I'm still gobsmacked they are expecting you to do the chasing around. Have you asked them "who provides your occupational health advice" (and, if they don't say "we don't have an Occ Health provider" the next question is "have you spoken to them, and if not, why not?"). Have you heard anything back from your union?. Even if they are dodging the issue (maybe they don't feel they know the answer either), they might know the score regarding any Occ Health provision the employer has, or be able to get a definitive answer regarding any Occ Health provider. If no-one will help, you can get details of your local Health Protection Unit from http://www.hpa.org.uk/ ... Towards the bottom of that page, just to the left of the middle is a map of the UK .. Put your postcode into the box, press "Go" and it'll give your local HPU's details (providing you are in England ... Although the map shows the UK and Eire,the HPA only covers England. Wales, Scotland, NI and Eire have their own Heath Protection organisations, and presumably, their own similar websites)

My nephew hated the mobile I got him ... as it was the least "cool" oversized brick that I could dredge out from eBay / my habit of never throwing technology ( even old technology) away. My plan was that it would be so "uncool" that he'd never take it out of his bag unless he needed it for that emergency call, so he'd be less likely to loose it, and no self-respecting mugger would bother with it!. For your daughter - might a mobile being old / bulky be plus points? (big, stays in bag, less likely to get lost .... Inexpensive, so less of a problem if did get lost). Again, I don't want to be teaching "Grandma to suck eggs" (or Grandpa?), and you'll know how her autism affects her more than any textbook can say, but is it easier to discuss facts and logic with her than "feelings / emotions"?

Cleaner in a healthcare environment or not a healthcare environment might be relevant ..... In a healthcare environment they might not wait until just pre-op to give you decolonisation, but might say "start decolonisation now, off (paid) for 2 days for the decolonisation to kick in" and then decolonise you again just pre-op. Outside of the healthcare environment you shouldn't need any time off work unless there is some other major factor they aren't telling you about that is relevant. Is this for a large firm? If so, they shouldn't be expecting you to be making the running -it's a call for their Occ Health provider, who HR should be consulting. If its for a firm that is small enough they don't have an Occ Health provider they might ask you to get an opinion from your GP - if your GP is happy to answer, all welll and good, but if they need expert advice, resources they could call on include the Consultant in Medical Microbiology (CMM) at the hospital lab that did the MRSA testing, or the CCDC of the local HPU (see previous post further up the thread). A CMM having a bad day might say "infection control queries in the Community aren't down to me, speak to the CCDC", but most I've interacted with have been reasonable people and given your result came from their lab would be more likely to say "It's actually the CCDC's call, so if you need a definitive legally binding answer you need to ask them, but I'd expect them to say ....... " Either way (CMM or CCDC) I believe the answer will be "no reason for you to be off work". If the employer is large enough to have an HR dept., they probably have an Occ Health provider (the firm's own or a contracted one). Have you asked if they have one, and if so why HR aren't approaching them?. I only hope the fact that they are giving you a week off, paid, in part compensates you for the stress of HR's unreasonableness!

It's not the same, but I have a relative with nystagmus sufficient that it is classed as a disability. His first few trips on a regular train journey his mum went with him, and had a quiet word with the staff, who then (unobtrusively) "kept an eye" on him subsequently until he had gained sufficient confidence. This depended on both the goodwill of the staff and that that route had "regulars" as the station and train staff, though. With autism, is 'confidence' an issue?, or is "establishing a routine" (or risk from disruption of a routine) more of an issue?. If she tends to loose papers, my initial thought of 'how about a laminated card that says 'I have autism, please by patient'" to show an RPO/i wouldn't be much help ....... (yes, it was a stupid thought, but at least I'm owning up to it, and realised how daft it might be) Does she have a mobile for emergency contact? Would she be able / likely to 'phone you, and you speak to the RPI to de-escalate matters (prior to her becoming distressed by the situation badly enough that she then might not phone?) Sorry if these are daft suggestions : my limited knowledge of autism is that fixed situations are easier to deal with for the autistic child, and fixed responses are more likely : is there a way of building this in as a resource rather than a challenge?.

