Jump to content
We are now - The National Consumer Service ×


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 162 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
        • Thanks
        • Like

Recommended Posts

Hi all! This one is for my Dad. He has been in the Merchant Navy all his life working on dive/supply/stand by ships, one month at sea, one month off. He turned 65 in November, but decided long before then he'd work till the end of the year then retire. However being an active man he decided he would stay on till his next medical is due in August this year and if he passed that and was still wishing to continue work, he would.

 

The other day, he rang up a ship mate for a chatter. The ship mate said to him "Oh, you're a sly beggar, you are, you didn't say you'd decided to retire!" My Dad asked what on earth he was talking about and the ship mate said "You're joking - they've given someone else your job" So Dad rang the ship company who said they'd retired him. He got his official letter today stating that it's not their policy to keep people on after retirement age! Dad wants to fight this decision. They have offered him an "ad hoc" job - from what he said (dad lives miles away, we talk on the phone) this "ad hoc" job will be a case of him sitting at home and going to the ship when needed, and incidentally only paid if he's called up - which he feels will be never, and also feels is the company's way of covering up for effectively sacking him.

 

I personally feel he's been sacked - I mean they have terminated his employment contract and with it the terms and conditions of his employment, and given his job to someone else, my father had to learn of this from a ship mate! No discussion, no meetings, nowt. To me this is sacking, but I know what I think personally doesn't come into it, it's the facts which count.

 

I think he could fight it for unfair dismissal on the grounds of age discrimination, after all his last medical was fine, and he's not due another till August, so he's physically and mentally capable of work and more importantly, willing to work. He never handed in his notice or expressed a wish to retire to the company.

 

Can someone please help me with this as I'm afraid I know little about what, if anything can be done about it. Please help me to help my Dad, if you can. Thank you,

 

Erika.

Edited by ErikaPNP
additional info
Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have written to your father months ago clarifying his normal retirement date and advising him he had the right to request to stay on after that date. He would then have to write back stating he would like to exercise his right to request to continue working past his normal retirement date.

 

There should then be a meeting to discuss his request followed by a written decision from the employer i.e. request granted, or that they will be retiring him at 65.

 

The employer does not have to grant the request to continue working, but they have to give consideration to the request.

 

Your father should certainly raise a complaint via the HR department.

 

Ell-enn

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ell-enn, thank you for your response.

 

I spoke to my dad tonight on the phone and asked if the company wrote to him at any time and he said they wrote to him in September, asking if he'd like to continue. Dad replied stating that he'd like to work till AT LEAST the end of December.

 

As I stated in my earlier post, Dad wanted to work till the end of the year, but knew he'd probably want to stay on longer and he says that is the reason he put the words "at least" in the letter, to keep his options open. That was the last written communication between them till he found out he'd been retired and then the letter I mentioned in my post arrived after he'd contacted them by telephone to enquire why they'd given his job to someone else. This letter stated it was not their policy to keep people on beyond retirement age as it was a "hard job" and "not safe"

 

Again - this is only my personal opinion - he's managed this job all his working life, managed to keep safe, many men end up in the water, he's only gone overboard twice in his entire working life at sea of 49 yerars, and again, his medical declared him fit for work so I can't see how they can use that as an argument, i.e - write to him, ASKING if he wants to stay on, let him stay on and then retire him a month after his 65th, stating "company policy"? I don't understand how it can be company policy if they initially wrote asking him if he'd LIKE to stay on, if you see what I mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, can you get him to clarify the exact words in the letter in which he says they asked him if he'd like to stay on. The reason I ask is that the letter should have stated he has the right to request to stay on after normal retirement date. Even if an employee does exercise their right to ask - the company does not have to grant the request.

 

Let us know when you have the exact wording.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Ell-enn

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...