Verbal agreements - enforceable?

[leclerc]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

And i appreciate that, but for all we know they may have been told the month afterwards. Its been year since the proposals, so they have had plenty of time to sneaked an approximate date out to law firms. Or perhaps the Firms in question where simply guessing. Either way without access to any official admendments to law or officially public announcement of the date, then i don't have much else to go off in regards to the date!

You are talking crap now. Utter crap.


http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/node/13580
They must be wrong!

http://www.towells.co.uk/ard/enews_a...AID=1066&CID=2
They must be wrong!

http://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/though...t-law-calendar
They must be wrong!

http://www.pannone.com/media-centre/...expect-in-2013
She wrote that in January 2013 and she is spinning a yarn.....I nearly laughed myself senseless.
She even wrote it last year....the fool http://www.pannone.com/media-centre/...oduced-in-2013

[gravytrain]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

http://www.dwf.co.uk/news/legal-upda...-in-july-2013/

There was no fixed date for its implementation, with the announcement suggesting "summer" of 2013. But now we are a step closer to knowing when it will take effect; the Ministry of Justice's recent announcement regarding its "digital strategy" for courts and tribunals, says that Employment Tribunal fees will be introduced in July this year.

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

If she apologises for her original response to my original post on this thread and agrees to stop the argument here and now, then i will accept that willingly. but i want an apology given her response to my original post was completely uncalled for!

When hell freezes over. Your first post was rude in the extreme, ignoring any and all advice given except your own. You started off by stating that you hadn't even read the thread. You then went on over pages to make up information not in evidence, to scare the OP into off site advice by telling her that her employer was watching her, and to make fundamental and basic errors in law. And now you seem to be suggesting that the OP could be, in some way, countersued if she made a tribunal claim, although there is no evidence on the thread to suggest that is the case - and actually it is impossible to countersue a claimant in a tribunal.

I stand by my assertion that a letter before action would have resolved the problem and got her the money she says she is owed.

And since you do not have access to the resources that I have, you are not able to read the regulations yet, but if you read the Ministry of Justices Digital Strategy you will see that it confirms that they will be starting to collect tribunal fees from July 2013. I can't be bothered to look it up for you, but you will find confirmation here: http://www.ier.org.uk/news/govt-set-...unal-fees-july

I have no intention of discussing anything further with you here or elsewhere, but I do intend to continue to correct any and all legally incorrect statements that you make. Other people read these threads and may be misled into, for example, thinking that they needs two years employment to claim their unpaid wages. The two year qualifying period is only applicable to claims for unfair dismissal, except in claims involving discrimination, trades union activities, asserting a statutory right, protected disclosures and political membership.

[Celestine]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

If she apologises for her original response to my original post on this thread and agrees to stop the argument here and now, then i will accept that willingly. but i want an apology given her response to my original post was completely uncalled for!

I think considering forum rules have been broken, seemingly because you simply disagreed with others opinions, you are not in a strong position to ask this.

You say, they disagreed with YOU, but in essence its still the same. Wouldn't you be annoyed if one of THEM had 'hijacked' the outcome for the OP by taking their advice off forum?

[Inca]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Ummmm where's Loxxie?

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

For the avoidance of doubt, since I have been accused of being "rude" and "offensive" towards Teaboy2 from my first response - here it is:

Where does it say that the paid for the course? It doesn't say that at all. And nor does that mean that the employer agreed to pay their wages for a day they were not at work. Knowing where your employee is does not imply either of those things.

Nor does "voluntary overtime" which is what the OP actually said they worked, count as basic hours.

It wasn't an awfully long thread. It might have been a good idea to read it before advising soneone?

There is nothing rude or offensive in this. The thread took a "personal" turn when, in post #13 Teaboy2 said that I did not know what an employment contract is, and when he went on to say that "unlike me he happened to be very busy" and didn't have time to read posts before answering them. Until that time nobody had made anything other than legitimate comments to disagree with him. By post #16 Teaboy2 was slamming insults around at anybody who had addressed any point made to him: referring to me as "You Lady"; shouting "DO YOU?"; accusing me of being "confused"; and being highly insulting towards EXC.

