I think then, Watching, that's it's the higher rate as I know she uses the motability scheme at a local dealers. Her condition means that she can get in and out of the car ok, walk normally etc, but a few hundred up the road walking or after climbing more than one storey of stairs, she will suddenly go bright red and purple in the face, her breathing becomes difficult and when severe, she drops to her knees and can't move until her handheld medication starts to return her breathing to normal enough for her to get up or return to her car. This isn't an occasional thing, it happens fairly frequently and is worse in the Winter and damp weather. Our fear is that her Grandma and her Mother both died very young (Grandma was 34, her Mum was 36) from chronic asthma attack and her Dad died young (50) from lung disease. She has the same condition as her Mum and Grandma and it's made worse by the same environments. her doctor has always detailed her illness as severely impairing her walking, not because of her physical ability to walk, but for the affect it has on her chest.

Thanks Flump. her medication has changed a few times for different conditions but her asthma medication and use of the machine (which was the basis of her mobility award for several years) hasn't changed. I think that her problem here is that she was awarded disability (I really don't know whether this is HR or any other rate, I'm not familiar with the terms) but anyway, she was awarded it for her asthma and this has never changed, neither in medication or ability. She has added other conditions to her forms as they have arose but has genuinely never understood that these have any significance to her award as such because she was awarded it for the one condition originally. Conditions since have arose, medication has changed, abilities have changed for the worse and better throughout, but nothing has changed about her original condition and I think this is where she has failed to update as it wasn't relevant in her mind to the original problem. I personally think that's a fair defence but I'm not legally qualified.

Thanks Watching. Her doctor has always said she is severely impaired for walking due to the distance she can cover and it was actually her doctor who suggested registering as disabled originally as she hadnt realised that she could get assistance for chronic asthma. Her doctor has always fully and strongly supported her claims and supplied detailed medical information about her abilities in the past. I work in HR and I always assumed that she had made her employers aware that she was disabled but she said when she applied for the job, she was scared that they wouldn't give it to her because they thought she might be absent often so she never told them and hasn't since. She tells me that she would have told them if her job role ever changed in a way that would affect her ability to do it properly but it never has. She is fairly niaive and honestly thought that saying she was ill would affect her job. both at application stage and since. However, she is also a student and her college are fully aware of her condition and made adjustments for her. Students can't use the lifts for example but she has a pass and can also park in the compound near the building. She admits that she told her college and not her employers because the college wouldn't disqualify her because of her needs but she assumed her employers would. When she is called up in the night due to an incident, her role is to call the emergency services for an unwelcome visitor or to complete the paperwork to admit an emergency case. She has to do nothing physically demanding. In a morning she completes a report about anything that happened (or not) in the shift and then goes home. The puzzling thing to me is that the talk of 'plead guilty' and we'll make it easier for you, this is going to court etc and they even told her she will be found guilty as if they are the jury and will go to prison as if they are the judge! All of this conversation happened off tape after the interview and if they were not bullying or misleading her, why not say it all while the tape was running?

