they are not unsolicited, sorry typo error. My friend sends motivational text messages from whom he has consent

From the notes that the solicitor has examined the fact find could be a possibly flawed. My friend has not given me consent to share the notes but the notes do contain some very useful information that makes the whole fact find questionable. Nobody has thoroughly examined the actual evidences, without examination it is difficult to form a very good opinion about my friend which he agrees. However would you like me to get his consent to share the notes with you privately

Hi Emmzzi How are you and where are you? my friend discovered the thread and he has not been best pleased with my attitude towards you. He has instructed me to come and apologise as you are only trying to help him. Please accept my apologies. He also advices me to share with you some new information as he believes that you are the most neutral person so far to comment on his case and he really appreciates your opinion even though you state the obvious. He has contacted an employment solicitor and checked the investigation pact. The solicitor has highlighted a dubious approach by the manger's when the salesperson were being interviewed twice. On the first set of questions all the salesperson's deny any knowledge of any activities and then on the second set of interview there is a different style of question and sales person are interviewed by two different managers? My friend has asked what would be your opinion or thoughts identified by the solicitor. Funnily my friend really appreciates your bluntness as this will only help him to remain focus. He also advised me if you could have a look at the following appeal points drawn by the solicitor:- Every employee has the Right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer; S94 Employment Rights Act 1996. S98 Employment Rights Act. Para 1 indicates that the employer shall show the reason for dismissal and at Para 4, whether the dismissal is fair or unfair, the employers reasonable justification for dismissal must be that the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee. Conduct dismissal cases are rarely contrasted against truly parallel circumstances and instances, so it is the fair employer that can show the dismissal was reasonable in treating the alleged misconduct as warranting dismissal after fairly considering the evidence. To show that XXXXXXXX did dismiss you unfairly, you must show that; 1. The fact finding was flawed and the fact set used during the disciplinary process contained more errors of fact than not; 2. That the Dismissing Manager’s belief was inconsistent with the whole of the events known; 3. That the loss of business or loss of reputation was not serious enough to warrant summary dismissal, so rendering that option available to that Manager as unreasonable. It is at this point that you can Appeal the decision to a higher authority, usually a more senior manager. Taking note of the lack of supporting evidence in your mitigations; taking note of you not challenging the witness statements used during the initial disciplinary hearing, and finally noting that XXXXXXXX did give you time to prepare and present evidence or argument against the witnesses, then you are in a difficult position to convince an Appeal manager that your dismissal was unfair, when balancing against all of the above. That being said, it is interesting to note that XXXXXX did apply a guillotine or truncation of time for you to prepare your Appeal in full, resulting in you having to take an option of Appeal via email interchange. Indeed, if XXXXX had followed the ACAS Code of Practice 2009, then they – XXXXX – would know that the basic premise to show fairness throughout is distilled to the following; CoP points are; - properly establish the facts – then inform the employee of the problem – hold a meeting to discuss the problem – allow the employee to be accompanied – decide upon appropriate action – allow the employee an opportunity to Appeal. Advice on Appeal Points. We are therefore at a slight disadvantage to declare points of inconsistent or unfair treatment which can include victimisation or harassment. That said, and looking to the haste and pace at which XXXX pushed you into a position to use email interchange as the vehicle to promote your Appeal points, there is then a question prompted from that haste and setting a deadline. That question is; was it reasonable to ask for your Appeal at such a pace, and was the real reason for that haste and pace setting a clear indicator of a behavioural trait consistent to making any Appeal redundant here? Again, the ACAS Code of Practice 2009 is quite useful in determining if XXXXXX were fair or unfair in asking you to meet an arbitrary deadline to deliver your Appeal. The ACAS CoP states at paragraph 25; 25. Where an employee feels that disciplinary action taken against them is wrong or unjust they should appeal against the decision. Appeals should be heard without unreasonable delay and ideally at an agreed time and place. Employees should let employers know the grounds for their appeal in writing. With this information to hand, then you can Appeal on the basis of procedural unfairness resulting in any Appeal being made redundant and consistent with a claim that, no matter what your Appeal points are, the decision to dismiss has been ratified and upheld prior to your Appeal in person or via email. Conclusion. I would advise that you send an email or letter into XXXXXX, including if you wish to do so, the text below in bold. The Appeal Manager. XXXXXXXXX Dear Sirs, I am exercising my Right to Appeal the decision to summarily dismiss me from my Contract of Employment on 18th March 2013. I Appeal on two distinct grounds, these being; Procedural Unfairness. I have been asked to prepare my Appeal against dismissal at a pace which I believe is against the intentions of the Company Discipline Procedure and certainly does not align itself in a positive manner when contrasted against paragraph 25 of the ACAS Code of Practice 2009 on matters relating to disciplinary Appeals. The ACAS CoP 2009 reads, at paragraph 25 thus; 25. Where an employee feels that disciplinary action taken against them is wrong or unjust they should appeal against the decision. Appeals should be heard without unreasonable delay and ideally at an agreed time and place. Employees should let employers know the grounds for their appeal in writing. I believe that the Company intended to render my ability to Appeal to such a low level as to make it worthless by not observing the ACAS CoP or following a reasonable process throughout – I Appeal on this point. A predetermined decision. Taking note of the point above, I believe that the pace of the email chains which removed my ability to go through the extensive dismissal rationale with my trade union official and then move to a mutually agreed venue and date to present my Appeal in full holds some very dubious behaviours. These behaviours have, in my firm opinion, served to outline a scenario where it is reasonable to conclude that a predetermined decision to dismiss me has been made, prior to my Appeal being heard. I state this on the basis of advancing an argument on the lines of; if a reasonable employer, following a reasonable process, and taking note of the reasoned content of the ACAS CoP 2009, moved at such a pace to halt or deny my Appeal in any shape or form, then it is not on unreasonable ground that I assert that the decision to dismiss was predetermined prior to any possible Appeal, thus being unfair, unwarranted and entirely unreasonable – I Appeal on this point. please accept my apologies:-

