IanA2
MB Enthusiast
But employee blows the whistle
Whistleblowing garage mechanic wins £46k compensation | Daily Mail Online
Whistleblowing garage mechanic wins £46k compensation | Daily Mail Online
Garage overcharging....
- Thread starter IanA2
- Start date
-
- Tags
- garage overcharging
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
IanA2
MB Enthusiast
IANAL, but I would have thought they'd be pushing at an open door.....
Giantvanman
MB Enthusiast
Please forgive my ignorance; assuming IANAL is not a statement of intent or desire, what does it stand for?
IanA2
MB Enthusiast
grober
MB Master
IanA2
MB Enthusiast
Possibly, but I imagine there are a few pi**ed off owners who think they've been overcharged. All they would need is corroboration from the ex-employee that there was an £x overcharge......I think
davidjpowell
MB Enthusiast
He'll never see the £46K....
I smell a phoenix....
I smell a phoenix....
IanA2
MB Enthusiast
Could well be, not sure what if any, the courts have when "phoenixing" is done to sidestep their directions.
VOLKSLINE LIMITED. Free business summary taken from official Companies House information. Free Alerts. Registered as 04282165
wongl
MB Enthusiast
It just goes to show that employment tribunals are to be avoided at all costs if you are an employer. I know that an ex-employer I worked for would always ask 'sacked' employees to sign a non-compromise agreement, and paying them handsomely to do so to prevent any come back after they leave the company.
Charles Morgan
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,206
- Car
- Mercedes 250CE W114, Alfa Romeo GT Coupe 3.2 V6
The account figures really don't add up (No aspersion on firm - it may simply be how the website reports it).
Assets of £14k, liabilities of £110k but a net worth of £6K?
Creditors owed money by a court judgement* have no greater standing than others. I very much doubt a pre-pack would trouble anyone in those circs.
* not an exception as such but a recent divorce settlement allowed the wife to enforce possession of properties held within a company, a rare example of breaching the corporate veil.
Assets of £14k, liabilities of £110k but a net worth of £6K?
Creditors owed money by a court judgement* have no greater standing than others. I very much doubt a pre-pack would trouble anyone in those circs.
* not an exception as such but a recent divorce settlement allowed the wife to enforce possession of properties held within a company, a rare example of breaching the corporate veil.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 45,522
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
Employee has a row with his employers.
Employee gets sacked.
Employee takes employers to tribunal saying he was treated unfairly.
Tribunal rules in favour of the employee.
Did the employee lie? Or perhaps mistaken? Or maybe he was telling the truth.
We don't know.
I wouldn't pass judgment on the garage owners in respect of them being dishonest towards their customers. All we know for fact is that the tribunal ruled that they mistreated an employee.
And as wongl said... if they had any business sense, they would have settled out of court.
Employee gets sacked.
Employee takes employers to tribunal saying he was treated unfairly.
Tribunal rules in favour of the employee.
Did the employee lie? Or perhaps mistaken? Or maybe he was telling the truth.
We don't know.
I wouldn't pass judgment on the garage owners in respect of them being dishonest towards their customers. All we know for fact is that the tribunal ruled that they mistreated an employee.
And as wongl said... if they had any business sense, they would have settled out of court.
Last edited:
IanA2
MB Enthusiast
That's one way of looking at it, but ET's tend to be in favour of the employer. Successful actions using PIDA are few and far between. That why, for the heath sector at least, Sir Robert Francis is undertaking his review.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 45,522
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
There's no issue from my point of view in saying that the employers were in the wrong (as the tribunal ruled).
The obvious point I was trying to make is that even if the employers were in the wrong, it is only in relation to the way they treated (or mistreated, rather) their employee, but not in relation to the way they treated their customers.
The employee's allegation of dishonesty towards customers may have been correct or unfounded, we do not know (as per the footnote mention in the DM article).