"People in glass houses..."???

[gravytrain]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

There is a difference between disagreeing with someones views and pointing out their errors in fact.
The issues of, the availability of the tribunal process, the fees, the risks involved in counter claim. These are not differences of opinion these are errors in fact.
Pointing out these errors is not, "flaming".

The issue of the the perceived danger of the thread being monitored was opinion, but the concern should have been raised with the site team, the unilateral decision to remove the discussion from the forum and deny input from knowledgeable posters was wrong.

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

The whole thing started when all i did was point out that if the company paid for it the college would have records of it, and that Loxxie was working full time not part time, whilst making it clear that i hadn't read the entire post which was due to myself being in a rush at the time. I am not the only person here that does not read every post or simply scans through them - In my opinion their was no need for Eloise to respond the way she did, especially telling me i should not advise if i have not read the full thread (which is what i found insulting). It may not have be deemed insulting to her, but considering my experience in employment matters, it was to me, especially when i was merely pointing out two observations and not actually advising anything par se! So sorry Eloise but you made it personal with your first response to me, telling me i shouldn't be advising if i have not read the full thread, when i had only pointed out observations and not actually given any advice on resolving the issue in my first post.

The argument then ceased after Loxxie posted the first letter from the company, in which i agreed with Eloise in regards to the content of the letter - only to be responded to in a childish manner. Then when i disagreed with Eloise advise to send a letter before action and opted for a 3rd letter instead, for good reason too, I get year more earbashing from eloise and others. Why, when all i advised was to be cautious after spotting a potential risk that could hit loxxie deep in the pocket, even if she won.

Also i did not say as a matter of fact in post 13 that Eloise did not know what an employment contract is. Below is what i actually stated:

"I think you misunderstand what can and can not be in a employment contract. They can be terms in the contract of employment that state the employer will pay any course fees (or vice verser) if the employee is required to go on a training course, and/or that the employer will be entitled to reclaim said fees if the employee leaves employment with the employer within a specific period after course completion. The specific's of that course it's self, in terms of type, duration, and other terms and requirements related to the specific course, is all that needs to be signed separately from that of the employment contract"

Were do i state anywhere that eloise does not know what an employment contract is - only point i was making was i thought eloise didn't understand what terms can be put into an employment contract regarding the costs and who pays said costs for training and college courses. So i no way did i state as a matter of fact that eloise did not know what an employment contract was. So there's proof eloise is simply twisting my words!

As for my lapse on qualifying period, big deal it was a simple lapse of thought which was easy to make considering no thought had gone into taking tribunal action and that the vast majority of claims to tribunal require a qualifying period. As for the fees, well as the only information i had to go off was other reputable law firms and articles in the news, then its perfectly possible that the fees could have started this month since i had no recent information, such as legislation or amendments listed online stating when they would bring in the fees and as APRIL is the start of the financial year and also the first month in Britians official summertime then it was a real possibility.

And Cel i appreciate your opinion, but i disagree, i didn't start the argument, i didn't start the argument again when i returned to the thread either. People can twist and turn things i say however they like, it doesn't mean they are the innocent ones. I had offered to my hand to eloise to put an end to the argument, but she refused to read the post in question - Perhaps she should not respond to keep an argument going without reading every posts. after all according to her i should not be advising if i did not read the full thread when, in fact, i merely pointed out to observations rather than gave any advice in my first post!

Argument finished with as far as am concerned - Though i get the impression someone will respond to just to keep it going.

Anyway my reason for coming back here was to let you all know that i have not heard anything from loxxie since Friday - I just hope she doesn't go down the legal route as others have suggested only to find herself out of pocket even if she did win her claim for unpaid accrued holidays. If people can not see the obvious danger loxxie would face by taking the legal route, then perhaps it is them that should not be advising people - After all, it wouldn't take the employer much effort to successfully counter claim for money already paid that she was not actually legally entitled too. So in a sense they have already paid her her accrued holiday and more, though no one spotted that when advising her to send a letter before action! And i am only mentioning it now as it appears loxxie may have given up and decided to cut her losses!