Thanks everyone for your advice. There hasn't been a change in her mobility as such, that should affect her rights anyway. She was originally awarded mobility due to the chronic asthma as it was that bad, she couldn't walk more than 300 yards without getting out of breath. She used to often be hospitalised years back but now has a home machine and a car one. This condition is still the same and she has to drive everywhere. We went shopping at a huge shopping centre once and even though there was disabled parking, part way round the shopping centre she was so bad, she was on her knees and security had to help us get her car to a loading bay to get to her machine. DWP invesigators have no photographs of her walking anywhere - because she doesn't. Since she was first awarded it, she has also developed rheumatoid arthritis - but this can't be treated with the normal medication due to her chronic asthma, so she has to have injections instead. When she first has them, she is more mobile and then gradually deteriorates until the next one. Last year, she was diagnosed with duplex kidneys and after being admitted to hospital again, was found to be in stage 3 kidney failure. When she filled the forms in, she explained her usual asthma conditions, which are unchanged and that she had developed arthritis too, which makes mobility more difficult and she struggles to lift and carry things (and she does when it gets bad with both cold/damp weather or when due an injection into her spine). She didn't claim to be less mobile in an attempt to qualify for mobility, she had it anyway due to her asthma condition, she was merely updating them on her medical problems and her mobility was affected more then. Her doctor advised weight loss to help with the spine and she was on a medicated programme and lost 3 stone which has eased her problems. This was in the last year and she didn't even think to report it as a change in circumstances because really, it isn't, not one which changes her needs anyway. So in effect, although her symptoms have eased in the last two years for some of her conditions, they were not the conditions that she was awarded the original mobility for and wouldn't affect her claim, but she did detail them all on the form as an update as that was how the questions were based. She has always maintained her own day to day living needs, shopping, cleaning etc and has almost always worked. The photos they have show her shopping and carrying her grandchild in her arms to the car. She is not running a marathon, skiiing or even doing the Lambeth Walk. Without her car, she goes nowhere and now has to give her job up too, she can't get there on public transport but we wouldn't allow it anyway because she isn't well enough. Her job is working in a womens refuge. She arrives late at night to take over the evening worker, goes to bed and sleeps through the night. She has her machine with her and hasn't seen her employers in over a year. She is 'on call' from her bed in case of incidents and gets called up on average once every two or three months if they have a nuisance visitor or a very late admittance. It is 16, not 14 hours that she works, but sleeps the shift. They haven't asked her to plead guilty in return for not going to court, they have said if she pleads guilty, they will rush the case through court for her to make it easier, but if she pleads not guilty and is found guilty, she may go to prison. She is terrified. Another main concern is that she is now stranded, without her car she can't go anywhere and with the anxiety and depression, we are scared that being a prisoner at home will tip her over the edge. She has two children who both work fulltime and so do I, so it's hard to keep an eye on her. She has no partner. We are heavily encouraging her to see a solicitor but is there any appeal system whereby she can keep the car (and therefore her job too) whilst she awaits the court case?

Hi Bedbug Can you confirm whether they are saying competing is an 'implied' term of his contract or an 'expressed' term. It makes a big difference. An implied term means that it's NOT written into his contract, it is just assumed that he knows it's not allowed. In the case of starting a new business, I wouldn't agree that this was the type of contract term which is assumed by both parties. It's not that obvious and would be a strong point in appeal. How long has hubby worked there because he has not got rights to unfair dismissal claims if less than 12 months including notice period?

