misleading job advert and interview invite

scheming_gypsy

Did they offer you the job? If they didn't are you any worse off than if the salary and job spec was as advertised?
Salary + job terms as per advert and not offered the job = £200 out of pocket.
Salary and job terms wrong = £200 out of pocket.

Denning.

marybelle01 wrote: »

I don't want anyone to get me wrong. If what the OP says is accurate, then the potential employer is morally wrong. But MORALLY isn't LEGALLY.

It costs money to make a legal claim of any sort now. That's the bottom line. I would be entirely happy to be assured the OP has a claim in law. I don't believe they have, and I have asked Denning, who says they have, to explain the basis of a claim several times now. "it's contract law" doesn't cut it. I am not paying the legal costs. Denning isn't paying the legal costs. I think the OP has a right to know, SINCE THEY WILL BE PAYING THE LEGAL COSTS, on what basis "contract law" actually applies.

I said they have, in theory. Ultimately and with all due respect it is not my job to teach you contract law. Yes I could start from the beginning and explain each step and reference it but I don't really care. People who know the area will fill in the gaps with their own understanding and will discuss the debatable points.

I think you are being a bit melodramatic over the fees. Small claims fees are fully set out, the OP will see them and be giving a figure before they even filed and can make the decision themselves.

If anyone takes legal advice from synonymous forum they deserve all they get. Don't take advice from anyone who won't put their name on it.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

Did they offer you the job? If they didn't are you any worse off than if the salary and job spec was as advertised?
Salary + job terms as per advert and not offered the job = £200 out of pocket.
Salary and job terms wrong = £200 out of pocket.

This is a good point, but then, if someone was expecting X and was told Y in the interview, it is not unreasonable to expect such information to affect the interview outcome. Giving a look of disappointment when they give you a lower figure than you were expecting doesn't bode well.

marybelle01

Denning. wrote: »

I said they have, in theory. Ultimately and with all due respect it is not my job to teach you contract law. Yes I could start from the beginning and explain each step and reference it but I don't really care. People who know the area will fill in the gaps with their own understanding and will discuss the debatable points.

(a) I did not ask you to teach me contract law. If I wanted to learn contract law I would go to law school. I asked you to justify with the relevant law a contested opinion which you asserted to be correct - that the OP could take legal action in a court on this matter.

(b) I am not sure how anyone could fill in the gaps with their knowledge - your advice is one huge gap because you haven't explained how you reached that conclusion; and you may not have noticed this but apart from the OP nobody else seems to think you are correct. All I am asking you for is an explanation of why you are correct and nobody else is.

(c) If you "really don't care" - why give advice at all? Why tell someone that they have a legal claim if you don't care?

Denning. wrote: »

I think you are being a bit melodramatic over the fees. Small claims fees are fully set out, the OP will see them and be giving a figure before they even filed and can make the decision themselves.

Yes they can. But isn't it the case that they will (a) still be paying those costs and (b) the other parties costs if they lose?

Denning. wrote: »

If anyone takes legal advice from synonymous forum they deserve all they get. Don't take advice from anyone who won't put their name on it.

People taking legal advice from an "anonymous" (I presume you did not mean synonymous?) forum deserve what they get? If you think that why are you giving "legal advice" on an anonymous forum? I certainly agree that nobody should depend on advice they get on a forum without checking it. But I don't think that people get "what they deserve" - that suggests a rather unfortunate attitude towards the advice one is giving, legal or not, and that it doesn't matter whether it is accurate or true.

fruitedeli

Denning obviously is no legal expert if he tries to use big words and can't tell the difference between synonymous and anonymous. No lawyer or law graduate makes this mistake. Calling himself 'Denning' implies he's a legal expert, like Lord Denning, but he's unable to detail any case law to support his laughable theory.