[leclerc]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

The whole think started when all i did was point out that if the company paid for it the college would have records of it, and that Loxxie was working full time not part time, whilst making it clear that i hadn't read the entire post which was due to myself being in a rush at the time. I am not the only person here that does not read every post or simply scans through them - In my opinion their was no need for Eloise to respond the way she did, especially telling me i should not advise if i have not read the full thread (which is what i found insulting).

The argument then ceased after Loxxie posted the first letter from the company, in which i agreed with Eloise in reads to the content of the letter - only to be responded to in a childish manner. Then when i disagreed with Eloise advise to send a letter before action and opted for a 3rd letter instead, for good reason too. I get year more earbashing from eloise and others. Why, when all i advised was to be cautious after spotting a potential risk that could hit loxxie deep in the pocket even if she won.

Also i did not say as a matter of fact in post 13 that Eloise did not know what an employment contract is. Below is what i actually stated:

"I think you misunderstand what can and can not be in a employment contract. They can be terms in the contract of employment that state the employer will pay any course fees (or vice verser) if the employee is required to go on a training course, and/or that the employer will be entitled to reclaim said fees if the employee leaves employment with the employer within a specific period after course completion. The specific's of that course it's self, in terms of type, duration, and other terms and requirements related to the specific course, is all that needs to be signed separately from that of the employment contract"

Were do i state anywhere that eloise does not know what an employment contract is - only point i was making was i thought eloise didn't understand what terms can be put into an employment contract regarding the costs and who pays said costs for training and college courses. So i no way did i state as a matter of fact that eloise did not know what an employment contract was. So there's proof eloise is simply twisting my words!

As for my lapse on qualifying period, big deal it was a simple lapse of thought which was easy to make considering no thought had gone into taking tribunal action and that the vast majority of claims to tribunal require a qualifying period. As for the fees, well as the only information i had to go off was other reputable law firms and articles in the news, then its perfectly possible that the fees could have started this month since i had no recent information, such as legislation or amendments listed online stating when they would bring in the fees and as APRIL is the start of the financial year and also the first month in Britians official summertime then it was a real possibility.
Teaboy2, my issue is that whilst you got the information from one site that you continued to state that the date was April in the face of not only hard and credible evidence which included a direct link to the document which stated Summer 2013. If you had relooked at those law sites again under their news section or perhaps blogs they might have corrected themselves. We went through a definition of summer either via met office version, the seasonal version and landed up in the worst definition of summer which was British Summer Time which is about the clocks and not something that a government document would put into it as a discussion. As I said on this thread, if you had not be so reticent that April was the date and had done what I had done and used the google/yahoo or even the stated article you quoted and read the response document which again I did quote to you earlier than the point you posted it then half of my posts would not have been on here. From reading the thread from page 1 was that there was assumptions made by you and you kinda opened yourself up by stating from the off that you had not read the thread. Sometimes, we need to ask for more information, ie assuming something can ultimately make us all look like an ......... You know the ending. That does happen sometimes on the forum that assumptions are made and that then leads to this sort of discussion. I do not prescribe to the paranoia of "someone could be reading this" albeit I have heard of less than a handful of cases where that has been the case ie reading things on forums. Having said that, I did not see much information on the thread that supported the idea of a negative use of anything posted on there.


And Cel i appreciate your opinion, but i disagree, i didn't start the argument, i didn't start the argument again when i returned to the thread either. People can twist and turn things i say however they like, it doesn't mean they are the innocent ones. I had offered to my hand to eloise to put an end to the argument, but she refused to read the post in question - Perhaps she should not respond to keep an argument going without reading every posts. after all according to her i should not be advising if i did not read the full thread when, in fact, i merely pointed out to observations rather than gave any advice in my first post!

Argument finished with as far as am concerned - Though i get the impression someone will respond to just to keep it going.
I will respond to this with a comment on the above.

