RTA has a good deal of form with this sort of situation and a quick Google search is littered with cases where RTA has taken clients to Court over alleged breaches of contract. There is much to suggest that an appropriate defence would be successful over unfair terms. From your upload it does seem that Clause 2 states that the contract exists for a period of 12 months, but it then also states that the contract remains in force even after that date until terminated by either side in writing. Clause 14 seems to state that in the event of termination by either side the amount of £950 plus VAT is payable regardless? That would seem to be a grossly unfair term as it could effectively hold you to that term in perpetuity with no evidence of any work being carried out to earn it. It would to most reasonable people be a penalty and therefore unenforceable but I will leave anything further to far more qualified people than I

Apologies - crossed posts with Stu, as above

Just a few points How long have you worked for this employer? What is the nature of the work? Has the employer stated this to be an Investigatory meeting, or a Disciplinary hearing? If the former, then there is no automatic right to have a colleague or Union Rep present as this should be a preliminary meeting to establish facts. No advance notice need be provided. Notes should be taken and you should be allowed to agree to their content and to have a copy for your records. The outcome of the meeting may well be that the employer believes that a Disciplinary is warranted and it is at that stage that you should have written notice of the precise allegation, sufficient time to prepare and the right to be accompanied. You should also be advised what the potential outcome may be if the allegation is believed by the employer to be true following the hearing. If an Investigation hearing looks like becoming a Disciplinary then ask for the meeting to be suspended as you had not been given adequate time to prepare nor had been given evidence in advance or the right to have somebody present Do you have a copy of the employer's Discipline and Grievance Procedures? If not you need to ask for a copy. Is the employer following due process for example? You state that this is being considered as a matter of Gross Misconduct yet what you have outlined as the reasons looks to be more a matter of Capability - unless the 'negligence' part involves something extremely serious? GM normally involves matters which would leave no doubt that dismissal could result - for example theft, violence, serious H&S breaches serious insubordination, working under the influence of drink or drugs - not an exhaustive list but hopefully you get the point. Failure to manage workload or poor work standards would normally warrant a warning and targets being set to improve prior to dismissal being considered. Again, you really need to see the relevant Disciplinary procedures to see whether the employer is correctly applying what you are accused of as being GM. Unless of course there are previous matters which are being taken into consideration, or whether there is a deeper allegation being made which is causing the alleged failure to perform? Is there a suggestion that you may have falsified documents to suggest that work is being completed which hasn't been? In essence are you accused of what you accused others of in the first place? What happened to those whom you accused of making false statements? Has one of your colleagues retaliated to being investigated by making an allegation about your own work practices? Are you in a Union? If so then get them on board ASAP. If you are being accused of not completing work, then is this true? If so, why not? Can you provide evidence of work being completed as it should be? Any recent appraisals? Do they mention anything whichwould either justify or refute the allegations being made? Don't think too hard about Tribunals at this stage. Concentrate on any evidence presented to you and the specific allegations and whether you can successfully refute them. Remember that the employer only needs to have a reasonable belief of guilt formed after a reasonable investigation so you will need to be able to prove that the allegation is baseless or that if dismissed on a trumped up charge, that no reasonable employer would have dismissed in those circumstances. And of course, Tribunal action would only be a possibility if you have at least two years service

Garden leave is basically where you have given notice but the employer does not want you to work it. They have to pay you for the contractual notice period so you stay at home, being paid for 'gardening' Doesn't really apply to your case. If your contract does not require three months notice to be given then the employer can ask you to leave after 4 weeks. Of course if they want you to leave tomorrow then they will still have to pay for those four weeks so you would then be considered on 'gardening leave' until the end of the notice period

Completely agree - and hence why people should take heed of the advice given here as there really is no need to pay

If it is anything like another large multiple retailer, a proportion (small) of any settlement of civil recovery goes into the store's security budget and is used as a measure of whether additional guarding is necessary. Clearly there is a vested interest in advising early payment as it potentially means more overtime or resources for guards

Thread moved to appropriate forum

Extremely unlikely that anything will happen. Chances are that they would only look at the CCTV if somebody reported seeing you doing this. Had you been seen at the time then you would have been stopped so please stop worrying. Even IF somebody was to review the CCTV (and they don't just do this for fun, they have to have a reason, it would be impossible to then use CCTV to see you leaving and which vehicle you got into so for all sorts of reasons you have absolutely nothing to worry about That isn't to say that everything is OK, as stealing is never OK, and if it were to happen again, there is every chance that you would get caught and potentially be dealing with a police interview. If this is a one off then please make sure that it stays that way but if you are feeling compelled to do this more often, it is important that you speak to your GP as clearly the issues which are affecting you so badly at present need treatment. In fact make an appointment anyway - you need to get on top of things and start to feel better If you need to make amends, why not put the money in an envelope along with an anonymous note saying that you discovered that you left without paying for whatever item it was. Post it to them or get somebody else to drop it at customer services

