Verbal agreements - enforceable?

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Yes. Which is why it is their problem. They should have ensured records were kept.

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

OK. Did you record your leave? You must have some record. They can't find there records that is their problem. Write back a letter before action giving them 28 days to pay the full amount owed, or you will begin legal action without further notice. If they don't pay up, submit a tribunal claim.

Personally i think issuing a letter before action at this stage would be to early to take such a step.

Another letter pointing out the the errors in the employers stance is what is needed along with pointing out the employers legal obligations under the employment rights act - As i agree its the employers problem that they have no records of her holidays not loxxie's, but at same time lack of records doesn't permit them to not comply with the law. Plus loxxie would need to show, within reason, that she gave the employers every opportunity to comply with their legal obligations and pay her - Another letter would suffice at doing that.

@Loxxie. Please give us the following info.

1. What was your start date when you starting working for the company and the date your employment ended?
2. What days holiday entitlement were you entitled to in your contract?
3. How many days holiday did you take?
4. How many days do you believe you are owed as accrued?

We can use the above requested info to work out exactly how many days you are owed and what your holiday entitlement annually was. We can then use it in the next letter.

I certainly find the mannerism of there response strange,"treated you as a daughter" implying they saw you as part of their family - Sounds like desperate attempt to play on your feelings in the hope you give in.

Also the letter confirms, in my opinion that they came to the assumption you would stay with them 18 months because that was the duration of your course as confirmed to them by Mr Palethorpe. Therefore meaning they expected you to remain 18 months. Therefore contradicting their previous allegation of it being agreed as part of a verbal contract. Though thats not relevant now as they are not reclaiming any monies from you.

Though i must point out that if they refuse to pay what is owed to you in response to the next letter, then it will be time to issue a Letter Before Action - This may mean going to court which may be a long process and would cost you money to issue the claim, not to mention it can be very stressful - Though you will have my help all the way and no doubt Eloise's help too if you wish to proceed to court. So i have to ask, are you prepared to go all the way if it comes to having to, or would you rather cut your losses and move on in life?

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

If you wish to wait longer for your holiday pay, by all means write a third letter before writing a letter before action. You have asked them twice, they said they would pay and now they have refused to pay. To me that seems like sufficient discussion, but if you wish to continue writing them nice letters asking them for what you are owed, then that is your decision.

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

i have specific reasons as to why a letter before action would not be appropriate at this stage, though i will not state on an public thread what they are as i believe the employer may be watching this thread.

I was going to post my reasons here in this post but thought better of it in case they are watching the thread - As lets face it the mannerism in there last letter was strange and that makes me suspect they know about this thread. I have Pm'd Loxxie what i was originally going to post whether she forwards that to you by PM is up to her.

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

I have no further interest in jousting with you over speculations and made up information. There seems to be an interesting pattern in your posting history and I have no intention of feeding it.

I repeat that I do not give or offer advice PM without a substantially good need to protect the personal information of individuals and only with the agreement of Site Admin, in accordance with the preferred conventions of Legal Beagles.

[EXC]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

i have specific reasons as to why a letter before action would not be appropriate at this stage, though i will not state on an public thread what they are as i believe the employer may be watching this thread.

I was going to post my reasons here in this post but thought better of it in case they are watching the thread

---

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

I have no further interest in jousting with you over speculations and made up information. There seems to be an interesting pattern in your posting history and I have no intention of feeding it.

I repeat that I do not give or offer advice PM without a substantially good need to protect the personal information of individuals and only with the agreement of Site Admin, in accordance with the preferred conventions of Legal Beagles.

Ohh yet more wild accusations, Wheres the made up information, wheres the oh so wild speculation? everything i have said is based on experience and well know fact that employers and the likes do watch these forums! As for pattern of posting history, ohh please not another pathetic attempt to distract from the issue at hand in a vein attempt to discredit me. Only pattern here is you started the argument, i answer back which i am well known for doing, as i don't take crap of anyone especially when they openly insult me in their very first post replying to me.

And advising someone to issue a letter before action based on assumption that the OP would get her accrued holidays paid faster than by trying to resolve the issue amicably with a 3rd more forceful and blunt letter pointing out their breaches of law - Is foolish advice, that could easily comeback to bite the OP! As there is equal chance that the employer would prefer to defend in court, which would mean more costs for the OP (would you be willing to help the OP with court and any legal costs? Thought not!) and a much longer wait for her to be paid her holiday pay!