Anyway my reason for coming back here was to let you all know that i have not heard anything from loxxie since Friday - I just hope she doesn't go down the legal route as others have suggested only to find herself out of pocket even if she did win her claim for unpaid accrued holidays. If people can not see the obvious danger loxxie would face by taking the legal route, then perhaps it is them that should not be advising people - After all, it wouldn't take the employer much effort to successfully counter claim for money all ready paid that she was not actually legally entitled too. So in a sense they have already paid her her accrued holiday and more, though no one spotted that when advising her to send a letter before action! And i am only mentioning it now as it appears loxxie may have given up and decided to cut her losses!

People come and people go on forums so a lack of being on the forum may not necessarily mean much. Some people receive advice take action and then come back here and say "thank you it's sorted".

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Yes there was a document stating summer 2013, but April is official part of British summertime - My issue was that no one had provided an actual date, recently given, that would have thrown what many reputable law firms (who may have been informed of the date being April 2013, or may not have) in to doubt. All everyone was stating was summertime 2013 based of the report on the consultation i therefore assumed the law firms stating april knew something we didn't which is not an unreasonable assumption to make. I made it clear that if anyone could provide any evidence that confirmed an alternative date to april, and not just reference summertime stated in the consultation, which starts on last weekend in march and ends last weekend in October, then i would hold my hands up and accept i got it wrong. But at the moment i can only go by what has been stated by reputable law firms whom may even just be basing what they stated on the same information (summertime 2013) you linked too on the basis that April is officially the first month of British summertime, which if that is the case, then they should not be openly stating a specific month if they do not actually know the actual month or date - Though it does make more sense to bring the fees in this month with it being the first month of the financial year then it does to bring them in at a later month. So i admit i may be wrong and am not afraid to admit if i wrong.

As for the date being in July that Eloise pointed out, well as eloise has not provided a link that i know off, and all i can find reference fees and july being nothing but the introduction of the MOJ/Tribunal service online payment system, then the month of July is still only speculation based on introduction of online payment systems - Nothing stopping them taking payments over the phone or by other means though in the mean time. At the moment the only way we will know for certain if the fees are introduced in April or not, would be if we get to the end of this month and they are still not introduced, or if an official announcement confirming the actual date is made. Or perhaps if eloise can provide a link to the information she has that stated it to be july.

I accept that the fees may not be introduced in April, but at the time that was the only actual date i had to go off. And to be honest it doesn't really matter much to Loxxie if the fees were not yet introduced, as taking any legal action could have easily cost her a lot more than what she would have been awarded even if she had won, if the company made a successful counter claim or argument which they could have easily done so.

Yes i know people do go away and come back later to the forum, but in this case the last i heard from loxxie was she was trying to get a scanned copy of her contract that was readable and would have been posted on here. So, yes she may still be trying to do that and may come back when its done, but given she doesn't herself want to take legal action then she may just as likely decided to cut her losses and move on, rather than risk the employer claiming back what they have already paid her that she wasn't legally entitled too.

Its all very well arguing other minor things such as fees, which i may have been wrong about. But the main issue here is the potential consequences that Loxxie would face if she had chosen to issue a letter before action and subsequently gone down the legal route, which i certainly am not wrong about. Hell maybe the employer would have started claiming back the overpayment of wages purely in response to a letter before action - So all arguments aside, my main concern here was surprisingly not even spotted by others which gives me real concern as to consquences Loxxie would have faced if she had follwed such advice being given to her. So the whole argument itself if completely irrelevant with the exemption in regards to the disagreement of whether to send a letter before action or not. As i truly believe, should such letter before action not get the desired response, that Loxxie would have been advised to proceed to court/tribunal and face being hit hard in the pocket, even if she won her claim, because all the days she was paid for when she was at college outnumber the days in which she is claiming for accrued holiday, by a wide margin. And no one can dispute that! I tried to point this obvious fact out to others, without giving the actual game away but no one spotted it except myself.