Agree with the above - and you should really have checked before handing in your notice if you didn't - the answer will be in your contract. If it specifies a particular notice period (in this case 10 weeks) then they must pay you for this irrespective of whether they require you to work or not. If however the required notice is only four weeks then they are within their rights to ask you to leave earlier (or to be on garden leave for some or all of that time) Would there be an option to approach the new employer for an earlier start date?

As per the above - ignore all correspondence and nothing will happen except getting more scary letters but they will eventually stop. Paying them will achieve nothing except enhancing the pay packets of RLP staff And for God's sake stop stealing - it only takes one report to the Police and even if not charged, it could quite easily show on the enhanced disclosure that you need for your job!

Unfortunately a CCA Request is indeed useless once a CCJ has been granted so in that respect they are correct - whether they 'should' comply or not is a moot point, as DX has already said, a CCJ changes the issue altogether Looking at the letter they have sent it would be likely that they would need to take this back to Court to enforce the Judgment, having taken no prior action to do so within 6 years of the original Judgment date. The Court would need to hear a compelling argument as to why such a long time had elapsed. It isn't clear from your OP whether you knew anything about the Court action and the actual CCJ only was sent to the wrong address, or whether all correspondence went to the wrong address. Probably doesn't matter, as either way, IND could and should have been able to trace your whereabouts well before now, so I do not think that success with a Judge in granting permission to enforce would be a given Having said that, I have first hand knowledge of IND and they are a devious, underhand and deceitful outfit so whilst it is probably right to sit tight for now, you should certainly look out for anything which looks 'legal' in the post

Alas we would still need to know a lot more to offer any sort of opinion about this, ie what exactly was said, how long you have worked there etc. Any previous warnings? As above, different people will take offence to different things. By definition, something which might be said by a female colleague in a mainly male team might well be considered of a sexual nature because a male simply wouldn't make that sort of statement to another male. Disciplinary action in that context may well be justified without being discriminatory. Insofar as a Tribunal is concerned, can you evidence similar circumstances where the same has been said unpunished by a male colleague? To make any allegation of discrimination stick you will need a clear chain of evidence

Absolutely agree 100%. There is no such thing as 'just' a Caution. It will still be seen in the same way as a conviction for theft should a DBS be needed for employment in the future. It may also prevent travel to certain countries, most notably the USA should this be needed in future. Even a pocket book entry can, even though unlikely, and depending on the circumstances lead to the matter of an allegation of theft by shoplifting being recorded and disclosed in an enhanced check for certain occupations So what happened at the police station?

Most now know that they won't even recover the cost of postage!

Doesn't matter what SHOULD have happened - the facts relate to what ACTUALLY happened and you have proof of the amount that was due to you. Copies of bank statements (providing that this was the usual route for salary payments) would also show that what was paid differed from the amount stated? A solicitor may well charge more than you are due but there would probably be no harm in getting a free consultation if you can - just to outline your options

Lowell will not care what you say - they will happily issue proceedings against anybody - even the dead - if they think there is a quid in it for them. Short of paying up they will press for a CCJ without a moment's concern for your circumstances. Unless you defend, and to do that you will need to take steps not only to say that this isn't your debt, but to start getting some evidence together which says that you are taking some sort of action for identity theft

You are broadly correct in your assertions A Zero Hours Contract does not absolve the employer of the usual obligations and having worked there for more than two years your wife enjoys proper employment rights. Unless the employer plans to continue her employment at the replacement shop or in some other suitable equivalent role, then your wife's position will become redundant. Having worked there for three years, she would be entitled to proper consultation and if no alternative is available to the appropriate notice and at least the Statutory redundancy payment. In the absence of formalised hours, then the previous 12 weeks should be used to arrive at the correct averaged hours when calculating entitlements. If a full three years has been worked at the date of termination then (at least) three weeks notice should be provided. If this is not handled correctly then your wife would have grounds for Tribunal action The one cloud here is that if the employer does deem the arrangement to be a ZHC then he might start to reduce the number of hours that your wife works prior to the closure in order to reduce the potential redundancy payment. This may depend on how clued up he is on the legal situation, but again, there may ultimately need to be a fight this on the basis of a flawed redundancy consultation and that may also be the time to pursue the matter (that Bankfodder has outlined) of the failure to provide a statement of terms at the outset of the arrangement. Such an action cannot be brought on it's own but it would sit alongside any potential unfair dismissal case and could potentially increase any award I also agree about keeping detailed records of what happened and when, what was said by whom and who may have witnessed any discussions. It may be invaluable in the event of legal action as it certainly sounds as though the employer is either ignorant of basic employment law, or is choosing to try and work around his obligations