There is still a good chance to solve this matter amicably which would be best for both parties! In 95% of employment issues that i have been actively involved in less than 5% went to tribunal or court even, the rest were settled without the need to go to court or issue a letter before action. The reason for that is simple, once an employer has had it pointed out to them what breaches of law they have committed and the consequences and that your offering them the opportunity to settle the matter amicably, they will not want to risk an expensive fight in court or tribunal. But once you issue a letter before action, then you are stating your intent to have the court resolve this rather than resolve the matter amicably, and this can have the effect of getting the employers back up where they call your bluff resulting in you having no other option left but to take it to court/tribunal - Which is the opposite of what both parties actually want as both employees and employers simply want to settle the matter quickly and amicably unless they are rogue employers that try to get away with murder all the time, which loxxie employer is not.

Am amazed that your so willing to advise loxxie to take action that could result in court action so early in negotiations, when you have no knowledge of the ins and outs of her employment with the employer, the relationship with the employer! i can't be more specific than that in case the employer is watching this thread. And yes loxxie would certainly win in court based on info given to us already, but there could easily be thrown a spanner in the works out of the blue. Why you ask. Because your advising someone to threaten court action were they may well end up in court where you do not have a full complete picture of loxxie employment history with the employer or her relationship with the employer - would you go to court wearing a blindfold? No you wouldn't so advise others to take the first step to going to court when your wearing a blindfold and do not yet see or know the full picture!

On top off that have you even asked Loxxie if she wants to go that far! Hell have you even asked loxxie if she may be willing to accept a compromise as full and final!

The best approach is to be honest with the employer about where the employer went wrong and to be fair and reasonable with them as they appreciate it more than been threaten with an ultimatum leading to court action - We have all the ammo we need to make it clear were both parties stand legally hence why one more letter should be enough to get the break through loxxie is wanting!

As for advice via PM - well no real advice has been given by PM at this stage as it has all been given on this thread, with the exception of informing loxxie of what i was originally going to post in my last reply, and am sure loxxie would agree given my reason not to post that it was best i didn't just in case. Plus, as i said before the Site Admin no me well enough to know i would not give out anything but solid advice via PM that would not put the OP in any danger or costly situation, unlike your willingness to advise that she takes action that could result in her having to pay court and legal costs then wait around 6 months to get the outcome she wanted that she could easily get within the next week with just 1 more well written letter. So am more than open to you asking Cel to intervene in this thread, after all, you started the original arguement not me, and my offer to advise via PM should loxxie want my advise was purely to put an end to the argument, but as soon as i come back to comment on the first letter, despite agreeing with you i get nothing from you but a childish and pathetic response, and so the arguments continue but not not even based on the original argument but on personal hate, all because you couldn't let it go, could you! Yet your expecting me to quietly dissappear, sorry ain't going to happen! So yeah i would welcome Cel being involved here, especially if it put an end to the argument that your not capable of allowing to end.

@EXC

Grow the hell up - You know as well as i do that employers along with DCA/Creditors/Bailiffs do actively browse this forum and others and as loxxie has provided letters from her employer and even her first name, then it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together would it? So hardly paranoia, more like a matter of FACT and therefore reasonable grounds for continuing cautiously!!

Hows the press legislation you supported anyway, are you pleased with it? Despite there already being laws in place that dealt with things like illegal phone hacking and libel! Are you pleased with the hacked off groups attempts to highjack the libel reforms to get what they wanted which could have even put future of this forum and others in doubt! Are you pleased the government now has created the first step to state backed press censorship? If you'd had your way 2-3 years ago i doubt we would have ever found out about the MP expenses scandal! So sorry EXC but your opinion means absolutely nothing to me, because as far as i am concerned you have no creditability in my eyes, especially when your not capable of constructive debate and use childish behavior in an attempt to discredit those that do not support your own views, or to distract others from the views of those that disagree with your own. Narcissistic behavioral patterns are all too common among those that spend to much time on these forums and begin to think more about there own self worth and self importance and therefore being unable to accept anyone that disagrees or challenges their opinion.

My main concern here is protecting the OP from any possible comeback from her employer, if that means not posting information that could be used against loxxie by the employer or that would give the employer a heads-up enabling them to prepare in advance, should this get as far as court. Then i simply will not put loxxie or her claim for holiday pay at risk, by stupidly posting such information knowing there is a possibility that her employers are watching this thread.