as stated none of the sms are unsolicited and it is strange for o2 just send this letter randomly. Is whether anything we can do to argue what they intend to do with my friends account

its alright i just wanted to address we dont have to be petty to ignore each other i am sure you have other good qualities

by the way i did forgot to include that before the groups sms has arranged he did get everyone's consent and i as i stated earlier all those that receive his text messages are only friends and family

Hi Emmzzi Thanks for the reply, you seem to have an abrupt approach, you must be assume i am seeking some other advice from you? Try to have a soft tone when you converse you are dealing with a human not a donkey. The purpose of sharing these points was to get your neutral perspective so that i can share with my friend to help him set the expectation. It is not my idea to make your replies or points and object of our argument. You had a similar attitude on my previous points so please take it easy on yourself. Kind Regards

i can assure it is not commercial as i am one of them that receives those sms daily from him alongside other friends and family. There has never been issue like that, he does not have any businesses he is employed he normally sends group sms to quite a big group that possibly consists of 20 - or 30 people. Even if he did fall foul on some t&c but normally they get warnings??

6000 would be over six months. These text messages to a group of people from his address book they are unsolicited messages and not used for spam or marketing.

Hi my friend regularly sends over 6k sms from his mobile phone. Today he has received a letter from the head of consumer marketing that they will close his account due to excessive usage which goes against the terms and condition? he has not received any prior warnings regarding this matter and regularly sends sms within that region. He has no issues with any payment, he is baffled that the letter has turned up out of the blues. Can the operator do that without any warning? what rights to this customer have in a situation like this? kind regards

hi Emmzzi hope you are well i just wanted to share with you, that my friend has decided to make an appeal on the following grounds:- The fact finding undertaken by investigators was covert and lacked transparency. ACAS have stated that notice of an impending investigation should be provided with prior warning allowing for preparatory time. There is no evidence linking me to any fraudulent activities. I have wrongfully been held accountable for failing in my duties as a Manager despite being away from the store. I can categorically deny witnessing the investigation being discussed openly and emphatically believe that statements have been obtained from unreliable witnesses. The OUK proofs policy does not explicitly state that contract signatures should match the physical proofs provided by customers. Vital evidence was withheld from being shared with myself that hampered my preparation for subsequent hearings. I have always endeavoured to ensure that every member of staff had an awareness of Fraud Processes and Policies and routinely supported colleagues in this area during their induction, appraisals and staff meetings. There are significant discrepancies throughout the investigation indicative of the fact that XXXXX clearly develops a bias against myself through methods utilised which demonstrates an emphatic lack of impartiality. Questions that I raised have remained unanswered to this date that was raised during the hearing on 15th February 2013. EE failed to reschedule the meeting as required by law for up to five working days. There was insufficient consideration of my explanation of the circumstances leading up to the dismissal. That dismissal was too harsh a penalty given the circumstances. My previous disciplinary record is clear and should have been considered in imposing a penalty less than dismissal. I have had long service with the company which I feel should have been considered in imposing a penalty less than dismissal weakness in fraud detection inconsistency in their outcome with other employees What are your thoughts and opinion? My friend sincerely believes he is innocent!

