Ethel Street
-
Posts
2,039 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
30
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Ethel Street
-
I'm a trained investigator for workplace disciplinary investigations mfwic and it was made very clear to us in training that if the person you are interviewing is suspected of misconduct you MUST tell them you are investigating allegations of potential misconduct against them and what the allegations are. As I understood it from the employment lawyer who did my training, if the investigator pretended they were being interviewed as a witness when really they were "the accused" the statements made and interview evidence would probably not be admissible in court/employment tribunal. eg, people interviewed as witnesses don't usually have union rep/workplace colleague with them, but if you knew you were accused of misconduct you'd probably want that. Don't take that as legal gospel truth, but that's my understanding. At the start of the interview ask them to confirm they are only interviewing you as a witness and that you are not being accused of anything yourself and make sure that appears in their minutes/notes of the interview. To make an obvious point, an interview that starts as a witness interview can change half way through if the interviewee incriminates themself!
-
TKmaxx refund
Ethel Street replied to Grumpy.Bear's topic in Retail loss Prevention/Other shoplifting allegations.
Grumpy.Bear, I've no idea why your question has generated such a spat between two regular posters, but I do agree with the other advice you've been given - do nothing. Wait and see if anything happens. If it does come back here for more advice. Approaching TKMaxx yourself will almost certainly make it worse (if it doesn't completely confuse them, they'll probably have no idea what you are talking about!) I don't have particular knowledge or experience of what TKMaxx do but it seems to me that if TKMaxx were going to do anything they would have said something when you were there. I wouldn't worry about it. -
It wasn't illegal anyway, was it?Lots of threads on here saying that you are entitled to covertly record meetings, no law against it. (Only issue is whether admissible in court if ever came to that). If you would have been entitled to covertly record the meeting then so were they - the law presumably cuts both ways!
-
But how would DWP, who calculate your state pension, know what other income you have from other sources (such as a private pension?) Your state pension at £200pw is c£10,400 a year, less than this year's tax allowance. There's no reason for DWP to deduct tax even if they did have the procedures in place to do that.
-
US Court system itself has put out warnings about these s cams http://www.mass.gov/courts/court-info/appealscourt/false-court-case-email-[problem]-notice.html http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2014/01/13/public-alert-[problem]-emails-about-phony-court-cases-carry-computer-virus EDIT. Couldn't work out why these links were giving a 'page not found'. Just worked it out. Both URLs include the word s cam [without the space] which CAG system is automatically replacing with [problem]. I understand why people's posts are changed that way but it rather messes up URLs! You'll have to copy and paste and change [problem] to s cam (without the space) to see what I am talking about.
-
Does the housemate have any money, or any realistic possibility of repaying you? If not, is there any chance that your other fhousemates will agree to split it between you all? It doesn't seem fair that you have to bear all the costs of the defaulting housemate.
-
Your original question asked people's thoughts on it and I've given you mine but it isn't up to me whether 192 share their revenue with you so I'm not going to get into an argument about it. When you get a response from them come back and let us know. No I am not telling you that. That is unrelated to anything I have posted and I have no opinion on it.
-
You didn't publish the information in the first place though. It was published by a government organisation carrying out its statutory duties wasn't it - Companies House presumably? So 192 don't need your permission. And the law allows them to republish Companies House information and make a profit from it. They don't need your permission for that either. So they're not going to give you a cut!
-
I think ericsbrother has identified the key point here, that if information is officially published by the government it's public information and anyone can harvest it, aggregate it, republish it in any form and charge for it (and make a profit from that 'service'). It appears that 192 are only publishing details that are available from Companies House. In which case I don't think there's anything you can do about it. Are you still associated with the company? Some of the sites that publish company directors information will agree to remove old information if you haven't been connected with it for 'x' years or if the company has been dissolved.
-
Sounds like the new agents are just putting out their standard requests. They may not even have the original inventory. I suggest first step is to write to them with a copy of the original inventory and making the point to them that you should not be asked to leave a property in a better state than it was when you moved in, and the inventory is the evidence of its condition at the beginning of the tenancy. Also send them a copy of your current tenancy agreement pointing out what it says about your obligations at the end of the tenancy. It's quite likely that whoever is dealing with it has no idea you aren't on their standard tenancy agreement. They're just assumed all their tenants are on their normal AST form but you aren't. I doubt that whoever deals with check outs bothers to read the file. Most importantly though, what does the tenancy agreement say? There's usually a whole section on maintenance and cleaning. The agreement we had recently said specifically that the tenant had to keep the interior and the fixtures and fittings "in the same decorative order throughout the tenancy" except for fair wear and tear. It did also say that the tenant had to get the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy so if yours says the same you may have to do it notwithstanding the condition when you moved in. But if it isn't in the tenancy agreement I don't think they can impose it. But as others have said, the legal theory and the practical position may be different. I'd have thought a requirement to clean the windows is reasonable, I wouldn't quibble about that. You never know, when you put your points to them they may just say you don't need to.
-
DVLA fine for untaxed vehicle I no longer own
Ethel Street replied to ForbiddenFruit's topic in DVLA
It wasn't me who had the problem Conniff, it was ForbiddenFruit. I was just adding my experience. -
Just out of curiosity, why the rule about no jackets on the call floor?
-
Have you checked what their website says about returns? 14 days is the statutory minimum but sellers can decide to give longer if they want to. Although even if they gave, say, 30 days in their own sales conditions it looks as if you've exceeded that anyway. I think you're stuck with them! Could you re-sell them yourself on eBay or wherever?