You refuse to 'teach' contract law because you have no idea what you're talking about. :rotfl:

fruitedeli

marybelle01 wrote: »

Yes they can. But isn't it the case that they will (a) still be paying those costs and (b) the other parties costs if they lose?

a) Beg for donations from good samaritans.
b) Uh... beg the other party to waive that up to £90 per day for time wasted attending court.

:A

Never a good idea to bring someone to a small claims court if it's your word against theirs.

anamenottaken

marybelle01 wrote: »

People taking legal advice from an "anonymous" (I presume you did not mean synonymous?) forum deserve what they get? If you think that why are you giving "legal advice" on an anonymous forum? I certainly agree that nobody should depend on advice they get on a forum without checking it. But I don't think that people get "what they deserve" - that suggests a rather unfortunate attitude towards the advice one is giving, legal or not, and that it doesn't matter whether it is accurate or true.

I think Denning. is trying to prove the point by providing a practical demonstration.

Denning.

marybelle01 wrote: »

(a) I did not ask you to teach me contract law. If I wanted to learn contract law I would go to law school. I asked you to justify with the relevant law a contested opinion which you asserted to be correct - that the OP could take legal action in a court on this matter.

(b) I am not sure how anyone could fill in the gaps with their knowledge - your advice is one huge gap because you haven't explained how you reached that conclusion; and you may not have noticed this but apart from the OP nobody else seems to think you are correct. All I am asking you for is an explanation of why you are correct and nobody else is.

(c) If you "really don't care" - why give advice at all? Why tell someone that they have a legal claim if you don't care?



Yes they can. But isn't it the case that they will (a) still be paying those costs and (b) the other parties costs if they lose?



People taking legal advice from an "anonymous" (I presume you did not mean synonymous?) forum deserve what they get? If you think that why are you giving "legal advice" on an anonymous forum? I certainly agree that nobody should depend on advice they get on a forum without checking it. But I don't think that people get "what they deserve" - that suggests a rather unfortunate attitude towards the advice one is giving, legal or not, and that it doesn't matter whether it is accurate or true.

I would tell someone an envelop fell out of their pocket, I wouldn't care if they picked it up.

I didn't say I was correct, I was talking in possibilities, that is how these discussions work, only one person can determine what is correct.

You will need to ask me in short succinct questions what you want me to provide.

We agree there is;
1) An offer of an interview for position X
2) Acceptance of an interview for position X
3) Consideration in the form of the OPs time.
4) ITCLR as it is a commercial setting and the presumption is strong and there isn't any evidence which would imply a rebuttal of this presumption.

If you accept the above, then it comes to misrep. Stating the job was for X when it was actually for Y is a misrepresentation.
1) Negligent misrep (s.2 MA 1967). HR gave the wrong particulars to what the hiring manager told them, the burden of proof is on the HR department to show they did what they could to confirm the details. As a simple phone call would have noticed the mistake they wouldn't have met this. Howard Marine v Ogden[1978]

2) Fraudulent misrep, the company intentionally lied in order to get better calibre of candidates than they would normally. This is far too much of a headache to bother with for £200 TBH.

jacques_chirac

Denning, please provide precedent to show that a job interview constitutes a contractual agreement.

I trust that is 'short and succinct' enough for you?

duchy

Oh for goodness sake........stop bickering !!

OP -Legally you probably don't have much of a chance without risking expense and as said above (amongst the posturing) your chances of winning in court aren't good.....however what you could do as it is a large and reputable company is to write to them-enclosing a copy of the advert and explain you accepted the invitation to interview on the basis it was a permanent and not a contract position as per the advert -and that you were told on the phone by their staff what the salary range was. At the interview you were informed it was not permanent and the salary range was lower. Explain you took a day's leave to attend and spent £50 on petrol to attend an interview you wouldn't have attended had you been given the correct job specifications so would like to request the company covers your travel expenses due to the misinformation given to you.

Worst they can say is no and if they are a reputable company may say yes.

jacques_chirac

duchy wrote: »

Oh for goodness sake........stop bickering !!

I don't see bickering, just repeated requests that Denning qualifies his stance