I've also posted this in benefits forum as I'm not sure which is right, apologies to administrators, please advise if I need to remove either posting. Hi All This one is urgent as I'm genuinely worried about the mental state of the subject. Long one this, writing on behalf of somebody else who is in genuine need of some urgent advice. I am not familiar with benefits or their correct terms so apologies in advance if I sound like I'm not sure what I'm talking about! A relative of mine (46 year old lady) has several illnesses and disabilities, but works part-time and is also a student. The illnesses include stage 3 kidney failure, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic asthma (3 x medication and machine is required), anxiety and depression (treated for 4 years). The lady has received mobility for 17 years and was awarded it for life about 10 years ago. Due to working, also receives Disability Tax Credits. No carers allowance is claimed as the lady can do most day to day living activities on her own and only needs assistance when things get very bad. About 2 weeks ago, she received a letter from the benefits agency (I assume DWP) saying that she was being investigated and had to come in today (4th Nov) for an interview under caution. She was really stressed but unsure what it was about and they refused to discuss by telephone and wouldn't move the appointment to a sooner time. Having suffered two weeks of stress, not sleeping and not eating, she went with her daughter today for the interview. They produced a stack of photographs taken over the Summer months of her going about her activities, the most physical of which was putting shopping in her boot and carrying her baby grandchild from the house to the car. They also produced statements from her employers stating that she has never told them she was disabled (she always chose not to as she didn't want to be treated differently, pitied, and her job is not physical). If ever they changed her duties to include anything physical she would have told them at that point to allow them to make reasonable adjustments, but it was completely unnecessary up to now. Her attendance is good but she only works 14 hours per week on two 'shifts'. In the interview, they were really aggressive with her, trying to bully her into saying she was guilty of fraud. They'd stopped her benefits from now. She got really distressed in the meeting but just kept telling them that she is genuinely ill and is entitled to what she claims and to her mobility car, without which she would be stranded. (they said they accept fully that she has all of the medical conditions) but claim that she is more mobile than she made out in her last forms 2.5 years ago. She explained that she is, as she has lost almost 3 stone in weight and has new medication, but is still disabled, immobile and has no quality of life without the car. She became so upset and distraught that her daughter had to beg them to give her a break. Off tape afterwards, they told her they will likely prosecute and she needs to plead guilty now to save herself the distress as the courts will find her guilty on the evidence and if she pleads guilty now, they will deal with it quickly for her. They also said that if she doesnt go and hand the car back in, she'll be paying for it herself from now (an expense she can not in anyway afford). They said she needs to write in to them within the next week and plead guilty to make it easier on herself. Since she came home, she can hardly speak between sobs, won't eat and we're all really worried about her. She's decided she has no choice but to lie down and let them treat her this way and she will not be a prisoner in her own home with no car, so her quality of life is over. We've pleaded with her to fight and to go and see a solicitor but she's believed their bullying tactics and thinks its over before it's begun and letting it go to court will just make it worse for her and she'll go to prison. Is there anybody that can please advise us on what is the best way to handle this so that we can try to convince her that she has the right to fight and it's not automatically over. Can she keep the car while we look into this or has she no way of keeping her mobility going throughout? This is genuinely not a case of a sponger milking the system for a free car and benefits. Please help advise us if you can.

Hi Suziebear Unfortunately, we all, at sometime in our working life, will likely have people in work who we don't get along with and it's a difficult siuation as we are often stuck with them most of the day! The answer is usually to always stay the professional one, but protect yourself as well. If it escalates at some future stage to a complete fall out or an incident whereby managers have to intervene, you need to be the one who has always been reasonable and professional throughout. If you don't want to make any complaint about this particular incident, it's still really important to note it all down, times, dates, who said what, who was involved etc and keep it to yourself for now and the same goes for anything else that happens involving this person. It may be so valuable at a later date. If you do want to take today's or any future event further, be specific in your complaint. It's very difficult to ask a manager to deal with somebody's general 'attitude', but if you have a specific misconduct, like being sworn at or a personal comment etc, it's much more tangible for a manager to sort. If you see the same attitude from this person again, just politely ask they don't speak to you and if they have a message from a TL or manager, tell them that you will go and seek the message from them directly so they have no need to speak to you further. Don't react in a way that will entertain them as they'll just come back to wind you up more. Hope this helps.

Hi Mummy If you feel that it wouldn't damage your relationship with the company, I would start a grievance process if I was in your position. They cannot dismiss you just for taking out a grievance, this is an 'automatically' unfair dismissal and you don't have to be employed even for 12 months to claim unfair dismissal if they do it just for taking out a grievance. However, try informally first, write a letter as friendly as possible to your manager pointing out that they have changed an expressed term of your contract without following the correct procedure. Explain that you cannot accommodate the new working times and request that you wish to revert immediately back to your contract terms and will have no option to take out a formal grievance if they do not comply or negotiate. If they don't respond or change your hours back, ask for a copy of their grievance policy and procedure and start a formal process.

