Verbal agreements - enforceable?

[Eloise01]

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.

Which would be one of the compelling reasons why, after two communications asking for the money to be paid, combined with the necessity to give a reasonable time to pay in a letter before action, I think the OP should not mess about any further with an employer who said firtly that they would pay it but attempted the guilt trip the OP into not asking for it; and then refused to pay it and tried to guilt trip the OP further for expecting them too.

And it is three months less a day from the termination of employment (since there is no way of fixing a "date of the action complained about" more certainly than that, I wouldn't take any chances of being out of time to make a claim).

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

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.
.

I wasn't the one who brought up CAG - I was simply commenting on the fact that since you expresed such surprise that I was not posting there if my advice was of any value, that I was surprised not to find you there either!

And yet again - you have assumed incorrectly. My signature has nothing at all to do with CAG. I wasn't aware that I have any issues with them, but since you suggest it I will think about it and get back to you...

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

I wasn't the one who brought up CAG - I was simply commenting on the fact that since you expresed such surprise that I was not posting there if my advice was of any value, that I was surprised not to find you there either!

And yet again - you have assumed incorrectly. My signature has nothing at all to do with CAG. I wasn't aware that I have any issues with them, but since you suggest it I will think about it and get back to you...

As a fellow Club Member, I have to say that this is, indeed, the case. The idea for the "banned" signature originally came from a forum where they would replace your original avatar with the cute little red fella behind bars when you were banned; there's a few of us who are banned from the forum in question, and it wasn't CAG. Later on, people who were banned from other forums decided to adopt the signature, and now it no longer relates to a particular site as such. :okay:

[jon1965]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

If I may make a couple of observations
1) No one has seen the contract, does it say working days are mon-fri or does it say 35 hours a week or something differently
2) I suspect that the company are going to try and take off the Wednesdays from any accrued holiday pay although at this point it is by no means certain
3) They can not have it both ways of course..they can not say that they have overpaid you because you were only working 4 days and then in the same letter refer to your agreement that you would be paid for Wednesdays so long as you worked for 18 months

I suspect a judge may well come down on the OP's side as there seems a distinct lack in any due diligence by the company...no record of holidays , not having a written contract. A lot would of course be down the how convincing the OP was on the day.

As for lawyers knowing everything...well that made me roar with laughter. Certainly in the legal aid system you are just a number to be dealt with as quickly as possible...well by some Barristers I am aware of. Luckily for me a Judge took the time and effort to read and understand everything

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

The 3 month less one day time limit for tribunal is from the date of last action or date the wages were due to be paid, as this is accrued holiday pay then that would be date loxxie received her final pay. The OP is not actually entitled to take tribunal action due to not having worked for the company long enough, meaning the only legal action available to her would be to issue court proceedings, where the time limit is 6 years from the date she should have been paid originally. So the tribunal time limit doesn't apply here.

Yes the OP has a written contract, i have seen photos of it but need Loxxie to scan it so i can actually read it and Loxxie may if she wishes post scanned copies on here for you guys.

Yes its without doubt that the OP would win in court, but there is a real risk depending on the judge on the day and the employers defense if she comes out with a pocket full of cash or not! Unfortunately no one seems to have spotted the reason why there is said risk!

@Eloise - I merely pointed out to you my experience in advising on employment matters/issues, where i originally started advising on CAG on such matters. Whilst at the same time pointing out that yourself have only been on here since Jan 2013, yet go about questioning my opinion/advice when all i did (in my first post) was point out that the OP was full-time, not part-time and that if the company had been paying for the course, there would be evidence that could be gained from the college that the company knew where she was on a Wednesdays. Not only that, you also openly insulted me in your reply to my first post, even though i had purposely made it clear that i had not, at the time of posting my first post, read the thread in its entirety and therefore my advise should not have been taken as 100% accurate - Hence why i made it clear i had not read the full thread at the time.

Also my comments about your own issues with CAG came after you responded with comments about me not being active on CAG, and i even made it clear that i wasn't stating it as a matter of fact but going off an assumption based of your signature - I accept that assumption may have been wrong, but it was never meant to be anything but just an assumption and therefore for was nothing more than just a guess, that may or may not have been correct!

