bad reference

lalalalalalala

no, there were only 6 people that worked in my unit under my line manager who gave the reference- there is no way that they have used the wrong file!

Sambucus_Nigra

lalalalalalala wrote: »

no, there were only 6 people that worked in my unit under my line manager who gave the reference- there is no way that they have used the wrong file!

But you haven't asked them, or spoken to them to check this.

Uncertain

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

But you haven't asked them, or spoken to them to check this.

I'm not sure why you keep labouring this point?

Right back in post three the OP's tells us that the HR department have told him/her in a email that they "will speak to the person that provided the reference". In a later post we are told that they are now ignoring emails and not even sending read receipts.

Having got to this stage it is far better to keep everything in writing. In any case the OP is seeing a lawyer today.

It seems to me virtually certain the firm will not now retract the reference without a serious threat of legal action. If they did they would immediately open themselves to a far simpler claim for damages for the OP's losses so far.

I hope I'm wrong but I fear it is unlikely the OP will get a solicitor to take this on as a no win no fee claim. I suspect the firm will tough this out knowing that this type of claim is expensive to bring and hard to prove.

There would still be no guarantee that the new firm would keep the OP on even if a glowing reference was forthcoming,. They are under no obligation to do so.

Sambucus_Nigra

Uncertain wrote: »

I'm not sure why you keep labouring this point?

Right back in post three the OP's tells us that the HR department have told him/her in a email that they "will speak to the person that provided the reference". In a later post we are told that they are now ignoring emails and not even sending read receipts.

Having got to this stage it is far better to keep everything in writing. In any case the OP is seeing a lawyer today.

It seems to me virtually certain the firm will not now retract the reference without a serious threat of legal action. If they did they would immediately open themselves to a far simpler claim for damages for the OP's losses so far.

I hope I'm wrong but I fear it is unlikely the OP will get a solicitor to take this on as a no win no fee claim. I suspect the firm will tough this out knowing that this type of claim is expensive to bring and hard to prove.

There would still be no guarantee that the new firm would keep the OP on even if a glowing reference was forthcoming,. They are under no obligation to do so.

Because I completely misunderstood the OP. I thought that once they had received the copy, they had had a conversation about it.

I asked if the reference was incorrect and they said yes
I then asked if they had checked that this was the right file, and they said yes.
I asked who they had been speaking to about it and they said HR
I asked what they said when the OP told them what the reference said and they said that the new employer had spoken to the manager, and the senior worker.
I asked if they had asked them to retract it and only then it comes to light that all the above was before the reference was received.


If it was me, I'd have spoken to the boss as soon as I got it, told them that the reference was incorrect on these points [and listed them] and asked them to retract it, issue the correct one as it seems they have used the wrong file. And I'd have said if they do that today [yesterday] I'd cancel my appointment with a lawyer that I had tomorrow [today] as it's cost me my job and the reference can be shown to be factually incorrect and based on information that was never brought to light and so I intended to take it further.

But whatever.

duchy

Who wrote the reference ? HR or your line manager ?
(and WHY don't they have a record of it?)


I get the impression it's someone who has a personal issue with you-To say someone is "not 100 percent trustworthy" then opens the question If not 100% then what ? 99.99% or 1%. Most HR departments know better. Also if it was an "unathorized" reference it would explain why they have no copy.

I think No win no fee is an acceptable route in an instance like this where money isn't the motivating factor but justice is.

marybelle01

duchy wrote: »

I think No win no fee is an acceptable route in an instance like this where money isn't the motivating factor but justice is.

Unfortunately no win no fee solictors are interested in the money and not in justice! Somebody pays their fees - they don't do it for free. So unless there is money to win, they won't be interested. One way or another there is a payment made and somebody makes it - usually the claimant.

JonathanStewart

The one thing that has struck me here is that this reference was obviously issued in malice.

To claim an employee is not 100% trustworthy is a disgraceful blanket claim to make without substantiating it - and anyway who is 100% trustworthy? No one.

OP you may well not win here in the courts but I think its clear your ex employer at at least some level is out to get you, and I wish you all the best in seeking whatever form of justice you can.

duchy

marybelle01 wrote: »

Unfortunately no win no fee solictors are interested in the money and not in justice! Somebody pays their fees - they don't do it for free. So unless there is money to win, they won't be interested. One way or another there is a payment made and somebody makes it - usually the claimant.

You misunderstood -my point was that paying a percentage in a case like this is of less concern than getting justice as the primary concern is to stop the ex-employer sending out references like this in the future and scuppering future jobs-far more important than money which is a concern but in the long run not as important as in some other types of cases.

JonathanStewart

One thing that may or may not have been mentioned here is that although a decent reference was given initially - what precipitated the secondary, damaging reference? Was it the new employer or the ex-employer?

edited to add: apologies in the original post it mentions a good reference to the interim employer - who are they?

RuthnJasper

JonathanStewart wrote: »

One thing that may or may not have been mentioned here is that although a decent reference was given initially - what precipitated the secondary, damaging reference? Was it the new employer or the ex-employer?

edited to add: apologies in the original post it mentions a good reference to the interim employer - who are they?

I am wondering similar things to JonathanS. Is there a chance that the bad reference could have been written by one individual with an axe to grind against the OP, so their "revenge" was to write to the new employers purporting to be someone else on behalf of the former company? That would certainly explain the inaccuracies and the fact that the former company has no record of the bad reference - the culprit would merely have written the letter, printed and sent it and then closed the document without saving it. It's an extremely evil thing to do, but possible.

Hope you get things sorted out OP. x