LOL I actually do think they'd be receptive to that and I've considered it! What I'd then be concerned about is me under-performing throughout the trial, them deeming my performance to be okay during that period and then dismissing me later once the trial was over.

They gave me a quote for voluntary severance (which they stressed was just a quote and not an offer) and it was basically the same as what I would get if I was paid statutory redundancy along with my notice in lieu (six months).

Thanks for your response, that's what I feared. I've evaluated the new job descriptions and I'd argue the 'new skills' percentage is at around 50%.

I currently work as a web editor employed in a department that is undergoing consultations pertaining to a potential restructuring that could take effect in a month's time. I've been in this role for four years. They've sold this restructuring as only a "proposal"; one that will be subject to our input as they try to refine a new system that everyone can "agree" to. So far the process hasn't resembled anything close to democracy (as one would expect) so when it inevitably goes ahead my job will be disestablished within about 6 months or so. There are three web related roles in the new structure but I have issues with them and consequently made the decision to ask for voluntary severance. One of the roles would place me on a lower pay grade. The other two roles are the same pay grade but lean towards more general administrative duties that would conflate my more technical present role with communications, marketing and strategy responsibilities that I really don't care for. I don't want my career to veer off in this direction and I don't have the skills or experience to complete some of the additional duties highlighted within the new job descriptions. My request for a voluntary severance offer was refused on the basis that this was "not in [their] interests". This makes me worry about what will happen next. My suspicion is that I will be judged to be "suitable" for one of the two aforementioned roles and thus be deemed not to be legally redundant. Ultimately of course this would allow them to escape the golden handshake should I still choose to walk away, as they will probably try to argue that my refusal to accept the new post would be "unreasonable". My question is am I likely to be able to escape this place with a pay-off under these circumstances or will I just have to resign? Section 141 of the Employment Rights Act is frighteningly vague about how "suitability" or "unreasonable refusal" are determined. Apologies if I've been too vague about anything, I'm trying to detail the issue without being overly specific. Thanks, Stylus.

Hi there guys and thanks for responding! Yeah this is in regards to an alleged railway offence, and providing the penalty fare system had not changed by the time I was *rightfully* fined for a separate offence later in February 2010 then the original fine would have been for £20. Also, does this also now count as a CCJ or does that only apply to loans...? Cheers, Stylus

Hi, I have just received a notice through the post referring to a fine I have to pay for £300. At first I believed it referred to a offence I admittedly comitted in February 2010 (and paid), but it refers to something prior to that (June 2009). The problem is this "previous incident" didn't happen!! I've been told by the Central Finance Unit to sign a statutory declaration at my local magistrates court. I have no idea why that is exactly, I've never been to court before and this is confusing. I phoned up the court and asked someone if they could explain and they said "the case was settled in your absence in March 2010". I said "can you forward me the details of the proceedings since it concerns my name?" he said "no it doesn't work like that. If you weren't aware of any of this then that's your arguement, and you should sign the declaration". He may well be right, I have absolutely no idea. Does anyone know how I should proceed in this situation? If I sign the declaration am I inadvertently admitting that this took place? What should I do? Sorry if this isn't detailed enough, let me know and I'll fill in the blanks. I also apologise in advance if this information is explained elsewhere, I'm not entirely sure what I should be searching for. Cheers, Stylus

Hello. I've been browsing this forum for a few weeks, trying to gain as much knowledge as possible on the subject of removing defaults. I have four Defaults on my credit report with Experian due to poor money management as a teenager/student that I am attempting to remove. Since starting the process I have now learned that the CCA/DN request method does not apply to: a) Current accounts with overdraft facilities b) Mobile phone accounts. This is where my problem lies, as I have two defaults which come under these categories respectively. I have settled all of four of my defaulted accounts but they remain on my report obviously as merely "satisfied". I have the following Defaults: 1) Halifax Card Services (due to expire April 2009, not a problem) 2) Cabot Financial (from Barclaycard originally, due to expire September 2009, would prefer sooner but not that long of a wait I suppose) 3) Lowell Portfolio (from Barclays originally, a current account ex-debt, default expires December 2011) 4) Orange PCS (default expires March 2012) The last two are obviously of a primary concern to me but also appear to be almost impossible to remove. I'm almost resigned to the fact that the Orange Default will remain, nothing I can do, fair enough. The Lowell Portfolio one I am still hopeful about. With overdrafts in particular there appears to a fair amount of confusion. There appears to be advice on the subject of overdraft Defaults but this information is either explained in convoluted law talk or based on vague hypotheses, with no middle-ground of clear cut answers in layman's terms. I can barely remember anything about my Barclays current account (I no longer have any records relating to it) other than that it was a student account with an initial overdraft limit of £200 in 2001 that was later risen to £300 sometime in 2002 after visiting a branch advisor for an unrelated issue who executed it there and then on the computer. I wrote to Lowell requesting an original copy of the CCA and DN and as you can imagine they returned my postal order stating that section 77(1) and section 78(1) do not apply to current accounts. I apologize if I am retreading over territory that has been covered to death, but I have honestly trawled these forums myself looking for answers and couldn't find anything that really cleared up my rights and options regarding my situation. Any info anyone can provide will be gratefully received.