• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

    Question

    Can the unfair terms act 1977 be used to defend an employee against an employer who wishes to punish said employee for non compliance of process, even though the employee cannot accurately monitor that process.

    some context.

    The employee is field based.

    The employee has signed a contract in which he agrees to follow the employers processes and procedures.

    The Employer gives an average time to complete a task and displays this time on the employees hand held device but this includes travel time to get to a customers address..

    The employee can extend the job time and is expected to do so if the task will take longer than the average time given. (not and extension to travel time)

    ISSUE.

    There is no timer on the job( on the employees device), if a job overruns on site, mid job and the employee cannot work out if an extension is required it is deemed as being non compliant. similarly, an employee can be non compliant if he extends a job where an extension isn't required..(so he can't just extend every job).

    The issue is there is no timer or countdown when the job is started, the timings include travel and the job times can be different.

    It seems unfair for any punishment to be implemented where the employee cannot accurately monitor the time on a task.

    the employer in response just points to the contract in which the employee has agreed to follow procedures and process

    could this be classed as an unfair term

    thank you
    Tags: None

  • #2
    In principle, the Unfair Contract Terms Act can apply to an employment contract, but I cannot see that the circumstances described come within the ambit of section 3.
    Lawyer (solicitor) - retired from practice, now supervising solicitor in a university law clinic. I do not advise by private message.

    Guides and handbooks for Litigants in Person - :

    https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...60#post1701560

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you for the reply. I am obviously not in the legal field. could you elaborate a little more please. Am I right in assuming you mean it wouldn't be "unreasonable' ?
      Last edited by Billy Casper; 24th March 2026, 21:11:PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        No. That would not be a correct assumption.

        The Act deals with contract terms that purport to limit or exclude liability for breaches of contract.
        Lawyer (solicitor) - retired from practice, now supervising solicitor in a university law clinic. I do not advise by private message.

        Guides and handbooks for Litigants in Person - :

        https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...60#post1701560

        Comment

        View our Terms and Conditions

        LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

        If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


        If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
        Working...
        X