So am sorry if people think i was in the wrong, but end of the day they can think what they like of me as i simply do not care what others think of me (so long as they do not insult me), i was merely protecting the OP, which is and has been my main priority here and i believe i was right to do so, considering if the OP had been hit in the pocket it may have come back to haunt the forum itself as well! Yes i may have broken forum rules too, but i believe my actions were reasonable considering the way the thread was going and that i only had the best interest of the OP and the forum as a whole at heart. If others disagree with me in regards to the consequences of loxxie taking legal action, then that's their choice, but they could at least explain why they disagree, why they think i am wrong in that respect or at best explain why they didn't spot the potential yet obvious risk loxxie would have faced if it had gone all the way to court/tribunal!

I didn't want this argument that this thread turned into nor did i start it, i offered to end it by offering my hand and to simply agree to disagree, and by other means, but others chose to carrying it on. Which is disappointing as it says a lot, at least to me, as to how much this forum has changed since i first joined and as to the people on it have changed also. So yeah i am concerned for where the forum is going as a whole and i know am not the only one here that shares such concerns. But thats all i will say about that here!

So unless loxxie comes back, then as far as i am concerned i am done here and i was right to protect loxxie from any consequences that she may well have faced if she had followed others advice and gone down the legal route!

And yes Leclerc i know this post is long winded and a lot of it is not in response to your post. But i felt that it had to be said, not to you par se but to anyone reading it.

[gravytrain]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

http://www.dwf.co.uk/news/legal-upda...-in-july-2013/

"There was no fixed date for its implementation, with the announcement suggesting "summer" of 2013. But now we are a step closer to knowing when it will take effect; the Ministry of Justice's recent announcement regarding its "digital strategy" for courts and tribunals, says that Employment Tribunal fees will be introduced in July this year"

???

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Then as promised i hold my hands up and except i was wrong in regards to the fees.

But as i said, its not really relevant in regards to the main issues the OP faced.

Anyway as i said earlier, unless loxxie comes back, then i am done here.

[leclerc]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Yes there was a document stating summer 2013, but April is official part of British summertime
This thread kept going off topic because you are picking and you are dancing around the edges of the thread. April is in Spring. The official government document said SUMMER 2013, there was not summerTIME 2013. This will get you into trouble in other threads if you continue to do this and waste your time, my time and others time. British summertime is also called Daylight Saving Time. In fact, we would be in a silly time when any government department using the woolly terms of something to commence in British Summmertime. They did not and there is a post above where I clarify the seasons of the year for the avoidance of doubt. The changes are happening in Summer 2013. April is not in summer and if it was then we've just had snow in summer

My issue was that no one had provided an actual date, recently given, that would have thrown what many reputable law firms (who may have been informed of the date being April 2013, or may not have) in to doubt. All everyone was stating was summertime 2013 based of the report on the consultation i therefore assumed the law firms stating april knew something we didn't which is not an unreasonable assumption to make. I made it clear that if anyone could provide any evidence that confirmed an alternative date to april, and not just reference summertime stated in the consultation, which starts on last weekend in march and ends last weekend in October, then i would hold my hands up and accept i got it wrong
Do you ever click on links on the BBC website? The article you provided had a link and gave the Government response to the consultation on what they were doing. It's yet another thing I highlighted to you plus provided a number of law firms which had articles on this topic(and by the time the links were up I was in the height of sarcasm because it felt like I was banging my head against a brick wall and next time please name the firms cos then at least then we might be able say, "you're absolutely right!" or we can provide links to ones that contradicted that. I myself provided you with ample evidence.

But at the moment i can only go by what has been stated by reputable law firms whom may even just be basing what they stated on the same information (summertime 2013) you linked too on the basis that April is officially the first month of British summertime, which if that is the case, then they should not be openly stating a specific month if they do not actually know the actual month or date - Though it does make more sense to bring the fees in this month with it being the first month of the financial year then it does to bring them in at a later month. So i admit i may be wrong and am not afraid to admit if i wrong
You are still dancing around the thread so please re read my own posts. I do realise that Graveytrain subsequent to this has provided you with a quote which clearly states Summer 2013. I did on about 3 or 4 threads with links to the information even to the point that one of them was unbeknownst to me already in your own article. Do you understand why it is so annoying to have to bang your head against a wall because you provide links which any person may read and you continued and did to a point dance around terminology so that you do not get one thing inaccurate. If you had done a simple google search or even searched in those firms that you class as reputable then we might have spent less time banging our head.

