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


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

    • Appreciate your swift input and amendments! I've reworded some of it (and will likely reformat the page a bit before printing to make it neater) but I've included the majority of your suggestions. Let me know what you think. Would you recommend I email this to the individual who declined the compensation as well as sending it by post? Cheers Switch2 - Letter of Claim v3.pdf
    • I suggest (change in red) -   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [car reg no]. 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  6. The Claimant is claiming an unlawful amount of interest.  The dispute between the parties concerns a disputed, unpaid invoice, issued on 6 January 2025, on which it is written "Payment to be made by 06-Feb-2025".  Yet the Claimant is claiming interest from 4 January 2025.  7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Okay. That sounds a lot better. Hopefully you now realise that the third party rights act only applies if you have used a parcel broker but you are trying to sue the courier company directly. So because you contracted directly with the courier, you are going to sue them directly. By using insurance or prohibited items or non-compensation lists, they are seeking to exclude or limit liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care – and of course this is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act and in fact the insurance that they pressurise you to purchase amounts to a secondary contract under section 72 of the Act because it is a prohibited secondary contract which is attempting also to limit or exclude liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care. The prohibited items list is an unfair term as you have already pointed out. Even more significantly here not only are they saying that it is prohibited – but they are saying this despite the fact that they were very happy to take your money in respect of insurance. These people are stupid and dishonest. But also now they will abuse the County Court system by making you jump through the hoops because it costs them scarcely anything at all to use up the County Court system because it is a publicly funded taxpayer resourced system of justice. They don't use this to obtain justice. They use this simply as a means of debt avoidance to try and frustrate their customers legitimate claims.   Okay I've made a few amendments – and also I've added a further head of damage for unfair trading which could give you a next your little bit of money and also an extra little bit of leverage. Please have a look. See if you are happy with it. If you want to take anything away. If you want to add anything. If there is anything which is incorrect – and post up the final draft here please for a last look.
    • Nope, not yet filed, have it in draft but was going to leave it a little while until nearer the deadline 🙂
  • 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.

i would like a bit of advice or help if possible.

the story of my problem is as follows.

 

i was working for a security company working on a building/demolishion site as was due to be both..

 

i was lone working. they had no telephone or assignment instructions on this site. (nor power- as gen went faulty the night before.)

the only information i was given by the company was to go to the the site and given the address and meet up with the night guard.

 

i spoke for about 15 mins with this guard as to what was needed etc.

 

he said to watch for kids etc.

 

 

any ways the nuts of the story.

 

3 guys turn up in high vis and truck and presented a hand written receipt to collect some metal beams.

they knew the location of items.

 

so with no phone to verify etc and they knew exactly what they came for and the reciept.

 

i let them collect. they took only what was on receipt and left...

 

i worked other sites before and this does happen so thought nothing of it.

 

Anyway next day 2 more staff came to collect gas bottles for a job. i explained they beams had been collected.

turns out the day before collection was in fact a theft and the receipt was bogus...

 

 

now here where it get interesting..

 

this happed in JAN ..

In Jan i was due my wages for DEC aprox 1000

and i called my company to chased outstanding wages and was told they where being withheld because of the theft...

 

also i owed money from FEB for work done in JAN about 250ish

 

and that not turned up either..

 

spoke to acas and they said they cant help as even thought i was employed by company it was on self employed basis.

 

and small claims it????

 

surely its illegal to withhold wages???

 

any advice would be grateful..

 

please

 

well as it t

Link to post
Share on other sites

the handbook. seems wrong for my employment.. because to be honest i never really looked at it until recently "after" the fact.

like the pay according to hand book should be fortnightly via bacs. ( in arears)

but always got paid via cheque monthly in arreas...

but will need to dig the book again about holidays and hrs etc.

 

i queried the pay schedual w my manager and he said they not done fortnightly via bacs for ages..

what makes me think the handbook does nt work as i was told in person told.

 

as my manager said that holidays are unpaid as we where selfemployed..

 

and we can take the time off just that unpaid....

 

but can dig the handbook out for u if required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS SELF EMPLOYED IS BOTHERING ME

I TAKE IT YOU DO A MIN OF 40 HOURS A WEEK

 

SEND /GIVE YOUR BOSS THIS

 

ITS A SECTION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT

 

SHOULD MAKE HIM SIT UP

 

 

 

13 Right not to suffer unauthorised deductions.E+W+S

 

(1)An employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker employed by him unless—

 

(a)the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a statutory provision or a relevant provision of the worker’s contract, or

 

(b)the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction.

 

(2)In this section “relevant provision”, in relation to a worker’s contract, means a provision of the contract comprised—

 

(a)in one or more written terms of the contract of which the employer has given the worker a copy on an occasion prior to the employer making the deduction in question, or

 

(b)in one or more terms of the contract (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) the existence and effect, or combined effect, of which in relation to the worker the employer has notified to the worker in writing on such an occasion.

 

(3)Where the total amount of wages paid on any occasion by an employer to a worker employed by him is less than the total amount of the wages properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion (after deductions), the amount of the deficiency shall be treated for the purposes of this Part as a deduction made by the employer from the worker’s wages on that occasion.

 

(4)Subsection (3) does not apply in so far as the deficiency is attributable to an error of any description on the part of the employer affecting the computation by him of the gross amount of the wages properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion.

 

(5)For the purposes of this section a relevant provision of a worker’s contract having effect by virtue of a variation of the contract does not operate to authorise the making of a deduction on account of any conduct of the worker, or any other event occurring, before the variation took effect.

 

(6)For the purposes of this section an agreement or consent signified by a worker does not operate to authorise the making of a deduction on account of any conduct of the worker, or any other event occurring, before the agreement or consent was signified.

 

(7)This section does not affect any other statutory provision by virtue of which a sum payable to a worker by his employer but not constituting “wages” within the meaning of this Part is not to be subject to a deduction at the instance of the employer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AS YOU HAVE A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, THE FOLLOWING APPLIES

 

 

number of employment rights and benefits are available to “employees”, defined in the employment legislation as “an individual who has entered into or works under a contract of employment”. In turn, a “contract of employment” is defined as “a contract of service or apprenticeship”. Therefore, if an employer has decided that you are employed under a “contract of service” and puts you on the payroll, you are entitled to rights such as a written statement of employment particulars, an itemised payslip, guarantee payments, maternity/ paternity/ adoption/ parental leave and pay, notice of termination, dismissal and redundancy. A number of other employment rights are available to “workers”, e.g. protection of wages, statutory holiday pay, national minimum wage and flexible working. Anyone who is an employee is also a “worker”, so is automatically entitled to these additional rights. The term “worker” also includes people who are commonly described as “contractors” and who generally claim to be self-employed. However, it is not always easy to distinguish between persons who are contractors and those who are genuinely self-employed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

on average i was doing 72hrs aweek up til end of nov when it went quiet

 

under the working time directive the max you should be working is 70 hours a week and only if you have signed an opt out

 

also you need an 11 hour break between shifts and a 24 hour break once a week

 

i take it you signed no opt out

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as far as i am concearned you are classed as a worker in that you have a hand book or contract of employment and not self employed

 

be it you self employed or not, they cant deduct money from you wages for this alleged theft

 

go for the throt

 

tyou require immediate payment within 48 hours or its a claim in the small claims court

 

MENTION SECTION 13 OF THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT

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...