Sorry CitizenB I didn't realise, being a newbie. I suggested it to save Caroline putting any personal or employer details on display but I suppose it can still be done in the thread without including personal details. Won't happen again

Hi Mummy Yes there is but the important thing is whether the actually hours of work appear in your contract, i.e. that it actually says "Sunday 11am to 3pm" etc. rather than just 16 hours total. If it says the actual working times, this is an expressed term of your contract and can only be changed by the employer by following the correct procedure of consulting with you, considering your difficulties when you raise them, and then giving you one months written notice in advance. None of this seems to have happened and they have, therefore, broken the terms of the contract. However, it depends what you want to do about this now because you are not employed long enough to have any employment rights so pushing the issue may result in the relationship breaking down and you losing your job. If it's important to you to push it and you don't think they will end your contract as a result, then come back to me and I'll advise you on how to start your grievance. If your contract does not specify the actual working times, you are a bit stuck although they still should act reasonably.

Hi All I know that there are lots of posts and threads about mis-sold PPI's but my query is slightly different. I had a joint mortgage with my husband from 1989 until 2006 when we divorced. It had PPI protection on it that was paid by DD from my account (not a joint acc with my husband) and was only a small amount (£8 per month). It was not necessarily mis-sold and did suit our circumstances at the time. When we divorced, I took on the house and remortgaged on a new application in my sole name with the same lender (Britannia B/Soc). A couple of years after, I noticed that they were still taking the PPI out of my account and I had not asked for PPI as my income is protected elsewhere so I didn't bother with my new mortgage. I called them at the time to query and cancel and the gent I spoke to actually thought the PPI was for the old joint mortgage that no longer existed. He was going to clarify this and come back to me but he never did and I let the matter lapse as I didn't chase it up. When reviewing my finances again this year, I noticed that they were still taking it and rang them again. My query was that if they were insuring a mortgage account that no longer existed, there was no insurance 'risk' to underwrite and I should get my money back. Even if not to 2006, at least from the point that I wanted to cancel it two years ago when it was first queried? I have now had a letter in reply to this and it is a standard letter saying that I was not mis-sold the policy (I never claimed that I was!) and that no refund is due. I rang them as a result of the letter and whilst they accepted that they had misundertood my query, they state that as I didn't cancel the policy myself and also, let it be taken for 5 years from my account, I was also responsible and no refund was due. My question on here is, if there was no risk to them, i.e. the protected mortgage account was closed 5 years ago and I could never have claimed on the PPI, do they have the right to keep my money? £8 a month over 5 years adds up to a lot! Would appreciate some advice on whether it's worth pursuing this or not. Many thanks

It's not relevant and any 'irrelevant' convictions un-related to the purposes of the enhanced CRB check must be disregarded by your employer. However, being employed for only three weeks means that they can dismiss you without even giving you a reason, so despite the fact that they cannot use the CRB conviction, you still have no rights if they dismiss. You can only appeal to them once you have all of the paperwork in place from the courts. I'm happy to help you with a letter to them when you have the detail, just PM me if you need some help writing it. I'm also concerned about your lack of income, I cannot believe that the benefits agency expects you to live on nothing just because you have equity in your property. Even if they expect you to sell, you need time and funds to do this and need to eat in the meantime! But even if you sold, where would you then live with a child? Seems unreasonable but I'm not a benefots expert. Please get some advice from the benefits forum as I am sure that this is wrong when considering that you have a child to care for as well. Let me know if you get any advice that helps you claim more benefit.

They'd be on pretty stick ground if they've said that to you. Can I ask you a couple of questions as more information about your employment will have a bearing on your rights here. How long have you been employed by this same employer? What investigation and disciplinary process have they completed so far? Were your previously 'clear' CRBs done through them? What does your contract of employment state regarding convictions?

Hi again Caroline. I have no knowledge of the conviction system but it seems to me, from what papasmurf is saying, that despite you only being charged with aiding and abetting your brother, the result is correctly that you were convicted of the same crime as he was and you cannot have this changed. It seems as though by aiding a crime, you are convicted of the actual crime, not for aiding it and it appears that this is the correct procedure from what I understand from papasmurfs posts. However, if the court can show what you were charged with, your employer may accept why you misunderstood what you were then subsequently convicted of. It may be that changing the CRB record is a lost cause and you now need to sort things with your employer to get your job secured on the basis that you declared the matter but mistakenly thought you were convicted of what you were charged with, not realising that you are actually convicted of the crime that you aided. What is the current status with your employer? Are you suspended and at what stage is the process for any investigations/hearings up to?

