Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good luck today, TD. Please let us know how it goes. HB
    • That is different to my PCN issued by Highview. I am not by any means an expert so I would leave it to the experts to check what I say and maybe delete this if it is not helpful. My thoughts on this are In the PoC they state you are liable as Driver or Keeper. Firstly, I would challenge that .... are they pursuing you as Driver or as Keeper? They don't know who the driver is, as stated on the NTK and, they don't know if you didn't tell them, so I would think that they can not pursue you as the driver. The NTK is not fully compliant with POFA 2012 as LFI stated but specifically, and correct me if I am wrong, Section 9 [2][f] states that:   Section 9 (2) The notice MUST— (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (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;   All the applicable conditions under this Schedule (Schedule 4) are NOT met, specifically warning the keeper as in (f) .... As far as I can see, the creditor has NOT warned the keeper on the NTK, as they MUST do in accordance with S9 [2](f). So, as far as I can see that prohibits them from having the right to recover from the keeper.   I put it to you M'Lord, given the facts stated, the creditor does not have grounds to pursue the Driver, nor the Keeper!! 😂🤣😂 Maybe that's why you've not heard from the courts, what does it say on MCOL ?
    • at the time, if both owners signed a voluntary charge it can not be a restriction k.  but it looks like one? as above ..... if you re mortgage with the same lender is doesn't need paying if you re mortgage with a new lender then most probably you will have to settle it.
    • The move comes after Tesla reported a sharp fall in its deliveries in the first three months of 2024.View the full article
    • please dont post up unredated court docs!! done now... it looks like: you paid for then cancelled a PC from mac group ltd however the PC still got delivered but not to you. you got issued a court claim but totally ignored it. DCBL HCEO Bailiffs attempted to enforce the CCJ...they failed..you had moved. The Claimant was Granted Permission by the Court to Serve A Statutory Demand and latterly did so. you had attempted to set aside the Original CCJ but failed to attend it's hearing and it got struck out you subsequently have have received a statutory demand for the CCJ sum. you applied to set that aside there was a hearing on 18th Apr which you did not attend. ...............   not quite sure but i think thats the story. ............. same as your other thread.. stop worrying about the house.. you ought to deal with this at some point as if the claimant does go for and manage to you BK. it might not be good. have a think about things , it might pay you to look toward putting an N245 variation to the court and offer a very low £PCM to the court, esp if you have little to no income etc like on benefits/pensioner etc...you might even get it all done for free as there is a small charge for the N245 process.        
  • 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 
        • 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

Charity sacked me just before Christmas after I complained to trustees

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 111 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I used to work for a charity and they were holding an investigation into my conduct.  During the investigation I discovered thst the boss was not running the charity correctly.

I wrote to the trustees to tell them this and then 2 days later I am sacked.

The next day I get a letter from my boss saying he was passed the letter from the trustees and investigated his own actions and found nothing wrong (shock horror).

I am fairly sure the CEO of a charity shouldn't investigate themselves after someone complained  am I right?

I want them to look into my complaints correctly as I think it's doing the charity harm but they don't seem to be taking it seriously at all.

The sacking is what it is  I've been there less than two years.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, welcome to CAG.

I'm flagging your thread for Emmzzi who's great on employment problems. I'm not sure that a CEO should investigate himself but @Emmzzi will know if she"s around at the moment.

Please don't do this yet but I wonder if a charity that isn't being run properly should be reported to the Charity Commissioners.

Best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DrayHorse20 said:

 During the investigation I discovered thst the boss was not running the charity correctly.

In what way?

Please clarify what help you are seeking here.

Do you want to challenge your own dismissal?


Link to post
Share on other sites


if you want protection from a whistleblowing activity you generally need to invoke the whistle blowing procedure or legislation at the time. Otherwise, you are complaining about your boss - which generally does not end well. They are, after all, the boss. The board will not be keen to replace them unless it's essential.

Did you do this?

  • 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

Posted (edited)

Mainly not following own policies, issues around safeguarding. 

I wrote a 5 page letter outlining everything go the trustees and sent it to the head trustee. 

I think he did nothing and handed to the CEO. 

Certainly some of the issues I raised are still issues, for example a video that shows some kids he doesn't have parental consent from appear on the website for the charity.

I think I want to know, is it acceptable to be told the investigation into him is finished given he did it himself.

I thought maybe under whistle Blowing protection I might be able to claim unlawful dismissal but I'm not sure.

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do you mean I had to say in my letter that I was invoking the whistlebowling legislation?

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is what I mean. "This is a report under XXX policy."

Otherwise it just reads a retaliatory for the investigation against you. Which - would you have raised the concerns if you were not under investigation yourself? Sounds like not.

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

12 minutes ago, Mycathasfleas said:

No disrespect intended, and apologies if I remember incorrectly. This appears similar to a post three weeks ago. 

If this is the post you have in mind it is by a different poster and the situation is not quite the same.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I had unofficially raised the issues before but was ignored, this was the first time I'd done it officially.

Is it right abou the investigation into himself though and not actually doing anything about the issues I raised?

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's up to the trustees whether they think his response is acceptable. If they don't they can appoint someone else; but at this point the decision and the risk sits with them. If you are looking for a different legal recourse, you are not going to find one, I am afraid.


The main concern seems to be safeguarding - you could report to your local authority. I would expect them to simply require retrospective permission for the photographs. 



  • Like 2

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...