I have never hidden the fact i was banned from CAG (it is well know among the senior beagles and others), so it would be of no surprise to anyone to no longer see me on there. You simply took my reference to CAG out of context and twisted it to suite your own needs. So if you what to keep up the act of being surprised that i am not advising on CAG then that's up to you as i fail to see any relevance in your remarks about me and CAG - Especially when i have been advising on LB ever since i departed company with CAG with the exception of the last few months where i have been preoccupied and not had the time to be on LB and/or helping other people.

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Whoops - there is no qualifying period for a tribunal claim for non-payment of wages or holidays. I thought an expert like you would know that? This is why is is dangerous for people to accept advice by PM - on a public thread such quite crucial errors can be picked up and corrected.

Could you please clarify the rule that state that someone who has only been a member since January is less right than someone who is wrong, but has been a member for much longer???

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post since it isn't relevant to anything except to say that it was not well known to me that you were banned from CAG (and of even less interest) - you were the one who brought up the entire subject by suggesting that the only people who had correct opinions and should be listened to are people who have been on CAG and have lots of posts.

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Whoops - there is no qualifying period for a tribunal claim for non-payment of wages or holidays. I thought an expert like you would know that? This is why is is dangerous for people to accept advice by PM - on a public thread such quite crucial errors can be picked up and corrected.

Could you please clarify the rule that state that someone who has only been a member since January is less right than someone who is wrong, but has been a member for much longer???

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post since it isn't relevant to anything except to say that it was not well known to me that you were banned from CAG (and of even less interest) - you were the one who brought up the entire subject by suggesting that the only people who had correct opinions and should be listened to are people who have been on CAG and have lots of posts.

Neither me or Loxxie have even discussed the tribunal option and considering most cases require a qualifying period then its an easy error to make and simply down to lapse on my part. I am human after all and i do make errors just like anyone else. I also do not claim to be self professed expert, only that i have experience and knowledge on such matters. As for it being dangerous for taking advise of me, well am surprised you failed to mention when advising the OP to send a letter before action that the cost of a tribunal claim could be anything between Ł200 and possibly more than Ł1,750 as of this month! And on top of all that, i am not the one advising her to go down the legal route - YOU ARE! I am simply advising her to stick to the amicable route (for now) and try and resolve the matter without the need for legal action!

I am not saying you are less right than i am or that your advice on employment law and issues is wrong - In fact, i clearly stated in one of my posts that i have no issue with the advice you have given in other threads. I just disagree with your approach in tackling this issue that you have advised - It is you that started the argument by disagreeing with me, questioning my advice that i have given and questioning my credibility remember, not the other way round! So don't try and make me out to have disagreed with your earlier advice, when it was you yourself started the argument (after i pointed out loxxie was full time not part time in my first post and if the company had paid for the course the college would have records of that) and when all i have done is disagreed with was the need for a letter before action at this point!

As for the rest of your post, i made no such suggestion, that's purely your own assumption nothing more and what i said was said in response to your own questioning of my advice and experience, so it was an answer to your questioning my advice and experience nothing more! If you don't like the answer then don't ask the question! So i was merely confirming to you that i had just as much knowledge and experience as you may have, therefore i can not simply be ignored just because you disagree with my advice or opinion!!

SO TO CLARIFY - It was you who questioned my advice first, it was you that questioned my knowledge and experience first when you first questioned my advice and insulted me as well in the same post! So don't try saying i am questioning your advice or experience (in an vein attempt to make me out to be the one that's to blame for this argument) when you were the first to question my advice and experience. Which is what started off this whole dam argument in the first place and led to me pointing out my experience and asking the same question of your advice and experience in employment matters in kind purely as a result of you questioning my own advice and experience in the first place!

As for being wrong - Well how am i wrong exactly? Because i do not agree with the need to send a letter before action just yet! Sorry but i fail to see how that makes me wrong especially when going to court could put loxxie at risk of being no better off (even out of pocket) even if she won in court, but hey you haven't thought off that or how and why that could happen, have you! I have already told Loxxie how and why that may happen too.

The only thing thats different between me and you Eloise isn't our legal knowledge or even experience in such matters, its the different approach we have to helping people and ability to spot things in between the lines of what the OP stated. Your blunt and straight to the point and advise on what was stated pure and simple, without gaining the fuller picture or the necessary facts and little bits that could make the difference between winning and losing or winning but still losing or being no better off for winning. I on the other hand, prefer to gather all the facts and little bits and give the employer clear information as to the consequences of their actions and as to what laws they have breached, making it clear, in no uncertain terms to the employer, that if they do not pay up then they won't stand a chance at tribunal or court! T

There is more to this issue then a straight forward refusal to pay accrued holidays, that your soley basing your advice on!!