Thanks Wangster, I'll keep eveyything. Thanks Donkey. No the SD wasn't given to me, it was put through the door, sorry for the confusion. When I said 'by hand' I meant that it was obvious that it hadn't come through the postal system but I wasn't home when it came.

Hi Speloe mariefab is right in that you can be dismissed within your first year without even being given reason, there are situations where a dismissal is 'automatically unfair' regardless of how long you have worked there, however, this situation doesn't seem to fit any of those. I can't see any discrimination as such, even though the other case was dealt with differently, as when considering the outcome of disciplinary hearings, HR/Managers take everything into account and this must include length or service etc. and the other staff member may be long-serving or not had the same induction training as your brother or the whole 'offence' may have been in different circumstances. There are lots of facts to consider in the comparison, but it is definitely worth referring to the outcome of the other case if you think the circumstances are very similar and your brother was treated less favourably for what does not seem a clear reason. It seems to me as though they are not suggesting that your brother took the money, they are suggesting that he was negligent in not counting it correctly and/or being party to it being paid back outside of correct procedure? They haven't accused him of taking it have they? If they are saying that he miscounted it and that this is negligent, you may consider appealing on the basis that he DID count it correctly and somebody may have then taken some afterwards, which he has no control over. You need to see the full investigation notes to see whether they looked into the possibility that he did his job correctly and then somebody took the money afterwards. Take care to appeal within the required timeframe stated in their dismissal letter, you don't have to spend time going into all of the details, just lay out the basic appeal grounds and then save the detail until the hearing. Make sure that they followed all of the correct procedure in the disciplinary process otherwise this can form some of your appeal too.

Hi Adam I'm not sure that you have a reason to be aggrieved here as it seems as though you were dismissed for incapability rather than your gender. Although the manager made the inappropriate comments regarding the 'right' type of person for the job being a woman, it does not seem that you were treated any differently in the outcome just because you were male. If there is more information that you can give, or anything which suggests that you would have been treated differently had you being female, despite the errors in your work, then come back to me with more detail. Otherwise, it is unlikely this would be deemed discrimination.

Hi Caroline papasmurf is right, in that knowing the details of the conviction may help - at least with your employer. I think that the reason you had three 'clear' CRBs and then this one with the conviction on it, may be because the previous ones were standard CRBs and your latest job requires an 'enhanced' CRB which even shows up spent convictions. I'm a HR manager for the NHS and we often have old convictions show up for applicants or recent starters. The policy that we have in place usually depends on the conviction and whether it was declared or not. Not declaring is usually automatic dismissal, regardless of what the conviction was as the applicant/new starter is dishonest. However, you declared yours (albeit for a lesser offence). If declared, the decision we then have to make is based purely on 'risk' and the type of conviction and age of it carries great weight in this decision. If the offence you are listed as being convicted of poses a risk, your employment could be in jeopardy unless you get it corrected. If you were convicted of anything non-violent or fraud etc, you are unlikely to be a direct threat in your work so in that case, also taking the age of the conviction into account, we would unlikely dismiss. The way CRBs are conducted is set to change very soon as employers should not have the right to know about convictions which are not relevant to the post in the same way that no other employer currently gets to know if their waitress or shop assistant is a thief etc. In the new system (Indepenent Safeguarding Authority), employers including health and schools etc, will only get to know about convictions which suggest a risk relating directly to the children or vulnerable adults in their care and no other conviction types will be revealed. Depending on the conviction type, it may be worth re-approaching your employer and explaining that it may not be relevant anyway and in the future, they wouldn't have even got to know about it.