The best thing here and perhaps the most pathetic thing off all is that you Eloise and EXC fail to realize that i no longer disagree with eloise our disagreement was based on inaccurate information provided originally. But once loxxie posted the first letter from the employer me and eloise both agreed, only thing i disagree on at the moment is the need to send a letter before action! So if you guys want to carry on making yourselves look like muppets go ahead, end of the day am no better than the person next to me, i do not have a superiority attitude, unlike some. My attitude is i don't give a ****, so long as the OP is not being given unnecessary or wrong advice, off course said advice should be debatable. But how successful that debate is depends on how the parties involved see themselves in comparison to the opposite party and too many times debates on this forums fail simply because of egotism and/or one or more parties own overvalued and self-opinionated self-worth.

Now i know i write long posts but that's how i write, so don't expect me to just sit back and take **** from either of you too or anyone else for that matter, without hitting right back at you or them! Especially when one of you clearly has a personal issue with me as a result of a past disagreement - take it on the chin and get the hell over it like an adult or don't even bother to reply to me or any of my posts. That goes for both of you!

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Paranoid delusions of being watched by the employer and you want us to grow up? "The employer is watching" isn't a wild speculation?

Fact: The employer has agreed that they have failed to pay holiday pay and have confirmed that they will pay it when the OP tells them what holiday she is took. Fact: They have now refused to pay it. How much more "negotiation" the OP wants is up to them. I see no reason to fuel wild speculation that the employer is watching. Let them. There is nothing at all in this thread that benefits the employer.You think my advice is foolish - I won't further this by saying any more on what I think about yours.

This is the OP's decision, and I leave it there.

By the way - I notice that there have been lots of posts of employment problems on CAG recently and it appears you haven't shared your vast experience there for some time. I wonder why? I thought they were ever so grateful for everything you offer them?

[gravytrain]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Throwing in my two pence worth

I find that in any contractual dispute, which basically is what this is, nothing focuses the mind quite like a letter before action.

It lets the other side know that you are serious and you will not be fobbed off.

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Paranoid delusions of being watched by the employer and you want us to grow up? "The employer is watching" isn't a wild speculation?

Fact: The employer has agreed that they have failed to pay holiday pay and have confirmed that they will pay it when the OP tells them what holiday she is took. Fact: They have now refused to pay it. How much more "negotiation" the OP wants is up to them. I see no reason to fuel wild speculation that the employer is watching. Let them. There is nothing at all in this thread that benefits the employer.You think my advice is foolish - I won't further this by saying any more on what I think about yours.

This is the OP's decision, and I leave it there.

By the way - I notice that there have been lots of posts of employment problems on CAG recently and it appears you haven't shared your vast experience there for some time. I wonder why? I thought they were ever so grateful for everything you offer them?

I never said as a matter of fact that they were watching only that i suspected they could be watching, And that it is a well known fact among many of us on consumer forums that employers do watch this forum and other consumer forums. To dismiss that fact as nothing but paranoid delusion amounts to nothing but delusion itself. You can not say for sure that they are not watching, and i certainly do not want to risk revealing anything that may help them in case they are watching. So come on explain how that is paranoid delusion as i think the majority of people reading this will agree that i am merely applying caution as to not put Loxxie at any risk.

We are more than aware of the facts of the case - i made it clear more than once that in court Loxxie would certainly win, but nothing gets solved without first trying to negotiate a resolution - Why should loxxie risk having to go to court and risk having to spend money on court fees and possible legal fees when their is still a perfectly good chance that it may never have to come to that. Though going in giving ultimatums under a letter before action will not help resolve the matter, but more likely antagonize the employer!

Its perfectly easily to say send letter before action and take it to court when your not the one that has to do it, that would have to pay out to issue a claim, that would have to prepare the case (very stressful and time consuming), whilst going to work as normal, your not the one that would have to face the employers legal team's or the judge are you? No loxxie is. and if there's a chance this can be resolved amicably then we should take that option and persue it to the full. Its all to easy for some to advise they take issue a formal letter before action, which in my opinion is a half baked "i can not be bothered to advise and help, so am taken the easy option out" type of attitude.

Again you have not asked Loxxie what she wants, if she wants to take it to court or solve it amicable have you? You clear do not have any consideration as to how she would prefer to persue the matter. Yet its loxxie that your claiming to be helping here. I don't see how you are, when your suggestion of letter before action so early on suggest you can not really be bothered to help and your therefore simply offering nothing but passive advice instead of in depth constructive advice that could actually help resolve the issue loxxie is seeking help on!

You simply CAN NOT build a case in regards to employment issues purely on the FACTS given by the OP and then give passive and/or generic simple straight forward easy to give advice as send them a letter before action, without knowing the ins and outs. You are still forgetting about the other breaches of employment laws the employer may have made and are simply basing your reasoning on two simple FACTS. You fail to realize its those other breaches that are just as important to loxxies case and that could be the key to resolving this issue without the need of a Letter Before Action!