Confusing the 40% (actually 25-33%) nasal carriage rate for MSSA with the lower nasal carriage rate for MRSA is a common error, even by NHS staff. I also found the same error on the website of the producer of a well known MRSA decolonisation agent (NOT Mupirocin/bactroban, by the way) - though they updated it when I pointed it out to them. Go back to whoever gave you the figure, and ask them to check they didn't give you the figures for MSSA ..... an embarrassed silence might well follow. If they persist in their fallacious belief, point thm to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heic/ID/mrsa/pdf/DP_lecture.pdf which shows the figures are for Staph. aureus, not MRSA, or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22333007 which shows a (lower) figure for MSSA, but an even lower figure for MRSA (16.5% for MSSA vs 5.9% for MRSA), and that is for patients in a high risk group, rather than "healthy patients" If they still persist in arguing the toss, suggest they then confirm which figure they are quoting (MRSA or MSSA) with their lead ICN (Infection Control Nurse) or ICD (IC Doctor) ..... Headed back to your situation, are you a cleaner in the healthcare environment? Or nothing to do with heathcare? do you think you'll be able to point HR towards their Occupational Heath advice provider? (since, for a large firm, it is Occupational Health and / or the CCDC : [the Heath Protection Unit's Consultant in Communicable Disease Control] who'll have the contractual and statutory (respectively) responsibility to determine fitness to work relating to "communicable disease"). I doubt the CCDC will want to get involved, at least initially (MRSA isn't a notifiable disease after all), but they or their staff might be a useful resource none the less if the silliness persists, if your cleaning job takes you nowhere near a healthcare premises.

Any such decision is based on risk assessment, not "any nurse who has tested positive". The risk depends on what the nurse is doing, and the nature of the patients that the nurse is interacting with. It might be acceptable for a nurse working in an out-patients unit ( but not a pre-op out-patients) nor an ICU. I maintain that a nurse working in pre-op works in a high risk area, as their patients are all going for operations, by definition.

If you want to challenge them on factual grounds, it's probably best that you get your facts correct. If the nurse working in pre-op is MRSA positive, they should be taken off direct patient contact until decolonised ; per-op must be an area of hazard by definition : as the patients she is in contact with are all for surgery. If you told the branch manager that 40% of people carry MRSA you need to go back to where you found that fact and check you haven't misread it (or they themselves haven't understood). Between 25% to 33% of the population will have MSSA in their nose (one of the main sites for carriage) at any time. Some studies found the rate closer to 1 in 4 (25%), others 1in 3 .... MSSA (meticillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus) rather than MRSA (meticillin resistant). The rates for MRSA are lower, though I haven't seen a good study for MRSA carriage rates in the healthy populace, only for hospital admissions.

I'm assuming you aren't a health care worker. If you are, they might be right to say "no work with direct patient contact" until you have cleared the MRSA (though they should then offer you any work that doesn't involve direct patient contact) If you aren't a healthcare worker : Does the employer have an Occupational Health dept., or a contracted Occupational Health provider?. It seems that HR are making assumptions about an occupational health issue, and ignoring advice that comes from outside their firm. Sometimes the way around this is to get the same advice, but from "inside" the firm ; they might then start listening to it!. The HR people might not appreciate the other approach ... Point out that you have been MRSA screened, found positive, and treated (decolonisation treatment). You were screened because you were having an op, but otherwise could have been walking around with MRSA and no-one would have known. They too might be walking around with MRSA and no-one knows. Where is their result showing they aren't MRSA positive?. They haven't had decolonisation treatment, so how do you know they are not a greater risk (to their colleagues, and to you being able to get your operation). What is to say you didn't acquire MRSA from them, or from someone that got it from them?. You might be less of a risk than them, as you've had decolonisation treatment. Shouldn't they get tested, or be off work until they've been tested? (It's not hard, with a bit of knowledge or research on the issues, using logic, to find out enough to "tie in knots" people - like this HR person, who have no knowledge of the issues, and make snap decisions, not based on the facts, which are jut plain wrong).

Opinions : to show a court (in case it comes to that,) how reasonable the LBA (Letter before Action) is, is it better to allow the respondant 7 or 14 days in which to remedy the breach?

I'd read the posts visible at the point at which I started composing my reply. Those included the multiple times sailor Sam (and others) had asked how many times you had used the freedom pass that wasn't issued to you, and your replies that it was just that once (when you were caught) but also your other comment in a different reply that you'd also used it earlier that day, too. I noted that there had been comment on the different colour wallets the Oyster and freedom passes come in, and no comment by you how you'd managed to use the wrong colour wallet (or explain why the passes weren't in their original wallets). You are of course free to not regard this as a debate, to not answer questions raised, to make those points you consider important and choose to disregard points others might feel important / relevant : you can also choose to take or not to take advice offered - after all, you are the one who has been summonsed. I note that one previous reply notes a possible estimated fine if found guilty, based on an "average wage". Would that equally apply to someone on "an average wage for a professor", as the OP has stated their profession?.

If you are stating "criminal record which then means that they cannot get a job", the logical consequence (applying 'reduction ab absurdum', since you have) is that no one should ever be prosecuted. Are you really suggesting this? Having a criminal record may make it harder to get a job, or preclude the convicted person from some jobs : the potential employer should know of the conviction (if not spent, or for a job where the conviction must be revealed even if otherwise 'spent'). The employer can then decide if the conviction is a bar to an offer of employment.

Did you have a 'bump' in a car park? If so, is the car park public or private land, and if private, is it an area to which the public have access?.