[gravytrain]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Neither me or Loxxie have even discussed the tribunal option and considering most cases require a qualifying period then its an easy error to make and simply down to lapse on my part. I am human after all and i do make errors just like anyone else. I also do not claim to be self professed expert, only that i have experience and knowledge on such matters. As for it being dangerous for taking advise of me, well am surprised you failed to mention when advising the OP to send a letter before action that the cost of a tribunal claim could be anything between Ł200 and possibly more than Ł1,750 as of this month! And on top of all that, i am not the one advising her to go down the legal route - YOU ARE! I am simply advising her to stick to the amicable route (for now) and try and resolve the matter without the need for legal action!

I am not saying you are less right than i am or that your advice on employment law and issues is wrong - In fact, i clearly stated in one of my posts that i have no issue with the advice you have given in other threads. I just disagree with your approach in tackling this issue that you have advised - It is you that started the argument by disagreeing with me, questioning my advice that i have given and questioning my credibility remember, not the other way round! So don't try and make me out to have disagreed with your earlier advice, when it was you yourself started the argument (after i pointed out loxxie was full time not part time in my first post and if the company had paid for the course the college would have records of that) and when all i have done is disagreed with was the need for a letter before action at this point!

As for the rest of your post, i made no such suggestion, that's purely your own assumption nothing more and what i said was said in response to your own questioning of my advice and experience, so it was an answer to your questioning my advice and experience nothing more! If you don't like the answer then don't ask the question! So i was merely confirming to you that i had just as much knowledge and experience as you may have, therefore i can not simply be ignored just because you disagree with my advice or opinion!!

SO TO CLARIFY - It was you who questioned my advice first, it was you that questioned my knowledge and experience first when you first questioned my advice and insulted me as well in the same post! So don't try saying i am questioning your advice or experience (in an vein attempt to make me out to be the one that's to blame for this argument) when you were the first to question my advice and experience. Which is what started off this whole dam argument in the first place and led to me pointing out my experience and asking the same question of your advice and experience in employment matters in kind purely as a result of you questioning my own advice and experience in the first place!

As for being wrong - Well how am i wrong exactly? Because i do not agree with the need to send a letter before action just yet! Sorry but i fail to see how that makes me wrong especially when going to court could put loxxie at risk of being no better off (even out of pocket) even if she won in court, but hey you haven't thought off that or how and why that could happen, have you! I have already told Loxxie how and why that may happen too.

The only thing thats different between me and you Eloise isn't our legal knowledge or even experience in such matters, its the different approach we have to helping people and ability to spot things in between the lines of what the OP stated. Your blunt and straight to the point and advise on what was stated pure and simple, without gaining the fuller picture or the necessary facts and little bits that could make the difference between winning and losing or winning but still losing or being no better off for winning. I on the other hand, prefer to gather all the facts and little bits and give the employer clear information as to the consequences of their actions and as to what laws they have breached, making it clear, in no uncertain terms to the employer, that if they do not pay up then they won't stand a chance at tribunal or court! T

There is more to this issue then a straight forward refusal to pay accrued holidays, that your soley basing your advice on!!

Oh I am glad i got that right, this isn't my area at all, I just read the legislation.

I do make a point in stressing that I could be wrong on matters like this, as I say it is not my area, perhaps Teaboy you should preface your advice with a similar statement.

Just a suggestion

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Oh I am glad i got that right, this isn't my area at all, I just read the legislation.

I do make a point in stressing that I could be wrong on matters like this, as I say it is not my area, perhaps Teaboy you should preface your advice with a similar statement.

Just a suggestion

No need to as Tribunal is irrelevant considering Loxxie prefers not to take legal action and given the costs now involved for tribunal it would be cheaper to take it to court instead of tribunal - So court claim would be the more likely option if they continue to refuse to pay what is owed to loxxie

Hence why i put no thought into tribunal action and therefore hence my minor oversight!

As i said i am merely human and do not claim or have ever claimed to never make mistakes or get something wrong sometimes! In this case my error would have had no impact on the OP or her claim. And if i had started thinking about tribunal action and proceeding down that path the error would have been quickly remedied or not even made at all.

