemic. You talk about a systme failure without saying what it was and what you are accused of that warrants disciplinary action. You are very aggressive to people who offer help and if you allowed them to you wold find they are experts in this field.

Be a little more forthcoming and you will get advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...