I resigned without notice - now ex-employer has reinstated and monitors my email!!!

dmg24

neil277 wrote: »

In the eyes of the law you walked out of a job, its not if the company never paid you, it was your own choice you walked sorry but you dont have a leg to stand on

I don't agree with heinov's interpretation of this situation, but to be fair to him, 90% of your posts are nonsense.

DVardysShadow

neil277 wrote: »

In the eyes of the law you walked out of your job, its not if the company paid you or never paid you, you walked out of your job. Sorry you don't have a leg to stand on

I think you missed the bit about repudiatory breach of contract. You need to understand that point and address it before you can really say that heinov does not have a leg to stand on.

ceridwen

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I think you missed the bit about repudiatory breach of contract. You need to understand that point and address it before you can really say that heinov does not have a leg to stand on.

Agree - they started this - ie by not paying O.P. monies due to him.

O.P. - wouldnt it just be the quickest/easiest thing to do to just email all your contacts right away and say that you have now moved on and can be contacted on the following (and give your new email address).

Then - treat it as a separate matter about how to get the money this firm owes you out of them.

Very much the best way to go about this - to treat the two attempted "thefts" (not to put too fine a point upon it) as two separate issues and I would imagine the first one can be put right by the end of this week. You might have to take this firm to a small claims court or Employment Tribunal (as applicable) to get the second attempted "theft" (ie your missing payments) dealt with. Perhaps some sort of agreement with your ex-employer that you won't publicise what they did (ie as specifically letting anything go out in the media re this) - as long as they pay you monies due (but if they dont - then its that Court or Tribunal then....and expect to see it in the newspapers).

It would be odd if they attempted to counterclaim for breach of contract - when they were the ones that started to breach that contract (ie by not paying you monies due).

NB; See that you have also stated (on another thread) that the company is trying to take over your mobile phonenumber as well (ie it was your own phonenumber originally - before you put it under the company's Vodafone account). If it was your phone number in the first place - then its still YOUR phone number now. I presume you have contacted Vodafone direct to ask them to reinstate this number under your own contact details by now?

neil277

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I think you missed the bit about repudiatory breach of contract. You need to understand that point and address it before you can really say that heinov does not have a leg to stand on.

It could work the other way breach of contract on heinov side, the company would make claim against her, how many times have we all been used in this way, its the way this company does business also she was Director.

Ltd Company gets taken to court, they change their name, Heinov will never win, you never walk out of a job, Heinov should have sent a letter to the company giving 7 days to pay, if after 7 days they still did not pay, Heinov should have then issued court proceedings.

If Heinov decides action the company will have a list as long as their arm, stating she was always late, bad workmanship, rude, could not fit in with other members of the company, the list will go on, forget it and move on. Also being a director she needs to have her name taken off the register, Heinov cannot claim JSA, why walked out, second she is a director.

getmore4less

I don't think the director was a real one just a job title(need clarification).

We also have contradictory information.

In one post we get told they are not an emplyeee then in others refer to being an employee.

As a consultant/contractor/B2B whatever it would just be a non payment of invoices.

As an employee non payment of pay

these are very different as would the termination of the contracts.

Most likley the email system belonged to the buisiness so anything on there probably belongs to them.

dmg24

neil277 wrote: »

It could work the other way breach of contract on heinov side, the company would make claim against her, how many times have we all been used in this way, its the way this company does business also she was Director.

Ltd Company gets taken to court, they change their name, Heinov will never win, you never walk out of a job, Heinov should have sent a letter to the company giving 7 days to pay, if after 7 days they still did not pay, Heinov should have then issued court proceedings.

If Heinov decides action the company will have a list as long as their arm, stating she was always late, bad workmanship, rude, could not fit in with other members of the company, the list will go on, forget it and move on. Also being a director she needs to have her name taken off the register, Heinov cannot claim JSA, why walked out, second she is a director.

It gets worse ...

If a defendant changes their name with the intent of avoiding debts, the claimant can apply for the court to lift the veil of incorporation. Easily done, and something the courts are happy to enforce. Having said that, you are only surmising that they would take such action - if a company is very successful, they are not going to go to such extremes just to avoid a relatively small claim against them.

If an employer/ client tries to derogate the reputation of their worker, the burden of proof will be on the former to prove their allegations. In the absence of evidence, and with a (proven) history of not paying their staff on time, who do you think a judge/ panel will believe? Again, you are making massive assumptions that they would go down this route. Given that the great majority of employment related cases are resolved before they go to court, it is unlikely.

With regard to JSA, if a claimant is pursuing a claim for constructive dismissal, then unless the claim is completely spurious, the DM is unlikely to apply any sanction.

I could elaborate further, but what is the point when you ignore anyone who corrects your posts!

tyllwyd

In relation to finding out who the contacts belong to, does this case apply?
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2007/07/17/41509/ownership-of-contacts-lists-after-employment-has-ended.html

neil277

dmg24 wrote: »

It gets worse ...

If a defendant changes their name with the intent of avoiding debts, the claimant can apply for the court to lift the veil of incorporation. Easily done, and something the courts are happy to enforce. Having said that, you are only surmising that they would take such action - if a company is very successful, they are not going to go to such extremes just to avoid a relatively small claim against them.

If an employer/ client tries to derogate the reputation of their worker, the burden of proof will be on the former to prove their allegations. In the absence of evidence, and with a (proven) history of not paying their staff on time, who do you think a judge/ panel will believe? Again, you are making massive assumptions that they would go down this route. Given that the great majority of employment related cases are resolved before they go to court, it is unlikely.

With regard to JSA, if a claimant is pursuing a claim for constructive dismissal, then unless the claim is completely spurious, the DM is unlikely to apply any sanction.

I could elaborate further, but what is the point when you ignore anyone who corrects your posts!

Hi
You will find it hard to prosecute a company in the name of F BLOGS LTD when the Name is Now S Sugar LTD.
Heinov can try but will only be wasting her money also she will find it hard to get benefits because she walked, also why was she given the title of director? Heinov should have shares

you are making massive assumptions! sorry i am looking at life to find the best way to move forward for Heinov, you say who would the judge/ panel believe ??? what type of court do you want Heinov to go to. Courts cost money and its down to Heinov which method she wants to go. Solicitors cost money use this company GENERAL COUNSEL & REGISTERED OFFICE SERVICE (SAVE £60) http://www.spiegelutrera.co.uk/specialoffers/index.html

I would put it down to experiance and move on

dmg24

neil277 wrote: »

Hi
You will find it hard to prosecute a company in the name of F BLOGS LTD when the Name is Now S Sugar LTD.
Heinov can try but will only be wasting her money also she will find it hard to get benefits because she walked, also why was she given the title of director?

You haven't actually read my post, have you?

neil277

dmg24 wrote: »

You haven't actually read my post, have you?

Hi
I have read your post, i have always used ltd companies all the time i was working, i would spend 6 months paying my wife and my self and then ask the accountant to change the LTD Companies name via companies house, (why ir35)Website and all paper work destroyed by law, never had to pay credtors.

New company set up for a further six months once the six months were up, it was closed down and after 90 days it was gone for good.

The law you are talking about is not for the person in question and the company that i linked on the fourm will say the same.

This is the way this company does business that heinov worked for if i am not paid after a week i am off. When you go into business you must have a contract in place and if heinov, If she was a director she would have 1 share and the company would find it hard to close down.

Why keep digging when the best thing is to look for another job and move on