In case they won't help or their help is delayed, how did you pay?. If you paid by Oyster, even Oyster PAYG, you might pursue that as a way to show that your Oyster card was used to pay for that ticket. It doesn't prove it was you who used that for that journey, only that that card was used for that journey, but perhaps it is a start?

Ask your employer for a P46 to fill in. It isn't such an infrequent occurrence that they shouldn't have them. If they don't have them, or claim not to know they exist, then print one yourself, but it may be trickier than getting one from them - it needs to have "your bit" on one side, and the employer's bit on the other side of the same sheet. Otherwise, see if you can get a blank P46 from any employer or tax office - thet aren't prefilled with the employer's details. 18 years ago I started my first full time permanent job post full-time education, with an employer renowned for putting graduate employees's on "emergency" tax codes, and letting the tax office sort it out, leaving the new employees overpaying tax for a few months in their first job. Shortly before starting I asked them for a P46, and they claimed not to know they existed. One of my part time jobs (in preceding tax years, for a different employer) had been assisting with payroll, so whilst not an expert, I knew of P45's, P46's and P38(S)'s. First day of the new job in August, I took 20+ blank P46's with me (kindly supplied by my former payroll employer), and all the graduate new starters who hadn't worked that Tax Year ticked box A and went straight onto the correct tax code, together with 5 months accrued tax allowance meaning our 1st pay packets were way more healthy than if we'd been on 0BRX, the 'emergency tax code'. Out of 'fairness' to the new employer, I started off by asking the chap from payroll "joining" us to their payroll system that morning for a P46, yet he again denied they existed : when I produced the sheaf of 20+ and said "Good thing I've brought a few with me, then" ( or similar), I thought I heard grinding of teeth It did start me off on a good footing with my fellow new starters, though - we'd all been warned by our predecessors about the fact we'd be over-paying while they sorted out our tax codes. Regarding your leaving date from your previous job, given you say you don't earn enough to pay tax, I suspect your best way forward is to use a P46, if you get a P45 from your last employer send it to your tax office not your new employer. If you are able to get the issue with your previous employer sorted (especially if an ET finds you were unfairly dismissed) then come clean with your new employer. Find a manager you get on with, give them a potted summary, if able stress that you never lied about a leaving date, but just didn't correct a wrong assumption by the new employer because you were embarrassed at having been falsely accused, and wanted to clear your name first. You might choose to just "let sleeping dogs lie", but then might worry that it "all comes out" one day. If you are able to "come clean", even if that manager doesn't do anything with the info, it can't be used as a "hold over you" in the future - so, once you've "come clean", you won't have to worry about it! Edited to add : I've just noticed that you did fib, rather than leave them with a wrong assumption. So, you are going to have to make a judgement call later : hope no one notices (they probably won't but sometimes "things just come out"), or 'fess up' to a boss you get on with once you've been there a while, especially if you have worked hard to get a good reputation, and win any case for unfair dismissal against your prior employer.

These are 2 separate P45 issues, the first being "If I have a P45, but I don't want my new employer to see it", and the second issue being "I don't have a P45". For the first, if you had a P45, there is a section titled "to the employee", which tells you you can send it to the tax office rather than your new employer if you don't want your new employer to see it, but you may pay too much tax for a while while they play 'catch up' with the paperwork. See http://www.p45.co.uk/images/art/p45_example.gif Clearly, you can't do this if you don't have a P45, but where you don't have a P45, you instead complete a P46 form with your new employer. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/forms/p46.pdf You are better off ticking box A than box B than box C, but only if you can do so truthfully : but from your posting it seems likely that you won't be able to tick Box A (as your posts suggest that you have worked this Tax year). Edited to add : if you are able to tick box B truthfully (so, it's your only job and you don't have another job or pension, for example), then if you don't earn enough to pay tax, you shouldn't loose out by ticking box B rather than A. (Box C means you have to pay tax on the "Emergency Rate", as saying you have another income might mean you are using your tax allowance on that job / income. Box B means you get your tax allowance, but only that month's worth, as they aren't sure [until they catch up with the paperwork] how much tax allowance from earlier in the year you might have used up or available, while Box A means you are saying you have the full allowance up to that date of the tax year still available if you haven't had any taxable income yet during that tax year)

The fact that a health care professional has agreed to provide the letter (even if not obliged to agree : once they agree to do so they should then do so) is indeed the "tack" I'd advise. If you feel that the Psychiatrist would be helpful, but that it is the admin staff who are being obstructive, could you arrange an appointment or telephone onversation with the Psychiatrist to remind him/her of their kind offer to provide that letter?. If you feel that the obstruction is instead with the Psychiatrist who has changed their mind about providing the letter, does the organisation have a PALS or advocacy service you could enlist help from?.

