constant unfair treatment by boss

kazzah60

from Direct.gov



Why you need an MOT certificate


It is generally an offence to use on a public road, a vehicle of testable age that doesn’t have a current test certificate, except when:

• taking it to a test station for an MOT test booked in advance
• bringing it away from a test station after it has failed the MOT test, to a place of repair
• taking it to a place, by previous arrangement, where problems that caused the vehicle to fail its MOT test, can be repaired
• bringing it away from a place where the problems with the vehicle have been repaired

Even in the above circumstances you may still be prosecuted for driving an unroadworthy vehicle if it doesn’t comply with various regulations affecting its construction and use. Your car insurance may also be invalid.

kazzah60

Acc72 wrote: »

How many people do you know who have been had an accident with no MOT & Road Tax whose Insurance companies have not paid up ?

two - my Godson and a former boyfriend( although that was some years ago)

dacouch

kazzah60 wrote: »

two - my Godson and a former boyfriend( although that was some years ago)

Your relative's claims would have been paid if they had appealed to the Ombudsman.

"13. roadworthiness

Most motor policies contain an express requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. If so, where there is good evidence that the loss or damage was caused (or substantially contributed to) because the vehicle was unroadworthy, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to reject the claim.

In other cases, the insurer might reduce the payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. If so, where there is good evidence that the vehicle would have failed an MOT test, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to take this into account in assessing its value."

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

kazzah60

Thanks for clarifying that - of coiurse what everyone has failed to pick up on in the Original post is that the OP states;


as delivery driver i have had to drive his vehicle with1- no tax..2-no mot for two months last year...3-driven the car with windscreen wipers which do not work...4-constantly begged him to get the brakes done, which garage recommended 4 months ago!...5-been immediatly taken off the road by a spur of the moment safety check whilst deliverin to the garage we use for maintance...

As far as I remember ( and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong)
non-working windscreen wipers renders a vehicle unroadworthy

and a recommendation by the employers OWN maintenance garage that the brakes need attention might possibly also constitute a vehicle being un-roadworthy

I now await being shot down in flames again, with nothing to do with the original posters question

dacouch

kazzah60 wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying that - of coiurse what everyone has failed to pick up on in the Original post is that the OP states;


as delivery driver i have had to drive his vehicle with1- no tax..2-no mot for two months last year...3-driven the car with windscreen wipers which do not work...4-constantly begged him to get the brakes done, which garage recommended 4 months ago!...5-been immediatly taken off the road by a spur of the moment safety check whilst deliverin to the garage we use for maintance...

As far as I remember ( and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong)
non-working windscreen wipers renders a vehicle unroadworthy

and a recommendation by the employers OWN maintenance garage that the brakes need attention might possibly also constitute a vehicle being un-roadworthy

I now await being shot down in flames again, with nothing to do with the original posters question

If you read the link I provided, the Insurer can only decline a claim if the car is "Unroadworthy" AND the unroadworthyness caused or substantially caused the claim.

Unless the non working windscreen wiper caused or substantially caused the accident which be unusual, then the Insurers would have to pay the claim

His another link which basically means the same as the Ombudsman is saying.

"A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except
where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:
8.1.2
(1) non-disclosure of a fact material to the risk which the
policyholder could not reasonably be expected to have disclosed;
or
(2) non-negligent misrepresentation of a fact material to the risk;
or
(3) breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the
claim are connected to the breach and unless (for a pure
protection contract):

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releases/rel73/rel73icobs.pdf

corbyboy

kazzah60 wrote: »

oh ok I concede complete and utter defeat

- pardon me for being shocked and disgusted that a poster would come onto the forum and moan about the dreadful treatment her boss is giving her and admit that she drove a car with no road tax and no mot for two months because her boss asked her to, whilst enquiring about her rights as an employee.

I find it very wearing these days that a lot of people constantly post/moan about their rights being abused, but don't seem to have any consideration for their responsibilities as human being or member of society.

