Hi Everyone, I was an agency worker and I was sacked for making a protected disclosure. I have taken the company and my agency to the Tribunal The company has sent in their ET3 In it, they are claiming that they are not the one that "substantially" determines the terms in which I worked I have looked at the Law: section 43k of the employment rights act 1996 In particular 43k (1)(a)(ii) and sees that it should be could be either one of them or both of them. But also I have looked at Day v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and Health Education England UKEAT/0250/15/RN Where the Judge ruled that it must be one Meanwhile, in McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0354/15/JOJ The Judge ruled that it could be both (see para 38 (i)) I think the difference in outcome is due to the word "substantial" So guys; what is the meaning of "substantial" in this context? Also, what does "terms" mean in 43k (1)(a)(ii). Thanks

I would like some information and clarity regarding the tax code 0T-M1. My employment ended on 17th May 2017 after being on sick leave for more than 3 years. I'm currently in receipt of ESA (contributions- based) and PIP. I was advised that my entitlement is 12 weeks' notice pay and 1 1/2 years A/L pay - is this right? Received a P45 last week which shows the tax code as being 0T-M1, which I have never seen before, and I have noticed that nearly half of the total notice pay, has been deducted for income tax. Is this correct? Seems a very excessive amount! Confused angelsx7and9 I would greatly appreciated the Caggers help on this matter

Some time ago on renewing buildings insurance, when asked about state of repair, I mentioned to my insurer (and another company I had asked to quote) a long standing crack in a detached outbuilding (not the house) which I said was stable and showing no movement. They said they wanted more information before quoting for the renewal/cover, and that they would refer to their underwriters. Before either made a decision I actually obtained a better quote elsewhere (with full disclosure, obviously). I wrote to the two companies saying that was the case, and that I did not want to pursue the applications with them. Some time on, I am now obtaining quotes for another completely unconnected house. I am being asked the standard question "have you ever been refused or declined insurance". My view is that neither company declined cover, as I withdrew the application before a decision was made (or at least notified to me). At the same time, they didn't actually offer me cover either! Can I safely answer "no" to the question about having insurance declined? Confused!

its approx £1980.00 and yes Ithink its been defaulted by abbey. no CCA as yet, just been avoiding it, and offered £50 per month and they refused unless he made a down payment of £400.00, 1st Credit then sent it to Connaught, which I have found out is the same company, and I have avoided them to be honest. The last letter was saying that they were preparing court papers, so god knows what comes next.

Erm, What does ROP stand for?

Hi, On contract - what does Trading As XXXX mean? Basically - Licence agreement has my name, trading as XXX - does it mean my company is responsible for rent or me personally? Thank you

Any JSA experts that could perhaps light my darkness? I today (23 Jan 2013) received a letter (dated 18 Jan 2013) from the DWP stating that there had been a change in my circumstances; namely and I quote: "We cannot pay you an allowance from 5 January 2013. This is because: you did not attend attend to sign your declaration If you do not attend this office when you are meant to we cannot pay you Jobseeker's Allowance" I did attend on Friday morning (18 Jan 2013 - same as the date on the letter) for my fortnightly signing intervention, only to be told that signing-on for everybody had been cancelled due to concerns over people being able to visit the JC due to the recent snowy weather. When I went to query the reason for the letter at the local JC office this morning, I was basically told "It's not because of the signing-on being cancelled last Friday, it's because you failed to attend an interview with your advisor on 7 January 2013." I certainly do not recall being informed either verbally or in writing of an interview on 7 Jan (especially seeing I attended a signing intervention on 4 Jan - i.e. the Friday before my apparent interview!), and I have looked through my files to see if there is any mention in any form (appointment card, letter etc), but can find none. I doubt I would have forgotten to write on BOTH my calendar AND my diary. But the main thing that niggles me is surely, if I had missed an interview with my advisor, :- 1) it wouldn't take 11 calendar days to formulate a letter? (i.e. wouldn't I have received a letter sooner? [i.e. nearer to 7 Jan?]) and, more importantly, 2) would it not say something to the effect "you failed to attend an interview on 7 January 2013"? Stating "you did not attend to sign your declaration" suggests (to me anyhow) they are penalising me for not signing-on on Friday 18 Jan (seeing that also just so happens to be the date of the letter). TBH, I find it analogous to being charged with one thing (say, running a red light), when what actually happened was something completely different (say, parking in a no-parking zone) I have contacted the DWP and have an interview on Monday (28 Jan 2013) - hopefully I will have the situation clarified then. Any ideas/suggestions/advice/corrections-to-my-(mis-)interpretation(s) welcome!

Can anyone explain what this means? I'm in an ongoing case and the costs order was made very early on, i now notice that the solictors are now including items for pre action in their costs and thought that these had been wiped out by the order made but now i'm not so sure so if anyonecan explain the above wording i would be very grateful.