We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
breach of compromise agreement by employer.
Comments
-
Compensation for what? THEY are not responsible for the words of an ex-employee.
As you say in your previous post, they are assuring you that they will continue to behave above board. If an ex-employee with a vendetta against you continues, they are still no more liable than they were before.
You've been given some *really* sound advice in this thread (bar a few silly replies which insisted you have rights when you don't). The best advice, without doubt, was see a specialist solicitor. Your pursuit of compensation in the light of what you have said seems rash un-thought through. It appears that you are now so blinded by what you *believe* is right that you can't see that the law only cares about what has actually happened.
KiKi
look ive told you the ex employee would not have been taken seriously had the ex employer not corroborated his claims
he would most likely have been dismissed as a raving lunatic with a vendetta with nothing to back him up except his own vitriol.
how many more times do i have to say the same thing!0 -
No they wouldn't!
Any payment (and don't count your chickens) will be made without admission of liability and will have no effect whatsoever on any future situation.
I will also be dumbfounded if they actually write you a letter agreeing to lie in response to a reference request. To agree to say noting or to issue an agreed statement that is truthful (even if economical with the truth) is one thing and they may well do that. To lie on you behalf, which is what you seem to think they are about to agree to do, opens them up to possible claims from any future employer who finds out the truth.
so
they are writing a letter confirming that their interpretation of the agreement has always been that they must not give out anything other than the agreed reference
and they (may very well) give me some money as compensation
and you are saying to me they havent in effect admitted liability for this?
i think its you who is living in dreamland if you think this not to be the case!0 -
look ive told you the ex employee would not have been taken seriously had the ex employer not corroborated his claims
how many more times do i have to say the same thing!
But the ex-employee was right and you BLATENTLY LIED in response to a direct question!!Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.
:A Tim Minchin :A
0 -
I have had a similar but more harrowing experience and went to Nexus Solicitors who were AMAZING! Ask for Jessica and said that you were recommended by a recent client based in Wakefield!0
-
mildred1978 wrote: »But the ex-employee was right and you BLATENTLY LIED in response to a direct question!!
But none of that would have happened had the ex employer followed the CA to the letter.
tell me then what would have happened had the ex employer not corroborated everything the ex employee said??? (in direct breach of contract, according to their own interpretation of the agreement!)
it is not about 'truth' or 'lies;' its about knowledge coming into the public domain which should not have been the case.
the ex employees email was very vague and said ' milkshock has a shady past, phone up hr and they will tell you all about him, he left via a CA after various issues'
hr's correct response should have been - we dont know who he is and cannot comment on his statements or vouch for their accuracy in any way.
my comments would have been taken at their word, in the absence of anything else formal - and taking into account they had already received a very good refrence from ex employer anyway!0 -
look ive told you the ex employee would not have been taken seriously had the ex employer not corroborated his claims
he would most likely have been dismissed as a raving lunatic with a vendetta with nothing to back him up except his own vitriol.
how many more times do i have to say the same thing!
Sorry but that is rubbish. If the ex employer had responded to your potential employer saying "no comment" about the ex employee's claims, the potential employer would have assumed they were true!!!
I am very sorry to say this, but your attitude on here is starting to make me realise why you are in the situation you are in
DMP Mutual Support Thread member 244
Quit smoking 13/05/2013
Joined Slimming World 02/12/13. Loss so far = 60lb in 28 weeks :j 18lb to go
0 -
look ive told you the ex employee would not have been taken seriously had the ex employer not corroborated his claims
he would most likely have been dismissed as a raving lunatic with a vendetta with nothing to back him up except his own vitriol.
how many more times do i have to say the same thing!
I get it. I do.
But at the time it happened, you did *not* have a CA which prevented them from saying anything in addition to the reference they provided.
They writing a letter now will not be retrospective. And no matter HOW nice they seem to be playing right now, you can bet your life that if you took them to court the lawyers will NOT play nice and you could end up in the mess, with all the evidence now public.
KiKi' <-- See that? It's called an apostrophe. It does not mean "hey, look out, here comes an S".0 -
But none of that would have happened had the ex employer followed the CA to the letter.
tell me then what would have happened had the ex employer not corroborated everything the ex employee said??? (in direct breach of contract, according to their own interpretation of the agreement!)
it is not about 'truth' or 'lies;' its about knowledge coming into the public domain which should not have been the case.
the ex employees email was very vague and said ' milkshock has a shady past, phone up hr and they will tell you all about him, he left via a CA after various issues'
hr's correct response should have been - we dont know who he is and cannot comment on his statements or vouch for their accuracy in any way.
Except that as drafted the CA didn't actually prevent them from telling anything once the agreed reference had been provided. It's luck rather than judgement that they are *apparently* agreeing with what you want now! They could easily stick to the black and White of the contract you signed and there would be nothing you could do about it.
Anyway, if your solicitor is doing such a brilliant job for you, why do you need this thread?Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.
:A Tim Minchin :A
0 -
skintandscared wrote: »Sorry but that is rubbish. If the ex employer had responded to your potential employer saying "no comment" about the ex employee's claims, the potential employer would have assumed they were true!!!
I am very sorry to say this, but your attitude on here is starting to make me realise why you are in the situation you are in
i have a letter from new employer the night before my meeting with them saying look we have this email and it doesnt look serious at all to me but we need to speak to you about it anyway
so there it is on record the ex employees comments were seen as a wind up but they needed to check anyway..
you cannot say with any degree of certainty at all that they would have 'assumed they were true'. its a total joke.0 -
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards