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


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

    • and the utter depth of self serving profiteering at taxpayer expense in more detail   Managers given £million bonuses just to stay - despite taking the company to bancrupcy and criminality - and beyond With intentions to pay more from 'emergency loans'   Thames Water paid out bonuses using £3bn emergency loan, documents reveal | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Debt-ridden company refuses to claw back nearly £2.5m paid just weeks before it paused retention payments plan  
    • Write to us at PO Box 82112 London N17 1LG Registered Office Unit 1.01, Hollinwood Business Centre, Albert Street, Failsworth, Oldham, England, OL8 3QL
    • Is this the correct email to send WS to the courts? I was sure there was a thread here with updated emails. [email protected] Thanks again Andy
    • Thanks again Andy. I have used the following. Not 100% sure on it as it's a bit technical for me. But hopefully shines a light on the points I want to enforce of the 'Full and final' settlement.   Exhibit 2: (relevant extracts used).   URL:https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/8.html Cite as: [2001] 1 All ER 961, [2001] ICR 337, [2001] 2 WLR 735, [2002] AC 251, [2002] 1 AC 251, [2001] Emp LR 359, [2001] IRLR 292, [2001] UKHL 8   Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v. Munawar Ali, Sultana Runi Khan and Others [2001] UKHL 8; [2001] 1 All ER 961; [2001] 2 WLR 735 (1st March, 2001) HOUSE OF LORDS Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL SA (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) (APPELLANTS) v. (1) MUNAWAR ALI (2) SULTANA RUNI KHAN AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS) ON 1 MARCH 2001 [2001] UKHL 8   LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD 22. This appeal raises a question of interpretation of a general release. By a general release I mean an agreement containing widely drawn general words releasing all claims one party may have against the other. The release given by Mr Naeem was of this character. Mr Naeem accepted a payment from BCCI 'in full and final settlement of all or any claims . . . of whatsoever nature that exist or may exist'. LORD HOFFMANN 38. The language of the document is very wide. The impression it conveys is that the draftsman meant business. He has gone to some trouble to avoid leaving anything out. He uses traditional style: pairs of words like "full and final settlement", "all or any claims", "that exist or may exist" and phrases like "whether under statute, common law or in equity" and "of whatsoever nature". Admittedly, he could have gone further. Tudor Grange Holdings Ltd v Citibank NA [1992] Ch 53, 57 contains an even more elaborate release and I have seen American documents in which the release covers an entire page. But most people in this country would regard this as overkill. The modern English tradition, while still erring on the side of caution, is to avoid the grosser excesses of verbiage and trust to the judges to use common sense to get the message. I think that this tendency should be encouraged. So I think that anyone who was simply reading the document without preconceptions would accept that the draftsman was not leaving deliberate gaps. It does not however follow that the language was to be read completely literally. There may be limitations in scope to be inferred from the background, limitations from context which the draftsman may have thought too obvious to mention. But that is a different matter from saying that he did not use enough words. LORD CLYDE The critical words are: "The applicant agrees to accept the terms set out in the documents attached in full and final settlement of all or any claims whether under statute, common law or in equity of whatsoever nature that exist or may exist and, in particular, all or any claims rights or applications of whatsoever nature that the applicant has or may have or has made or could make in or to the industrial tribunal, except the applicant's rights under the respondent's pension scheme."
  • 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
      • 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,

 

Looking for any views opinions on this matter.

 

My husband was up until october last year amployed for 8 years at the same firm. He accepted voluntry redundancy as they had a company " shake up" and told they was no position anymore for him...anyway....we managed on what he had recieved from them and some savings we had until last month when we had to admit defeat and he went to sign on. As i work part time 16 hours, DWP said he could claim contribution based jobseekers allowance of i think its about £65 a week, and he could get it for 6 months, this means in june it will come to an end....i am registered disabled and recieve DLA middle care and higher mobility allowance..... my question is....what will happen come june when the JSA comes to an end....and would he be better off claiming Carers Allowance for me??

My husband has now just been contacted by his old firm offering him a job due to " restructuring" , but he is reluctant to go back" once bitten, twice shy" and all that and they wernt very nice to work for. We have just had some bad news from tax credits, they go on the previous years income when he worked, we have only been awarded £10.35 a week, i said but he is unemployed now and i only work part time, we have a child and a house to run, bills to pay....but they say until the new tax year 4th April that is all we can have. After looking at such sites as benfit checker and the like, we both feel a bit downhearted....it seems with all the benefits we could claim, if he returns to work will will be better off be just £35 a week....i think for getting up everyday and travel and all the stress that goes with the job....is it really worth it? Weres the incentive?? We have both always worked full time until last year when bodged surgery left me disabled and i had to return to work after a year off sick at just 16 hours...its only your own feeling of self worth that keeps me in work. I am thinking while we are only getting £10.35 a week off tax credits, my husband should return to work til at least april, then we would get a decent weekly income, then leave when the tax credits renewal come into play beginning of april and our money would go up??

What are peoples views on this situation.... what would you do??

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can ring up tax credits and give them estimates for this years income, then ask them to base your claim on this. Make sure your information you give them is accurate though.

 

This aspect of tax credits makes it very easy (and tempting) to defraud in the short term, and a few years ago, when the media was full of massive repayment demands, the politicians even made this fraud semi legal by allowing for one year, peoples income to rise by up to £25,000 before tax credits would require the overpayment to be repaid. Some people netted just short of £20,000 because of that. nowadays, under estimating annual income gives little long term advantage as you do have to repay the next year, and it is a form of fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one other thought. Since your husband has been offered a job, does it fit the criteria of the work he is looking for in his job seeker agreement? If it does, and he turns it down, he can have his JSA sanctioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ptol

 

 

Yes it fits the criteria he is looking for, its within his JS agreement....but if he turned it down, how would DWP know? His old boss simply foned him up and offered him it, he hasnt applied through the normal routes

Link to post
Share on other sites

One way they would know, his old manager could inform them that he has turned down the job. His motivation for doing that is to make your husband accept the job.

 

The point is not whether they would know, but that if they do find out, they will sanction his JSA.

 

.

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...