thank you so much, your right he was been negligence just seeking guidance if there is any genuine grounds to appeal, but you have stated the facts that sadly he is stuffed

what about the assistant manager sharing sales and till codes that is an offence under the companies policy? The fraudster was being managed under the assistant managers watch and the manager recieved final written warning and 80% of the sign off has been done by the assistant manager. The store manager has only signed one of the contract completed by the fraudster. The reporting is also 6 months behind and there is no way of actually detecting real time fraud as has been confirmed in the interview. The proofs policy emphasis that sales advisors need to be thorough that all data matches which is in the most of the cases. Naturally fruad is only known when the actual person questions the bill they recieved or contract details and by then its too late as the fraud has taken place

in the hearing pack the investigative manager included conclusion of the investigation report intended for the hearing manager which clearly stated that there is no link to the fraud nor any evidence of him colluding with the fraudster

HiThanks for reading, through the criminal courts on grounds could be the redress? and after reading is there anything on the letter that could suggest a legimate appeal???

ok i am really sorry please forgive me i will re-edit my sincere apologies

Hi, Please can you kindly help me on this matter:- A friend of mine has recently been dismissed for gross managerial negligence and unethical selling in a mobile phone store. He was not given any sufficient time or warning for the investigatory meeting. One of the allegation is that he allowed a store salesperson to carry fraud and unethical selling which has made the business loose £50000. He has denied any knowledge of any fraudulent activity by this salesperson. When the rest of the team were interviewed they too denied any knowledge of the sales person carrying fraud in the store. During the interview it was evident that the whole team was involved in unethical selling including the assistant manager. However during the second set of interviews there were some changes made by certain salesperson whereby most of the blame shifted towards the store manager that he encouraged unethical selling. The assistant manager was guilty of sharing codes and also the sales person who committed the fraud was being managed the assistant manager. However the assistant manager received a final written warning even though he signed most of the contracts on completion. The company is also alleging that he has stick to their proofs policy. One of the accusation is that he has overlooked on the signature, but their proof policy does not state that the signature on the contract has to match any physical proofs that are shown as evidence. Salespersons account of event is not credible as they have conflicting information from the initial interview. Company policies states that every employee is responsible for ethical selling and since most salesperson have been guilty of this act it appears that they are not being reprimanded for this behaviour and the focus still remains on the store manager. The store manager has been with the company over 11 years and 7 years as a store manager. He has no blemishes on his record very dedicated. During the second interview it was being conducted by his own regional manager. To me that looks odd would it not be impartial for somebody to conduct an fact find interview who already knows the store manager? The store manager has asked many questions but they have failed to come back with any satisfactory answers. He is being accused of not fully implementing or adhering to the company policies. The store manager sadly has denied some information related to training however he is consistently being accused that he has failed to detect any fraud within the stores. Firstly the fraud reports are six months behind and no real time fraud can be detected. The information is communicated by the loss and prevention team within the company. Even if he was to attend and implement the fraud procedure it is very difficult in most cases what shape or form the fraud is taken place in reals time. The fraud took place between June - Sept of 2012 he was 80% of the time not in store Off the 14 contracts he signed off 12 of them had signature issues and only one of was signed by himself for the fraud salesperson who did the fraud. The rest was done by the assistant manager and senior sales person. His argument was that if the bulk of the contract was being signed off by the assistant manager then how is it possible for him to see any signs of fraud. Another argument of his is that during the investigation he was on holiday before being suspended, he believes that the assistant manager and the sales advisors conspired against him so that he takes the full hit for all the allegations. Some of the salesperson were struggling to hit target, assistant manager admitted sharing till codes to inflate sales figures. Being the store manager some of the delegation was shifted onto assistant manager and therefore in a very position to keep the manager away from any types of schisms. He is in the middle of appealing and would like some guidance on what points he can make the appeal. Please can you kindly assist my friend he is a good person who does not deserve to be treated so unfairly. There has been three different managers taken turns interviewing in the fact find. he has also been accused off off record by the very managers who conducted the interview Kind Regards

Sorry dx I couldn't find the link for that soga site

thanks so under the soga how long will the warranty will be applicable to this customer

but before the call her old handset was already out of warranty. Even though she recieved a free replacement in error and outside the warranty period it does not make sense why the provider should still provide cover. Under the SOGA her warranty would have expired. Isnt it down to the customer now to arrange a chargeable repair either through the provider or reputable repairer?

Ok I will

Hj, I work for o2 and i was dealing with a customer who is on a simplicity contract since 06/2012. By error we agreed to replace her handset and after three weeks called back to report a fault and get another replacement. I identified that the customer was not eligible for the exchange because her old handset before the exchange in 06/2012 was already out of warranty. On the 30 day simplicity contracts handsets are not included. Is it correct to state that O2 is under no obligation to offer any free repair since there was an error and we have allowed the customer to benefit by having the exchange. Please can you clarify what rights does a customer have under the above circumstances Kind Regards