-
I'm not an expert on this chrisf1 but I think you have to tell the seller within 14 days of delivery if you want to return them because you have changed your mind so you have no right to send them back or get your money back. (You didn't confirm the delivery date but I'm assuming it was more than 14 days ago).
-
chrisf1 can you clarify: Is the seller based in UK/EU? What is the reason you want to return them? Are they faulty, or not as described by the seller? Or have you just changed your mind? You ordered on 25th April, but when did the items arrive?
-
Random question thread
Ethel Street replied to unclebulgaria67's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
Humans are about 60% water and they're much more expensive -
licence revoked by dlva saying eyesight no good - optician says its ok
Ethel Street replied to tappets's topic in DVLA
Can you clarify what category of licence this please? I had a feeling that for a normal private car licence only one eye had to meet the standard, but I may have this wrong. But for some HGV and PSV it was different and it was both eyes. For other types of health problems that might affect people holding a licence DVLA have their own medical panel, and if DVLA are not satisfied with GP's report they'll send you to their panel. Do they do something similar with vision issues? -
DVLA fine for untaxed vehicle I no longer own
Ethel Street replied to ForbiddenFruit's topic in DVLA
One of the sections in the V5C is the one you sign when you sell to a motor trader - from memory I think it's the one with the yellow border marked V5C/3. The dealer and you both sign it to confirm you have transferred the car to the dealer. You keep the the yellow-bordered V5C/3 slip and the dealer keeps the rest of the V5C. Is that what happened? Is that the section you sent to DVLA? In which case it seems to be the all too familiar territory of DVLA denying they received your notification that you had sold the car. Last time I sold a car I had to send it three times! (original V5C/3 the first time but being a cautious type and not trusting DVLA I'd kept photocopy). It is odd that the car hasn't apparently been re-registered by someone else. Possible that it's still on some dealer's forecourt waiting to be sold. If it is, and if DVLA never received the V5C/3, that would explain the situation you are in. Dealers don't register cars in their own name if they are holding them for sale (if they did it would increase the number of previous registered keepers every time a car passes through the motor trade). -
You'll need to give more information about the situation you have in mind. Hard to comment otherwise. No law is needed to say you can shop around if you are free to shop around. But if you are not free to shop around - eg because you've entered into an agreement or contract only to buy from a specified supplier - there's also no general law that says you can break that agreement and buy from somewhere cheaper. Whether any such agreement is legal and binding on you will depend on the specific circumstances, every case will be different. If that's what lies behind your question.
-
Can I put up a fence?
Ethel Street replied to Deimos's topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues
My LA referred me to the government planning portal which is very informative http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/fenceswallsgates http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/fences.html -
That isn't the insurers own site though, is it? I never come across an insurer that published its rating areas for everyone to see, they're usually closely guarded secrets that they don't want their competitors to know about. I wouldn't put much faith in whatever website it is that you're looking at. Some insurers might have used only 6 rating areas, A - F, 40 years ago before they had computerised ratings systems but I can't believe any insurer does that nowadays. They have it finely tuned, the rating area can change literally from one street to another. We had more than 6 areas when I started motor insurance underwriting in the 1970s!
-
They don't have to prove anything to you I'm afraid. That's their price and you have to lump it until next renewal. When my daughters moved around when they were students I was organising their insurance and with all the insurers it was always the case that wherever they moved the insurer said it was a higher rated area! It never once went down to a lower rated area.
-
Nowadays every insurer has its own use definitions and often they have a wider range than the traditional 3 Classes someone else has posted about so you'd have to check the precise wording of the policy/certificate. However, as a rule of thumb what your mother does is definitely business use and not commuting and your mother would need personal business use cover (what used to be called 'Class 1"). "Commuting" is essentially if you drive from your own home to a fixed place of work and back again, and nothing else. There's a misunderstanding here I think about what happens if you are driving a vehicle outside the permitted use. It's correct that the insurer will usually have to pay a claim by a third party if you have an accident while, eg, driving on business without business use on the policy. But that doesn't mean the driver is insured. On the contrary the driver is NOT insured and could be prosecuted for driving without insurance. Your insurer would deal with the claim following national procedures that are designed to make sure the third party victims of UNINSURED drivers are compensated. The insurer has the right to recover what it pays to the third party from the driver or policyholder.
-
The way I read it though the OP told taxi company what time he wanted to arrive at the airport and the taxi company told him what time they would pick him up. If that's the case OP might have a claim against taxi company but there will be issues of evidence and proving who said what. An LBA might prompt taxi company to offer something. My local cab company suggests the pick up time if you tell them what time you want to get to the airport, I don't think that's unusual. OP should check travel insurance but probably not covered. Missed departures doesn't normally cover you if you didn't leave home with enough time to do the journey.
-
work place and allergies
Ethel Street replied to rupert9bear's topic in Employment and minimum wage problems
Even if the employer would consider this you say that the allergy is so sensitive that even a trace in a meal can set off an allergic reaction, and sitting next to someone who'd eaten at Nandos. So even if the employer was willing to ban meals containing chilli it wouldn't provide a practical solution. Other staff may be unaware that their meal contained tint traces of chilli - I don't think it's a compulsory allergen warning - and I can't believe any employer would think it reasonable to tell staff what type of food they could eat outside the office.