As for CAG, my issues with CAG are of no concern of yours - Though i will say, i stood up to them and they didn't like it. But then your own issues with CAG are of no concern of mine - Assuming i interpreted your signature as meaning what i think it may mean.

You really should learn to read between the lines of what people are saying, instead of jumping to wild assumptions and allegations. You should maybe also leanr to actually stop being so generic and actually listen to the person seeking advice and some consideration for the overall situation by digging for the fuller picture instead of just basing your advice purely on what the OP has given you already - After all the OP of any thread, doesn't know what information we need from them to be able to help them properly.

You never asked Loxxie if she worked full time or part tiem, you just assumed (wrongly too) that she was part time.
Your never asked her for a break down of what she believed she was owed.
You never questioned why the employer thought their was a verbal agreement and simply advised loxxie that it was her words against theirs - Which we now know is rubbish as they contradicted themselves in regards to the 18 months in the second letter by making it clear they merely assumed that she would continue to work with them for 18 months due to that being the duration of the course, that loxxie herself was paying for.

Do you see how loxxie could so easily have gone away for this forum thinking she would not get a penny if she had listen to you to start with? Now look where she is as a result of following the argument between us two (at least one good thing came of our argument). She now no longer has a "their word against yours" no hoper of a case, but a very bloody strong case. And pointing that out to the employer in a third non-threatening letter should hopefully be all that is needed now, not a bloody Letter Before Action which is more likely to antagonize the employer and get their backs up, then it is to help - Especially when they seem to have a close connection in terms of family type relations/values (although not family) with or towards loxxie.

@graytrain - its not a contractual dispute par-se (that's already been cleared up, if your referring to the verbal agreement), its a dispute over a statutory entitlement and what days she is entitled paid for as accrued holidays, along with who was responsible for logging her holidays - So the contract is irrelevant as statutory law covers holiday entitlement and pay.

[gravytrain]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

I never said as a matter of fact that they were watching only that i suspected they could be watching, And that it is a well known fact among many of us on consumer forums that employers do watch this forum and other consumer forums. To dismiss that fact as nothing but paranoid delusion amounts to nothing but delusion itself. You can not say for sure that they are not watching, and i certainly do not want to risk revealing anything that may help them in case they are watching. So come on explain how that is paranoid delusion as i think the majority of people reading this will agree that i am merely applying caution as to not put Loxxie at any risk.

We are more than aware of the facts of the case - i made it clear more than once that in court Loxxie would certainly win, but nothing gets solved without first trying to negotiate a resolution - Why should loxxie risk having to go to court and risk having to spend money on court fees and possible legal fees when their is still a perfectly good chance that it may never have to come to that. Though going in giving ultimatums under a letter before action will not help resolve the matter, but more likely antagonize the employer!

Its perfectly easily to say send letter before action and take it to court when your not the one that has to do it, that would have to pay out to issue a claim, that would have to prepare the case (very stressful and time consuming), whilst going to work as normal, your not the one that would have to face the employers legal team's or the judge are you? No loxxie is. and if there's a chance this can be resolved amicably then we should take that option and persue it to the full. Its all to easy for some to advise they take issue a formal letter before action, which in my opinion is a half baked "i can not be bothered to advise and help, so am taken the easy option out" type of attitude.

Again you have not asked Loxxie what she wants, if she wants to take it to court or solve it amicable have you? You clear do not have any consideration as to how she would prefer to persue the matter. Yet its loxxie that your claiming to be helping here. I don't see how you are, when your suggestion of letter before action so early on suggest you can not really be bothered to help and your therefore simply offering nothing but passive advice instead of in depth constructive advice that could actually help resolve the issue loxxie is seeking help on!

You simply CAN NOT build a case in regards to employment issues purely on the FACTS given by the OP and then give passive and/or generic simple straight forward easy to give advice as send them a letter before action, without knowing the ins and outs. You are still forgetting about the other breaches of employment laws the employer may have made and are simply basing your reasoning on two simple FACTS. You fail to realize its those other breaches that are just as important to loxxies case and that could be the key to resolving this issue without the need of a Letter Before Action!

As for CAG, my issues with CAG are of no concern of yours - Though i will say, i stood up to them and they didn't like it. But then your own issues with CAG are of no concern of mine - Assuming i interpreted your signature as meaning what i think it may mean.

