Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • @dx100uk no, haven’t received any correspondence as of yet. Still waiting on a court date but seems to be taking forever. Have noticed an increase in unhappy customers on here
  • 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
      • 160 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

Hours and pay dropped with 16 hours notice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 292 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 have worked for my employer for 4 years, I am salaried and paid monthly.

 

The directors called a meeting with the whole shop floor and told us they were cutting hours from 8 to 4 per day and cutting pay to suit. 90% are on clock and get paid hourly, I get a salary.

 

I cannot seem to find my contract at present but they are telling everyone they are quite within their rights to do what they have done as suggested by the company they use for employment legal services because of lack of work.

 

They also say that even though everyone has now been cut to 4 hours they must make themselves available for the full 8 hours of the day and cannot find extra work for the time they are at home.

 

Surely this cannot be legal ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

I don't know if it's legal but I can see why you're unhappy. I take it you're not unionised at work?

 

I'm tagging @Emmzziand hope she'll be able to get here an advise you. Please keep looking for your contract in case its wording is useful.

 

HB

  • Like 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

here's some information about short time working from ACA. You will see it may be legal; but you need to find your contact with some urgency to check!

 

WWW.ACAS.ORG.UK

If an employer does not have enough work for their employees, these options may help.

 

  • Thanks 1

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

I have found my contract and it does says about short time working but does not say anything about the money dropping.

I am salaried on a yearly amount ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says the company reserves the right to lay off employees or to introduce short time working should this be required in a downturn of work or other needs of the business. A more detailed explanation of the procedure is detailed in the employee handbook. 

 

I cannot find my original employee handbook but all staff except myself had an updated one emailed to them last month 

 

 

Edited by mjr001
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell HR your copy of the updated staff handbook didn't arrive and ask for it to be resent.

 

You need to know what it says to see what the company is entitled to do.

 

Being on an annual salary doesn't automatically mean your pay can't be reduced for short time working.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a copy of the updated handbook from another member of staff. I will copy and paste the paragraph in a short while

 

Layoff/short time working
If a situation arises where there is a reduction of work, or there is any other occurrence that affects the normal running of the business, the Company has a right to either layoff without pay other than Statutory Guarantee Payor implement shorter working hours and reduce pay in proportion with the reduction in working hours. This procedure is in line with your terms and conditions of employment.


The Company also reserves the right to select the employees best suited to carry out whatever work is available.


Employees will be offered alternative work wherever possible.


Employees who are laid off must still be available for work as and when necessary since continuity of service is not affected by any period of layoff.


The Company will pay Statutory Guarantee Pay in accordance with the current government regulations.


Any employee who is laid off for longer than the Statutory Guarantee Pay period will be given a letter to take to the relevant government agency. Employees should then be able to sign on as temporarily unemployed, even though they will still be employed by the Company.
,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a thought. Now they have changed the hours to short working, if they decide to change and make people redundant would they have to pay redundancy at full pay or half pay ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does your contract or employee handbook say anything about how redundancy pay will be calculated?

 

If it says nothing then then I think you would only get statutory redundancy pay. Hopefully @Emmzzi can confirm this but I believe that your weekly pay for statutory redundancy purposes is the average you earned each week in the 12 weeks before you get your redundancy notice.  So yes your redundancy would be based, wholly or partly, on your short time working pay.

 

However companies can pay redundancy at higher rates if that is in your contract.  So important to check what your contract or employee handbook says.

 

There's a government website that let's you calculate what your statutory redundancy pay would be. You can test out various scenarios to see what you would get.  

WWW.GOV.UK

Calculate how much statutory redundancy you can get based on age, weekly pay and number of years in the job

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only seen it paid out at normal rates but I cannot find anything that says legally they need to do anything but short time hours, per Ethel's calculation above. 

 

Depending on your salary that may be more or less than statutory maximum.

 

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...