Employee loyalty card abuse ***Settled at Mediation***

[AndyOrch]

Just one last if you could clarify which will play a major part of the defence.. your SIL was aware of this audit carried out in Dec 2019 going off your statement below.....was that a reason he left the company...knowing what may well come from the investigation and was he ever contacted directly during his employment prior to this letter of March 16 2020 ?

 

Quote

He told me that after he had left, the company fraud guys came in to do an audit with her unofficially being the main target. He has an idea that she may well have been caught with her hand in the till and so she sang like a canary to save her own arse.

 

[ChrisS1968]

Just spoke to SIL,

 

He left well before this came about and left because he had another job. This action (or the threat of it) had absolutely no bearing on him leaving, he was leaving anyway. As for him being aware of the audit, he had left before it took place and only found out about it when he bumped into someone that he worked with whilst there who told him about it. He didn't get contacted about if either verbally or in writing whilst he was an employee, only after leaving and around 10 months after leaving.

 

I had an idea this was the case but phoned him to confirm.

Edited December 8, 2020 by ChrisS1968

[AndyOrch]

Thanks... he had left 4 weeks or less before getting the first letter from BLP dated 3rd March 2020 you said he left Jan 2020.

The incidents that triggered this investigation/ claim were identified on 22nd Dec 2019...your SIl left their employment 2 weeks later ?

 

So not exactly left well before all this happened.

 

Just running through the finer points...but do not want to get caught out on a small detail.

[ChrisS1968]

Hi Andy,

 

Now you put it like that I guess your right, it wasn't a fair while ago. My apologies......

[AndyOrch]

Here is a proposed defence...I would run with the following for now and see if they wish to proceed further.

 

Defence Employee loyalty card abuse.pdf

[ChrisS1968]

HI Andy,

 

Thank you so much, it really is appreciated.

 

Chris

[AndyOrch]

If you wish to add the following after your point 1.....although it seems obvious they did provide enough warning...your choice.

 

The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC

[ChrisS1968]

Will do Andy, thanks again.

 

Chris

[ChrisS1968]

Happy new year all!!

 

My SIL received an EX370 today. I know he needs to sign it and return but what to do with regard to accepting their offer of mediation? By accepting it it becomes pretty much an admission really........

 

For the record, since filing his defense on Dec 21st he has had no further communication from the claimant and they have yet to respond on MCOL. My gut instinct would be to sign it and decline the offer and return but what do I know? If he had made a part admission then its a no brainer but as he's defending the full amount then I would guess he should decline?

 

Chris

EX730.pdf

Edited January 4, 2021 by ChrisS1968

[dx100uk]

agreeing to mediation is not admittance.

 

dx

[AndyOrch]

Have you received the Directions Questionnaire N180 ? 

[ChrisS1968]

No Andy, only the EX730 so far.

[AndyOrch]

How's this going...any updates ?

[ChrisS1968]

Hi all, sorry for the late update but work has been manic. So much for lockdown..........

 

This has now concluded. Not exactly the result I hoped for but my son in law is happy enough with the outcome. After a few phone calls between him, the mediator and Stonegate. They reached an agreement where all fees where dropped, legal and Unicorn food. The original balance was reduced as well but not by much imo, about £30.00. The main thing was to avoid a CCJ as they will need to remortgage at some point in the next few years.

 

The other benefit (if you can call it that) is that they have gone from demanding full payment in one hit to paying it off at fifty pounds per month. So he now has to pay Stonegate fifty pounds for the next ten months.

 

He could have gone to court I know but Stonegate claimed via the mediator that they had CCTV and till records showing him using his MORE card when he shouldn't have been and although he still insists he never benefited to the tune of £530 he believes they could possibly have something on him so took the safe option.

 

Was this the right thing to do?

I really dont know as mediation is something I have never heard of until this.

Should he have gone to court?

Personally I dont think so and he certainly didnt want it to just in case.

 

Either way, as usual the folk on this site were a great help so thank you all for your input.

 

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this outcome because I'm really not sure if he did the right thing but not being there when this all took place made it impossible to advise.

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

What's done is done, and he did get a partial reduction. However, to me there were two main errors. 

 

Firstly, he wouldn't deal with his own case. The work you put in was phonomenal, you'll have learnt a lot, but it wasn't you being sued. So when he was in his own, he didn't know what to do. Being expected to pay the Fraud Manager's salary was an obvious line of attack. 

 

Secondly, why this fear of court? The way small claims works with limited costs nearly always makes it worth your while to go to court. The worst that could have happened is he would have lost and then asked the judge to be able to pay in instalments, with no other consequences. 

[ChrisS1968]

Hi Dave,

 

To be honest the biggest worry (the worst that could of happened) here was getting a CCJ for the reasons stated above. Even if a judge saw fit to only award Stonegate £100 it would still have been a judgement.

 

You are right though to say he didn't know what he was doing.

He had already replied to their letter by email offering to pay in instalments before I even got involved.

I have now drilled it into him that in future anything like this whatsoever he does not reply until taking advice.

At the end of the day he is 26 and knows no better but hopefully he has learned one important lesson, keep quiet until you know better.

 

As for his fear of court, it seems possible that they may have had some evidence.

In this day and age they can bring up till transactions so easily they could have probably produced a spreadsheet with something incriminating on it thereby planting the seed of doubt in anyone preceding over the claim.

 

Like you said, whats done is done.

[dx100uk]

a judge doesnt work on doubts or possible evidence, only hard facts.

if he was confronted by the 'evidence' during mediation, then that is not correct and the mediator should not of allowed that to happen.

[ChrisS1968]

He wasn't confronted with evidence so to speak DX. I think the mediator passed on a message from Stonegate repeating that they have evidence. As I said I wasn't present so unable to assist him though I'm not sure how much help I could have been anyway.

[dx100uk]

Thats not what mediation should be doing.

He should have refused mediation as he did not have at the point of it starting enough or any information sent to him to make an informed decision.

 

Solely upon that point alone, which was blatantly obvious to the mediator , the mediator should have stopped mediation happening.

 

Sorry but i think he got railroaded there.

 

 

[FTMDave]

5 hours ago, ChrisS1968 said:

Hi Dave,

 

To be honest the biggest worry (the worst that could of happened) here was getting a CCJ for the reasons stated above. Even if a judge saw fit to only award Stonegate £100 it would still have been a judgement.

Yes, but for future reference it's important to know that all the dreadful consequences - CCJ, trashed credit file, can't get a mortgage - is if you go to court, lose, and then defy the judge and still refuse to pay. Paying in the time frame set by the judge will lead no none of the above. 

 

Glad you've given him a good talking to re any future dispute! 

 

£500 is better than £735 sure, but you think if he'd fought in court it could have been £0.00. Oh well. 

[AndyOrch]

Thanks for coming back and the conclusion......

 

To be honest the defence I drafted was never really intended to proceed to court...just enough to force them to drop it and enter into ADR (Mediation)...which is what your SIL initially wanted from the start.

 

On the face of it they did seem to have over whelming evidence in support of their claim...but the actual claim amount was inflated with costs to cover the whole investigation to which your SIL was to be sacrificed to take the fall for all the staff who appeared to be guilty of the same misuse. 

 

Its obvious that there was a misuse...to what amount unknown...but a Court would not delve into trying to quantify the actual amount and I feared it would go against your SIL.

 

Yes it could have possibly been reduced at bit more at mediation....I would of thought a figure nearer to say £300...still it is what it is...the defence achieved what I hoped.....a CCJ was avoided...and a payment arrangement put in place as initially requested...and lets hope a few lessons learned in moving forward in his career.

 

Regards

 

Andy