As for the date being in July that Eloise pointed out, well as eloise has not provided a link that i know off, and all i can find reference fees and july being nothing but the introduction of the MOJ/Tribunal service online payment system, then the month of July is still only speculation based on introduction of online payment systems - Nothing stopping them taking payments over the phone or by other means though in the mean time. At the moment the only way we will know for certain if the fees are introduced in April or not, would be if we get to the end of this month and they are still not introduced, or if an official announcement confirming the actual date is made. Or perhaps if eloise can provide a link to the information she has that stated it to be july.
You and Eloise were both bouncing of each other and so I thought that I would stick my nose in and find out which person was accurate. I think I have stated that technically there is a truth to what both of you said. The initial announcement in 2011 of what they were due to start was that it would have commenced in April(not spring) 2013. Once they had consulted and had responses then that date in the final document changed to 2013. If you want Eloise to have posted it up despite me already having done so then so be it. Next time you bang heads over dates, I'll PM her the links to the information.
I accept that the fees may not be introduced in April, but at the time that was the only actual date i had to go off. And to be honest it doesn't really matter much to Loxxie if the fees were not yet introduced, as taking any legal action could have easily cost her a lot more than what she would have been awarded even if she had won, if the company made a successful counter claim or argument which they could have easily done so
Dates are important if it appears that someone is suggesting that the credibility of a poster giving advice based on the issue that they do not know what they are talking about.
Yes i know people do go away and come back later to the forum, but in this case the last i heard from loxxie was she was trying to get a scanned copy of her contract that was readable and would have been posted on here. So, yes she may still be trying to do that and may come back when its done, but given she doesn't herself want to take legal action then she may just as likely decided to cut her losses and move on, rather than risk the employer claiming back what they have already paid her that she wasn't legally entitled to
I'm not sure whether the thread was going there. The threat of legal action considering that the firm was pussyfooting about might have lead to them settling the issue once and for all. But even if it had not then it might have come to a conclusion.

Its all very well arguing other minor things such as fees, which i may have been wrong about. But the main issue here is the potential consequences that Loxxie would face if she had chosen to issue a letter before action and subsequently gone down the legal route, which i certainly am not wrong about. Hell maybe the employer would have started claiming back the overpayment of wages purely in response to a letter before action - So all arguments aside, my main concern here was surprisingly not even spotted by others which gives me real concern as to consquences Loxxie would have faced if she had follwed such advice being given to her. So the whole argument itself if completely irrelevant with the exemption in regards to the disagreement of whether to send a letter before action or not. As i truly believe, should such letter before action not get the desired response, that Loxxie would have been advised to proceed to court/tribunal and face being hit hard in the pocket, even if she won her claim, because all the days she was paid for when she was at college outnumber the days in which she is claiming for accrued holiday, by a wide margin. And no one can dispute that! I tried to point this obvious fact out to others, without giving the actual game away but no one spotted it except myself
teaboy2 we never knew what the reaction to the LBA would have done to the company. Just because you say you will take legal action does not in itself constitute that you will finish off and take legal action. That discussion was never had except the only thing you said was right another letter before going to LBA. So the next question then really is and maybe this is a point in which we are moving the discussion onwards. What was the point of a third letter when we had two letters in which the company contradicted themselves? What if Loxxie has sent a third letter and they had simply stated that their previous letter was the last discussion that they would have on the matter? For speculation sake more than anything else. If that letter produced exactly the same response what is the next step with the advice? maybe that would be a starting point to come back to me on ie hypothetically(and yes I know we are trying not to go too far in that realm but if Loxxie has sent one final letter then let's explore it). Is the advice after that to give up? What would be their next plan of action after the third letter failed to produce the desired outcome?
So am sorry if people think i was in the wrong, but end of the day they can think what they like of me as i simply do not care what others think of me (so long as they do not insult me), i was merely protecting the OP, which is and has been my main priority here and i believe i was right to do so, considering if the OP had been hit in the pocket it may have come back to haunt the forum itself as well! Yes i may have broken forum rules too, but i believe my actions were reasonable considering the way the thread was going and that i only had the best interest of the OP and the forum as a whole at heart. If others disagree with me in regards to the consequences of loxxie taking legal action, then that's their choice, but they could at least explain why they disagree, why they think i am wrong in that respect or at best explain why they didn't spot the potential yet obvious risk loxxie would have faced if it had gone all the way to court/tribunal!
Teaboy2, a letter before action does not mean you will take legal action but it can have the desired message to resolve the issue once and for all rather than the potential expense to the company of solicitors in a court case. No one on here said prepare the N1 form for completion and in fact I might ask Eloise to explain in simple terms herself what was the desired outcome of an LBA and would the advice next have been to go to court over this?
I didn't want this argument that this thread turned into nor did i start it, i offered to end it by offering my hand and to simply agree to disagree, and by other means, but others chose to carrying it on. Which is disappointing as it says a lot, at least to me, as to how much this forum has changed since i first joined and as to the people on it have changed also. So yeah i am concerned for where the forum is going as a whole and i know am not the only one here that shares such concerns. But thats all i will say about that here!
Teaboy2, I am a stickler for dates and for factual information but words are a powerful thing and the last thing you can start to do is to give advice without having the fullest picture and your first post on here did not seek information already on the thread and that is where it started.
So unless loxxie comes back, then as far as i am concerned i am done here and i was right to protect loxxie from any consequences that she may well have faced if she had followed others advice and gone down the legal route!