If the store advertise that they offer a "28 day change your mind policy", then I'd expect them to honour it. It is just that the store isn't obliged to offer that, but they may choose to do so. Of course, once they have offered such, one can ague that it formed part of the decision to buy the item, so it is then a term of the contract that they can be held to.

If the item was faulty, then they have to refund the original price rather than the new, lower, sale price. However, you are on less firm ground for a "change of mind", as if it's not faulty, they don't HAVE to refund at all. They may CHOOSE to refund, and you thus might be able to persuade them to refund the original purchase price (speak to a manager at the store, and if that fails write to their head office?), but in the end they may well say "no obligation to refund at all, so giving the purchaser back what the store would then be able to sell it for" wasn't unreasonable. Good luck, and please let us know how you get on! Edited: to add: Did she have the receipt showing the higher price paid?. Without a receipt it would be harder to claim the original price ..... Re-edited for typo.

You are indeed correct (the only thing one can say to someone who will ignore or belittle anything that challenges their delusions). Martin3030 disagreed with you, Lee from Voda offered help - so they must be trolls (based on your posting describing Lee as "the other troll"). I disgareed with you, so hence I (by definition?) am a troll too. Well done for ignoring the questions in my earlier reply that might expose the inconsistencies in your rant ; if they taught you that in the cab office, I take it that was the mini-cab office (which explains when I've been told "its just around the corner and will be there in 5 minutes") rather than the Cabinet Office.

What does Voda (whose company rep. on this site offered you help in June) have to do with the NHS?. Does 'ranting' and / or "SHOUTING" by using CAPS help you come across as a rational and reasoned individual? especially given the lack of evidence you accepted any help from the Voda company rep ......... If the Houseman was alone ... why wasn't s/he calling for his/her bosses ; even if their Consultant wasn't in the hospital, there should have been a Registrar on site .... £10 antidote for liver failure ...... Why haven't the (tertiary referral) "liver units" not been told of this magic treatment?. Who needs the liver units if there is a £10 antidote? (is this n-acetylcysteine / "Parvolex" by any chance? If so, is the liver failure present already, where Parvolex won't help ........)

What do you expect from the court?. If the offence is made out, how would you expect them to find?. If they summonsed you for not haing a tax disc, then fight it if you had one. If they would summons you for not displaying a tax disc (regardless of if you possessed one) ......what is the line you will follow for 'defence in law', and how do you expect it to pan out?

Indeed, none of us are perfect, but ....... Person "A" owns up to an FPN or even a caution. An FPN may or not show on the enhanced CRB, a caution will. Neither showing on a CRB check will (on their own) be an absolute bar to the post being offered..... If Person B "scales down" what they admit to, and it comes out that they "scaled down" what they admitted to, it's harder for them to then claim "it was all in the past when I was less mature, and I'm a different person now" ........

The company can keep the one the company has. The company's director can allow you to use it as a company employee, with sales processed on behalf of the company. You can't keep the current one as it belongs to the company, but the company may allow you to keep / use it for the company.

If I'm reading this correctly, the 2 main things the OP desires are: a) access to the PDQ machine to process payments, and b) the unique name of the company. If the OP doesn't mind being an employee of the company, and at 'the mercy' of any new director / shareholders, then there should be nothing stopping the OP using the company's PDQ terminal as an employee, to generate cash flow for the company, as long as it is as an employee, and not as a 'shadow director'. The new director must be that - directing the company, not a figurehead for the OP "directing in the background". If the (unique?) company name is of value, and the OP isn't a 'shadow director', would this raise queries as to if the is was a 'shadow directorship' if the company was just handed back, free and gratis, once the OP's bankruptcy (if it proceeds) is discharged?. How could the OP avoid the appearance of a shadow directorship, whilst working for the company as an employee, beyond showing that they (and the company) are managed by the new director, rather than the OP doing the management?. New director showing management, OP showing employee status, and need there be an exchange of consideration when the new Director resigns after (re)appointing the OP?. I'm not advocating a shadow directorship, nor how to conceal one ; I'm advocating the very opposite, if there is a way the OP can get employment and comply with the law, and show his/her intent to comply with the law. Given the company sounds as if it is in perilous finances (no assets), if the OP went ahead as described and the company failed, and it was then alleged that the OP was in fact a shadow director, would they become liable PERSONALLY for any company debts? and, if so, would any such debts not be cleared off as part of the original bankruptcy (possibly then prevent the bankruptcy being discharged at a year)?. I'm not an expert, so this may be a false fear, but it is clear the OP is looking at options, doesn't want to commit unlawful acts, and wants to understand the implications of the options before choosing.

So, the director at the time could'stitch up' the OP, if they chose to do so, and not return the company, or fire the OP (as the OP would be an employee only, not a director nor shareholder). What of any investigation of a 'shadow directorship'?