Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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

Right to be accompanied to probation review


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1112 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

I started in a new job on the 6th of January. On Friday afternoon last week, I had a chat with my company's MD, which raised concerns in her mind about my performance. As a result, she scheduled an early probationary review, scheduled for Monday morning this week. She informed me in the invitation letter which she sent on Friday afternoon that:

 

-  This was the only time that week that she was available.

- I could be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative. 

- If I was unable to attend, a decision could be made in my absence. 

 

On Monday morning, I had the meeting, and was dismissed for performance issues. Because I had worked there for less than 13 weeks, I will receive a week's notice. Had the meeting been held on or after Wednesday, I would have received a month's notice. 

 

The MD has since sent me a letter explaining the reasons for my dismissal, in which she states that I chose not to be accompanied by anyone. However, she had blocked my access to the company's email and Teams systems over the weekend, meaning that I could not have contacted a colleague in advance of the meeting to ask them to accompany me. Also, although I am not a member of a union, it is highly unlikely that I could have arranged for a representative to have attended at 9:30 am on Easter Monday when I only found out about the meeting on the afternoon of Good Friday. 

 

Do I have any basis for legal action, on the grounds that I was effectively denied the right to be accompanied to the meeting that is provided by the Employment Relations Act 1999? Also, would I have grounds for legal action on the basis that I was not given much time to prepare for the meeting, and the fact that I being denied access to the company's systems over the weekend made it harder for me to prepare for the meeting? 

 

Thank you.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ethel Street said:

As you need to have been employed for 2 years before you can bring a claim to Employment Tribunal for Unfair Dismissal unfortunately it is irrelevant whether those parts of the procedure were fair.

 

Hi Ethel

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

I'm not sure that's correct. I believe that, even though I have no comeback if I get sacked within the first 2 years of employment (with a few exceptions, such as discrimination), I do have a right for correct procedure to be followed. There is actually a precedent - from https://www.questcover.com/news/failure-to-comply-with-the-right-of-accompaniment/:

'
In Collins v ILC Manchester Ltd t/a International Learning College 2013, the employee was two months into his probationary period and was called into a meeting. The employee wanted a companion to accompany him, but the employer refused and, at the end of the meeting, dismissed him. The employee complained to the employment tribunal that the company had refused him permission to be accompanied to a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal supported the employee's complaint and awarded one weeks worth of pay compensation. The tribunal refused to accept the employers argument that the meeting was not a disciplinary meeting (and so triggered the right to be accompanied) because the decision was already made before the meeting. The tribunal had also commented that it was not relevant to the statutory definition of a disciplinary hearing that the employee was in a probationary period.'

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Uncle Bulgaria

 

If the meeting had been on Wednesday or later. to allow me time to prepare for the meeting and to arrange for someone to accompany me, I would have been given a month's notice rather than a week's notice. I was therefore thinking of seeking as compensation the difference between a week's notice and a month's notice.

 

Jeff

 

Edited by JeffW
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...