And yes Leclerc i know this post is long winded and a lot of it is not in response to your post. But i felt that it had to be said, not to you par se but to anyone reading it.

I have asked some things above from yourself and Eloise(I hope she will answer merely the question I have asked which is hypothetical). I want to say one thing though, Do you think that all of us on this forum are wanting to set up posters to fail and lose money? Do you think that none of us want to protect the OP apart from yourself? I'm sorry Teaboy2, but the post comes across as though you are calling all of us on here stupid and that we do not care for the OP. I am disappointed in that assertion or that somehow that none of us spotted things that would HELP the OP.

However, if you are happy with the hypothetical and I cannot come back to you and say you are wrong since it is a scenario we are merely viewing about the methods of achieving an outcome for the OP.

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Leclerc - I have already answered your point previously and won't be providing any further information because the additional details I have are not publically available yet. The point of my comments was that the assertion was that the fees were being introduced this month was not true, and the OP was wrongly advised on that. And that she had no right to make a claim to the tribunal because she hadn't worked there long enough, which was also untrue because jurisdiction for unpaid wages and holidays starts from day one and is not two years as stated (that only applies to standard unfair dismissal claims - jurisdictions for some forms of unfair dismissal and other claims are different). If Teaboy asserts that she was wonrgly paid money by her employer that was, like much else he says, not evident on the information given by the OP, but as I said previously, the tribunal system has no power to countersue, so that would have to be a seperate civil claim against the OP. However, if the OP knew that she owed the employer money that had been wrongly paid to her, and failed to mention that when asking for advice on how to claim payments she claimed were owed, then that would have been most misleading. Of course, she has not said this is the case.

[jon1965]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Teaboy

This may just be meaningless words but IMHO your reference to summertime as being summer is wrong. If this were the case we would only have summertime and GMT so no autumn or spring . I see things in official papers that refer to spring autumn and winter as well as summer.

I think the vast majority of people would agree that summer starts approx June 21 and if someone says summer 2013 they mean June-Sept ish

While I agree there seems to be no date fixed all you are quoting is reputable lawyers but then berating people for not providing links. Can I ask who these reputable lawyers are?

I am sure you only had the OPs best intentions at heart and I think the advice you gave was very good however we did not have the full details and you did bite when Eloise made a comment