The OP posted that she constantly begged him to have the brakes repaired on the vehicle - what if there HAD been an accident as a result of his neglect and she had been killed?
who would care for her son then?

forgive me for worrying about the ethics of the situation and getting the legalities so wrong - perhaps I should change into the sort of person who doesn't worry about their car being legal on the road
because it seems that apart from a fine and some penalty points and possibly losiing my licence, there would be no financial loss insurance wise - but then again, it's not a risk I would be willing to take.

If somebody knowingly took out a vehicle with defective brakes and those brakes contributed to an accident then the driver would have to bear responsibility for the accident in terms of insurance liability and possibly even criminal responsibility.

What you are saying is right, but the MOT status of the vehicle is irrelevant.

betho2

firatly may i thank the few of you who actually offered some valuable advice through this post, much appreciated....this post was never ever intended to become a battle of who has the moral high ground, tho there are the obvious that clearly are shouting such from the rooftops in an all that i can imagine, extremely , shrill and downright irritating wale of a noise!.....anyway enough time spent on the same repetitive moral queens speach, thanks again to those with something to say

Oh and Yes I am very much employed in this workplace...i completed a 2 month voluntary employment placement without pay which resulted in me being taken on as part time staff 16 hrs per week.... on the minimum wage. And I do stand up to this man, This is exactly the reason we clash, everyome else in the shop just sighs and mutters under their nreath, but when he is insinuating something which is entirely untrue or simply childish playground teasing which leads to public humiliation infront of paying customers...who have often been heard makin theor own comments about how rude he is to the staff. I cannot BAre to just let him make such comments so rudely and so directly...the man is rude, obnocious and downright blackmailing in his approach to staff hours. its not not standin up to him whats the problem its the fact that ill not let him believe, or assume or insinuate untruths said in jest, tease or as it normally is, a totally straight face, with a monotone vvoice........thanks for all the comments though, altho a couple left a foul after taste for me, but hey the worlds full of em!! @)

kazzah60

well then my original response to your question stand
unfortunately this man can dismiss you for any reason other than sexual discrimination or racial discrimination and you have no rights of redress whatsoever

however your last post gives us much more of an insight into proceedings than your first one did - in your first post you implied that this behaviour was one sided( from him)
yet here you freely admit that you "clash"

perhaps if you don't respond to his comments and behaviour then he will eventually get bored with trying to antagonise you and leave you alone

or alternatively you could look for a better workplace

betho2

thanks all...tho i must express my disappoint of the flare for causin disagreement here on these forums, this was my first post ever and i even admit at the start that please excusse me if i ramble but there has been so many examples that i didnt know where to begin, it seems these forums and some of its users can b quite cuttin with their remarks and sometimes infuriating, but my main point i want to make is, at no point whatsoever did i say i knowingly drove the said work car without mot, and as i said i had been told the tax had been done online and that it was legal, which if u put urselves in my position you;ll understand that as i am not the legal owner of the car and do not posses documents i have to place a certain amount of trust into my employer, i only discovered about the mot when i had been told to go to the garage to have it done asap as they admitted the online tax had not been completed n therefore they couldnt get the tax until the mot had been done, prior to this i had no idea whatsoever of any reasons to question the legality of the car. yes they had admitted lying to me which is why i have begun searchin everynight into my rights as the employee of such unscrupulous employer, but in response to certain comments which have been posted here, either towards myself or in arguement , antagonising, or just plain arguementive forms towards other people who had originally read and posted here as way to offer advice, its been a very disappointing experience...to everyone else....Thanks :-)

kazzah60

I would like to post a grovelling apology to Betho2

had I realised that my original post "wasn't put nicely" ( according to MSE Andrea) I would of course never have posted or contributed to this thread

please forgive me that I didn't immediately sympathise with your dreadful plight, and tell you that you had lots of rights under employment law ( even if you don't- sadly) forgive me that I was shocked that you claimed to have been driving a company vehicle illegally for two months -

unfortunately my psychic powers let me down - I was unable to channel your inner voice which would have told me that when you said you had driven it - you actually meant you refused to drive it.

so I apologise unreservedly that of all the horrible/rude/illiterate/ offensive posts I have encountered on this site- that MSE felt the need to respond to mine

because I didn't put my point nicely enough

I am sorry