Though i noticed how quickly people jumped on said minor error on my part to try and discredit me and get people to not take my advice - As if they themselves do not make mistakes, when they clearly are not capable of spotting the obvious risk to loxxie should it go to court or even tribunal. The reason why i haven't revealed information as to what that very real risk is, is simply because the employer may be watching this very open and public thread, and therefore could use my revelation of said information to successfully, where i would then be blamed for revealing said information on a public thread. IF others do not have the capacity to spot said risk, when it is actually clearly shown in this thread what that risk is, then thats there problem and they should not be advising people to begin the first step before legal action, without considering everything involved that is for and against the OP!

I could have comeback and pointed out Eloise own mistakes/oversights that she has made in this thread herself, but i didn't, i had already pointed them out earlier!

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Gosh, what a long winded explanation for why INCORRECT legal opinion was actually wrong. Didn't bother to read it all though. If the OP has decided that advice by PM is what she wants, then that's her choice. I just hope it is better than this evidences, because she has no way of knowing when she's told something patently wrong.

I'm out. I have better things to do with my time than to pander to paranoid delusionals.

PS. There are not yet ANY costs to making a tribunal claim. Those do not start until the summer. Yet another BASIC error in your advice.

[jon1965]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Plan B can you please pass the popcorn

[PlanB]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Plan B can you please pass the popcorn

Golly, is this verbal disagreement still going on with no sign of the OP anywhere :argue: :argue:


op2: op2: op2: op2:

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

I think you will find the fees are due to be introduced this month! Your information is clearly out of date, evidence of that is the fact you referred to them being introduced in the summer and failed to mention any specific month - Therefore confirming you do not know when exactly when they are introduced. But the best bit is that you also failed to realize that we already are officially in summertime. So when parliment declared the fees would be introduced in summer 2013, they were referring to after march and before the last weekend in october. A lot of reputable law firms are stating April 2013 too as well - Are they also wrong too!

Also you can call me whatever you like, it doesn't change the FACT that its well known that employers do watch this very forum and there's nothing to say that loxxies employers are not already watching the thread. Another Fact is that i haven't reverted to any name calling our personal insults to defend my side of the argument, where as you started the argument with an insult towards me and continue to name call and make suggestive and insulting innuendos about me, though your not the only one! Such personal attack doesn't give you or your opinion on this issue any credit, if anything it just confirms that you can not accept that i or anyone could disagree with your advice, even though i merely disagree about issuing a Letter Before Action at this point in time.

Way i see it, if i reveal the information and the employer sees it and uses it successfully, i will get blamed for revealing it. Whilst if i don't reveal it am called a paranoid delusional - Yes very grown up of you, but then i expect that from someone that has narcissistic traits in there personality. End of the day am not prepared to take that risk by posting it just to satisfy you or others. If you can not see what would be an obvious risk should loxxie take legal action (other than losing in court), then you perhaps should not be advising people to take the first step prior to beginning legal action,

I think you will find i am not paranoid, but merely cautious and for a very good reason.

You also seem to be very upset that i offered to issue advice via PM, yet completely disregard the fact i made it clear at the time i made the offer that it was to protect this thread from being destroyed by our argument that you started. Also no actual legal advice has been given by PM as that has all been given here in this thread - All that has been sent by PM is a request for information and information that loxxie needed to know such as about the risks of going to court/tribunal, so there goes your argument on that issue. I also made clear that the Site Admin are more than welcome to step in, they are able to monitor PM's you know. The site admin also know me well enough to know i will not give out any advice that would put the OP's case against her employers at risk or advise anyone to take a gamble, in legal terms, without making clear of the risks should it fail.

In my opinion, you simply are not capable of accepting that your advice to loxxie could well end up putting Loxxie at risk of winning a case but still being out of pocket, even more out of pocket then when she started legal proceedings. The risk is so bloody obvious and its staring you and everyone else in the face and you all simply can not see it - hell its right here in this thread! Its truly unbelievable that i am the only one to have spotted the bloody obvious risk that could bite Loxxie hard in the pocket!

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Golly, is this verbal disagreement still going on with no sign of the OP anywhere :argue: :argue:


op2: op2: op2: op2:

Unfortunately yes.

OP has been at work all day and has been trying to get readable copies of her contract to me, which will hopefully be posted up here tomorrow.

[PlanB]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Unfortunately yes.

OP has been at work all day and has been trying to get readable copies of her contract to me, which will hopefully be posted up here tomorrow.

I'll be in the front row then. What time is the kick-off