Victimisation or not victimisation

[heisenberg]

Dear all,

Firstly, if mariefab and openlaw are out there, you were right - my particulars of claim did need some tidying up. I am finding myself a bit up the creek at the moment so to speak.

I have another victimisation enquiry:

As some of you are aware, I served a letter before action on a small organisation in regards to various Equality Act 2010 claims. They disregarded the letter and seemingly treated it with contempt.

Does this act amount to victimisation albeit not in the classic sense? The detriment I would have suffered would be not to have my concerns thoroughly investigated and my fundamental right to dispute resolution denied.

To use a similar example, if an employee raises a grievance with his employer in regards to acts of harassment and the employer just ignores the grievance surely that is an act of victimisation?

I understand though that a party can argue that it should not be liable for victimisation when it can demonstrate it reasonably defended itself. There seems to be a 'honest and reasonable action' defence (see St Helen’s Borough Council v Derbyshire [2007] UKHL 16)

Any input sincerely appreciated.

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Not a sausage.

[charitynjw]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Hi heisenberg

You certainly do find yourself in a few pickles, lol!

Imho, it is entirely their prerogative whether to respond to an LBA or not.

It would notify possible intent & once issued, it would be up to you to escalate matters if you so desire

[Kati]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

:bump: for [MENTION=26290]mariefab[/MENTION] and [MENTION=77627]Openlaw15[/MENTION] xx

[Openlaw15]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Dear all,

Firstly, if mariefab and openlaw are out there, you were right - my particulars of claim did need some tidying up. I am finding myself a bit up the creek at the moment so to speak.

I have another victimisation enquiry:

As some of you are aware, I served a letter before action on a small organisation in regards to various Equality Act 2010 claims. They disregarded the letter and seemingly treated it with contempt.

Does this act amount to victimisation albeit not in the classic sense? The detriment I would have suffered would be not to have my concerns thoroughly investigated and my fundamental right to dispute resolution denied.

To use a similar example, if an employee raises a grievance with his employer in regards to acts of harassment and the employer just ignores the grievance surely that is an act of victimisation?

I understand though that a party can argue that it should not be liable for victimisation when it can demonstrate it reasonably defended itself. There seems to be a 'honest and reasonable action' defence (see St Helen’s Borough Council v Derbyshire [2007] UKHL 16)

Any input sincerely appreciated.

Victimisation usually means suffering some type of detriment, say by an employer against an employee. As charity says you do have an affinity to find yourself in a legal quagmire, hmm. I would say that not answering a LBA is not in itself a detriment, notwithstanding this, the law is substantive not trivial in that equality law serves to protect the disabled but not in itself to give licence to disabled people to manipulate equality law to benefit them who may only have trivial claims at best.

[Guest]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

I have just received a letter of claim although for a debt. It clearly says if I don't answer they will issue a claim. Isn't it the same thing with your LBA, they didn't answer therefore you issue a claim.

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Victimisation usually means suffering some type of detriment, say by an employer against an employee. As charity says you do have an affinity to find yourself in a legal quagmire, hmm. I would say that not answering a LBA is not in itself a detriment, notwithstanding this, the law is substantive not trivial in that equality law serves to protect the disabled but not in itself to give licence to disabled people to manipulate equality law to benefit them who may only have trivial claims at best.

‘Detriment’ is not defined in the Act but is a concept which has existed in discrimination law and whistle-blowing for some time. The term ‘detriment’ is thought to cover a very wide range of acts from seemingly trivial ones, to far more serious egregious matters.

In the Explanatory Notes (See paragraph 117 of the Explanatory Notes introduced in the House of Commons on 19 November 2009 [Bill 5]), at paragraph 100, it states: “..victimisation takes place where one person treats another badly because he or she in good faith has done a“protected act”…”

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Could an employer then argue that not hearing an employee's grievance relating to an alleged act of discrimination is not an act of victimisation as the act of not allowing the person to have a grievance heard is a trivial one? I would beg to differ.

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

I have just received a letter of claim although for a debt. It clearly says if I don't answer they will issue a claim. Isn't it the same thing with your LBA, they didn't answer therefore you issue a claim.

I think that may be oversimplifying things. If you respond they could still issue a claim.

[wales01man]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Is this possibly leading to another case like the others you have ongoing?

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Hi heisenberg

You certainly do find yourself in a few pickles, lol!

Imho, it is entirely their prerogative whether to respond to an LBA or not.

It would notify possible intent & once issued, it would be up to you to escalate matters if you so desire

Nothing in life is simple. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

- - - Updated - - -

Is this possibly leading to another case like the others you have ongoing?

Hi wales01man,

Nope, this relates to the same case. I think I need to tidy up my Particulars of Claim.

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Victimisation usually means suffering some type of detriment, say by an employer against an employee. As charity says you do have an affinity to find yourself in a legal quagmire, hmm. I would say that not answering a LBA is not in itself a detriment, notwithstanding this, the law is substantive not trivial in that equality law serves to protect the disabled but not in itself to give licence to disabled people to manipulate equality law to benefit them who may only have trivial claims at best.

Why are you suggesting this is trivial by the way? I think a complete non-compliance with a Practice Direction is not a trivial matter in the eyes of the Court. The pre-action protocol exists to enable the parties to resolve the issues without having to resort to costly, stressful and time-consuming litigation whilst lightening the workload of the County Courts.

[charitynjw]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Why are you suggesting this is trivial by the way? I think a complete non-compliance with a Practice Direction is not a trivial matter in the eyes of the Court. The pre-action protocol exists to enable the parties to resolve the issues without having to resort to costly, stressful and time-consuming litigation whilst lightening the workload of the County Courts.

IMHO

A PAP is meant, amongst other things, to narrow the facts, & to encourage a settling of contentious issues without resorting to litigation.
This forms part of the Overriding Objective.
It shouldn't be used as a manipulative tool, but failure to engage in the process could be brought to the attention of the court to show a party's unreasonable behaviour.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Why are you suggesting this is trivial by the way? I think a complete non-compliance with a Practice Direction is not a trivial matter in the eyes of the Court. The pre-action protocol exists to enable the parties to resolve the issues without having to resort to costly, stressful and time-consuming litigation whilst lightening the workload of the County Courts.

It is point in procedure not a point in law is what you're failing to understand. A point in law is legal point ie a section or provision. The fact the party has not followed the pre-action protocols fairly is something you should raise with the court, but the party omitting to do this in my view is not of itself a detriment by way of a point of law reliant on or pursuant to the Equality Act. If you try this, it's likely you'll be viewed as vexatious litigant. You cannot win every war but you may win some battles.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

‘Detriment’ is not defined in the Act but is a concept which has existed in discrimination law and whistle-blowing for some time. The term ‘detriment’ is thought to cover a very wide range of acts from seemingly trivial ones, to far more serious egregious matters.

In the Explanatory Notes (See paragraph 117 of the Explanatory Notes introduced in the House of Commons on 19 November 2009 [Bill 5]), at paragraph 100, it states: “..victimisation takes place where one person treats another badly because he or she in good faith has done a“protected act”…”

Protected act means like report an employer for breaking health and safety law, taking an employer to tribunal for discrimination, whistle-blowing etc.