Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, 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; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

body cam usage by management


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 342 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

In my field of work,I use a bodycam, as do the staff.One colleague was called into the office and asked why she was smoking on duty.She was also asked why she sat down and turned her bodycam off for 10 minutes.

 

 I know there is no legislation for bodycams, and only as guideline for how police officers use them.Therefore, can the manager demand the bodycams are on all through our shift? And can the manager trawl through the footage from previous days?.

 

 The bodycams are there for the protection and safety of the staff but it seems the manager is using them to spy on the staff/Is this legal?.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

mores the point,

do their conditions of work state employees must not smoke on Co. grounds and/or whilst on co. paid duty??

the former they can enforce, the latter, i seriously doubt it as they don't own said land ??

 

gdpr also applies here.

 

dx

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you describe it body cams are just a form of PPE and in general an employer can insist PPE is in use throughout an employee's shift.  That requirement needs to be clearly stated somewhere though, so that you know you must not turn off your body cam.

 

Are you in a union? If so ask them for advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the obvious situations where you cannot be contracted to have the body camera on throughout your shift is with toilet facilities.

Another example is on your designated meal relief, which I assume is unpaid. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, newmoses said:

... Therefore, can the manager demand the bodycams are on all through our shift? And can the manager trawl through the footage from previous days?.

 

 The bodycams are there for the protection and safety of the staff but it seems the manager is using them to spy on the staff/Is this legal?.

 

 

I suspect the bodycams are there for the legal protection of your employer just as much as for your protection and safety.

 

I don't know what job you do but I can envisage some jobs (eg bouncer, security staff) where your employer - and you - might heve to rely on uninterrupted footage for legal defence reasons.  (eg you are a bouncer and you and your employer are being sued because you allegedly assaulted someone.).

 

Obviously there are good reasons for switching it off (see @whitelist's post) but if your employer requires you to wear a bodycam then I think it would be a good idea to clarify exactly what your employer requires and exaxtly when you can and cannot turn it off.  (And if you are in a union - which I hope you are - ask for their input too).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Traffic Warden of 3.5 years.

The person in question was walking her beat when she decided to have a "crafty fag", whilst walking to the next car park.

She also turned her body cam off, and sat down for 10 minutes, presumably while she had a cigarette.

 

She was called into the managers office and disciplined for smoking on duty, turning her bodycam off, and sitting down for 10 minutes.

 

She seems to think she is being targeted, and is wondering if the manager has broken any laws.

 

I doubt he has, but then I am not legally qualified to make that decision.

 

the company do not have a union, although I am in Unite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

private or council?

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, newmoses said:

She was called into the managers office and disciplined for smoking on duty, turning her bodycam off, and sitting down for 10 minutes.

 

TBH they seem like reasonable grounds for disciplinary action. Presumably she was in uniform at the time. and it wasn't an official rest break. I'm not legally qualified either but I think it is reasonable for the management to use bodycam evidence  in relation to misnduct allegations when on duty. Is there a rule in your contract/employee handbook that says you mustn't smoke on duty, or while in uniform in public, or something like that?

 

To be more accurate, they didn't use bodycam evidence to discipline her for smoking while on duty because she had turned her bodycam off while smoking! She presumably admitted she had been smoking while on duty when asked why the bodycam had been turned off. In which case that was the evidence used to discipline her, her own admission of smoking, not bodycam evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...