Do Citizen's advice give detailed advice?

SarEl

southerly wrote: »

Now that is something that I wouldn't have thought of.

I agree with your points about not trusting advice, as the one person that knows most about my case and has the greatest motivation is me! I have just ordered an up to date book on tribunals, as the numerous library ones I have been reading are mostly about 10 years old!

I am hoping my case is not too complicated. I was made redundant and during my notice period another job became available. I applied for and did not get it. Afterwards read in the company redundancy policy that they should first shortlist and interview any applicants under consultation or notice period for redundancy. If any of them could do the job with 'reasonable support and training' they have to offer them the job (I was the only applicant being made redundant). Only if no-one is suitable should they then shortlist other applicants. This was not done, they shortlisted and interviewed everybody on the same day. I was told I came 3rd so I don't think they can try and claim that I could not do the job, it is a pretty basic job and a grade lower than my role that was made redundant. (I just wanted to stay in the pension scheme and the holiday entitlement was good!)

There is some other issues I will throw in about the consultation not being meaningful and there were errors in their letter refusing my appeal, but I believe (from what I have read so far in the out of date library books) that by not offering me the alternative job means the dismissal is unfair especially as they did not follow their own policy.
According to their website they employ 'over 7,000' across different offices, I believe that is also a factor that is considered in how easy they should have found it to offer alternative work.

On the face of it I would agree with you, and although I cannot disgaree with concerned43 about legal help being a better position, if you apply yourself then you can certainly do this sort of case yourself. You have a very clear argument in the misapplication of the policy and the size of the employer suggests that they have the resources to know what they are doing and should have applied their own policy. Menaingful consultation is a weak point (in the eye of the beholder, and all that), but fine as an "extra", as are errors (pretty pointless in themselves, but useful as an "extra"). Concentrating on the first two point are the crux of your case. This isn't all that complex - they have a policy, they didn't apply it, they should have. Obviously you don't know what an employer is going to come back with, but don't let that shift your focus too far from the essential argument you are putting, and you can't go too far wrong. It doesn't mean that you would win, but neither does having a lawyer mean you will win. But what have you got to loose?

Assuming it goes to tribunal - they may settle and if they do, it is all money in your pocket and not someone elses.