As I am sure any solicitor would advise, a deduction from wages as you have described would be almost certainly unlawful. The clause regarding the car loan as you have stated it is insufficiently worded to permit the deduction of any amount owing from any outstanding wages. Such a clause would need to be far more specific and signed for by you. It would need to clearly state that the amounts due each month will be deducted from your wages at a specific rate or percentage, and in the event of you leaving before the loan is repaid then all outstanding amounts at the time of termination may be withheld against the balance with any remainder to be paid subject to certain conditions. They do not for example appear to have allowed you to explore the option of having the loan transferred (not that I can see too many prospective employers agreeing to such an arrangement) As it stands the employer's actions may well be in breach of Section13 of the Employment Rights Act and actionable as an Unlawful Deduction The matter of the P45 is indeed down to HMRC to follow up

A fundamental problem which inflates these figures is that an exemption certificate expires with no reminder being issued, and where there is often no requirement to show the certificate at the point of use, the patient is unaware of the expiry and simply continues to tick the box claiming an exemption when it is no longer valid. I have probably only been asked to show my own exemption certificate probably three or four times in the last seven years or so and did not even realise that it had an expiry date until I was prompted to check after reading a similar story elsewhere. Mine was indeed about to expire so I had to get the doctor to sign for a renewal, fortunately I received it before needing to reorder my meds. I know though of many who have been similarly caught out and issued with a penalty for claiming exemption when it had in fact expired

Some interesting names in there!

It could also be argued that the contract, if restricting employment elsewhere to that extent, should also make provision for extended garden leave for the same period that the covenant is to remain in force. Then and only then might the employer argue that there is sufficient mitigation of the former employee's loss to justify the restrictive clause. So - the employer can impose a 6 month notice requirement, in order to protect them from possible damage by the employee moving to a competitor, but cannot then add a further 12 month restriction. The period of contractual notice should on it's own be sufficient, most likely by not requiring the employee to work out the notice, but also preventing him taking up a position elsewhere. That would be more likely to succeed at court, but only alongside other considerations of seniority, access to sensitive information etc

There is no simple yes or no answer. They 'can' impose restrictive clauses, but whether they are enforceable or not is another matter altogether and it would ultimately fall to a court to decide if it came to it. In very general terms, a court would only uphold such a clause if it served a specific purpose - for example for a certain period of time in order for the old employer to protect themselves from trade secrets becoming known to a new employer, or for pricing or a trade recipe (for example) to be amended. Such covenant should not be - and cannot be - held to restrict the opportunity for an individual to work, so should be limited in scope, both in terms of the geography and time limit involved, and should only be applied to those with knowledge that the employer could legitimately argue could be used to a competitor's advantage if divulged. The nature of the business would also be a factor Some useful further reading here https://www.jobsite.co.uk/worklife/beware-restrictive-covenants-contract-employment-restrict-options-move-jobs-10827/

As above. tesco will have no further involvement in this, so if you continue to ignore them the file will eventually be returned to Tesco and you will hear no more. Might take a few months and you will almost certainly get some letters from a debt collection agency hoping that the words 'debt collector' will shame you into paying, but they will give up after that as it will clearly be costing THEM money

Ask for a formal meeting to discuss. Highlight the issues that you have raised here and ask for the meeting to be minuted. Ask in very straightforward terms why your role seems to be downgraded and why your roads to promotion seem to be blocked. This falls short of a grievance, but could be used in exactly the same way should it be required Not worth going on about employment law -I see nothing in your post which contravenes it. There is no automatic right to a promotion, and an employer can quite easily change job roles and responsibilities as they see fit. If your remuneration has not changed, then there would be no real grounds for action, so it may well be time to push harder for other opportunities either within or outside the organisation

Was the CCTV preserved specifically to do with the incident? Normally a SAR would be the way to go, but if the employer is volunteering that the footage is 'lost' then a SAR is unlikely to make them all of a sudden 'find' it and you would have lost a tenner! Are you likely to make a claim? If so then focus on and ensure that it is secure any other available evidence - if the employer is totally to blame then there must be a record of exactly what happened and why this was the fault of the employer. What would CCTV add to that?