You really should learn to read between the lines of what people are saying, instead of jumping to wild assumptions and allegations. You should maybe also leanr to actually stop being so generic and actually listen to the person seeking advice and some consideration for the overall situation by digging for the fuller picture instead of just basing your advice purely on what the OP has given you already - After all the OP of any thread, doesn't know what information we need from them to be able to help them properly.

You never asked Loxxie if she worked full time or part tiem, you just assumed (wrongly too) that she was part time.
Your never asked her for a break down of what she believed she was owed.
You never questioned why the employer thought their was a verbal agreement and simply advised loxxie that it was her words against theirs - Which we now know is rubbish as they contradicted themselves in regards to the 18 months in the second letter by making it clear they merely assumed that she would continue to work with them for 18 months due to that being the duration of the course, that loxxie herself was paying for.

Do you see how loxxie could so easily have gone away for this forum thinking she would not get a penny if she had listen to you to start with? Now look where she is as a result of following the argument between us two (at least one good thing came of our argument). She now no longer has a "their word against yours" no hoper of a case, but a very bloody strong case. And pointing that out to the employer in a third non-threatening letter should hopefully be all that is needed now, not a bloody Letter Before Action which is more likely to antagonize the employer and get their backs up, then it is to help - Especially when they seem to have a close connection in terms of family type relations/values (although not family) with or towards loxxie.

@graytrain - its not a contractual dispute par-se (that's already been cleared up, if your referring to the verbal agreement), its a dispute over a statutory entitlement and what days she is entitled paid for as accrued holidays, along with who was responsible for logging her holidays - So the contract is irrelevant as statutory law covers holiday entitlement and pay.

If there was no contract there would be no cause for claiming any money.(also i could have sworn that when i was employed my holiday entitlement was included within the terms of my contract, perhaps i was mistaken)

You seem to be embarking on your usual waffle, it is a perfectly simple scenario as far as I am concerned, the OP thinks she is owed money, she has informed the other party , they have refused to pay . So she either walks away or commences proceedings. Simples

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Yes it is included in terms and conditions but its backed by statutory law and Loxxie entitlement is the basic statutory holiday entitlement so the contractual terms are irrelevant unless the holiday terms in the contract granted you more than your statutory entitlement per year.

You may assume am waffling on, but i am merely defending my stance and acting in the best interest of the OP and when all is said and done i will point out the flaws in other peoples advice here and why there is no need for a Letter of Action for good reason!! Something no one else has picked up on or even considered. I have already made clear to the OP what my reasons are via PM and when all is said and done, you will all understand why i won't give my reasons here in an OPEN thread that is not private and is viewable by anyone!

Now i have nothing personal against anyone, and i do not care what others think of me so long as the OP is getting the advice she needs and is not being advised in a way that may put her at huge risk. So don't jump on the bandwagon like the others have done Graytrain, just because they do not see what i see or simply do not agree with me on this matter, unless you want egg on your face too at the end of it all! Because when all is said and done, it won't be me or loxxie that will be face-palming ourselves for not seeing the (not so obvious to some) potential risk here!

[gravytrain]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Yes it is included in terms and conditions but its backed by statutory law and Loxxie entitlement is the basic statutory holiday entitlement so the contractual terms are irrelevant unless the holiday terms in the contract granted you more than your statutory entitlement per year.

You may assume am waffling on, but i am merely defending my stance and acting in the best interest of the OP and when all is said and done i will point out the flaws in other peoples advice here and why there is no need for a Letter of Action for good reason!! Something no one else has picked up on or even considered. I have already made clear to the OP what my reasons are via PM and when all is said and done, you will all understand why i won't give my reasons here in an OPEN thread that is not private and is viewable by anyone!

Now i have nothing personal against anyone, and i do not care what others think of me so long as the OP is getting the advice she needs and is not being advised in a way that may put her at huge risk. So don't jump on the bandwagon like the others have done Graytrain, just because they do not see what i see or simply do not agree with me on this matter, unless you want egg on your face too at the end of it all! Because when all is said and done, it won't be me or loxxie that will be face-palming ourselves for not seeing the (not so obvious to some) potential risk here!

Yes as I said waffle

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

As i said, you may think its waffle, but i have a good reason for doing so. In any case, if others had spotted the risk then i wouldn't need to waffle on in order to defend my stance, as we'd all be in agreement - But hey ho, can't help it if not every noticed it!

[gravytrain]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

On a salient point, I think I am right in saying that there is a time limit for presenting a claim, 3 months from when the entitlement should have been paid.
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

But it is worth keeping in mind.