Would they know about your other property though TK? I believe that the way they find out whether you own your home or not is by doing a land registry search on the address that they have for you. I don't think there is any way that they can do a random search on what else you own unless you tell them or they have the other addresses connected to you.

Thanks DX. I've never dealt with Welcome Finance so it can't be them (unless they are married to Barclays or MBNA in some way). You've really set my mind at rest though as I know now that it can't get as far as bankruptcy without my chance to challenge it or be given the opportunity to pay once I know what it's all about. I don't think that it's an unreasonable defence to show that I've asked for details and none have been forthcoming so therefore I haven't paid and will be happy to do so once it's established what the debt is for and that it is mine. I'm sure that in the interest of fairness, no court would then proceed to bankruptcy in that circumstance. You've been really helpful DX and this site is great, I'll sleep tonight now as I was very worried before.

rare for Lowlife to do SD's though something's not right here thats for sure. To be honest though DX, I don't think that they did 'do and SD' as the court that they specified in their letter was named and they even gave the court address (it's in my local town) but this court doesn't hear SDs or bankruptcy cases, so it is obvious that they hadn't done anything, especially not their homework! Do you know anything about Lewis Investigation Services? Could they be Lowells in disguise, or connected to them?

My main concern, however, is whether somebody can make me bankrupt without me having the opportunity to challenge it or even know about it? I believe that if you own property and are made bankrupt, they can force the sale of your home? I'm ready to either resolve it or fight my case if it's a debt I don't owe or dispute, I'm just scared that it will all happen without me getting an opportunity to defend it and I'll end up on the streets - literally!

Thanks DX. I had a little feeling that it might be a trick but I am happy to contact them anyway as I really want to know what this is about. The only thing on my credit file is a disputed account with MBNA for a credit card which I haven't paid since February because of unfair charges (I haven't used the card in about 2 years and they were taking DD each month for the minimum but for £55 taken each month, only £7 was coming off the debt. I negotiated better terms with them and they agreed in writing, but continued to levy the charges so I cancelled the DD). Other than that, and not showing on my credit status - I had an account with Barclays and after I closed it (in writing and by hand at the branch), they continued to pay some direct debits for almost two weeks afterwards which left an OD and I have refused to pay it. Neither of the above have made any demands prior to this Lowell letter but it could be related to one or the other of them as there is nothing else than I can think of, although it may be something completely different entirely?

Hi Really sorry for a long thread but I'm so scared and really need some advice. I came home from work tonight to find a letter through the door from Lewis Investigation Services saying that they attempted to serve a bankrupcy petition on me but I was not at home. They have stated that they will be back at a specified time next week and if I am not in, they will seek other methods to serve, including an advert in a daily newspaper. There are no details whatsoever about what this debt relates to, what the amount is or who the creditor is originally. There is a little bit of history and I assume it is to do with Lowells. About 6 months ago, I got a letter by hand from Lowells, again with no details of amounts or what the debtor was originally but it stated that it was a statutory demand or something similar at my local court, the address of which they detailed in the demand. I sent a letter to them asking what the debt was for and who I owed money to, but they never replied. I contacted the local court they had named in their demand, asking what I needed to do and they were confused as they don't hear debt cases or have anything to do with bankrupcy etc. They said it was done by the court in my local city and upon contacting them, nothing was filed with them in my details. I left the matter there as the court was obviously not involved and Lowells hadn't replied to my request for details. I have heard nothing since until now. Can anyone tell me what a bankrupcy petition is and would I be served one without the courts making me aware? How can I find out what the debt is about and indeed, who is claiming that I owe them? I may have some outstanding debts from a year I was unemployed June 05 to June 06 but I thought I had negotiated or paid them all off since then. I really can't be made bankrupt as I own my house and am a single parent to two children. I would really appreciate some advice as to how I can go about getting this resolved. I'm scared that this will race ahead and I'll be bankrupt without even knowing who or what this is for.