Removed...

Hannah2210

Removed...

When_the_going_gets_tough

Is your mother in a Union - they might be interested in taking the case on? Or you could engage your own solicitor or seek help from an advice agency and pursue the case yourselves?

Southend1

You may well find that the option of union representation is not available because you already engaged representation independent of the union.

Your union should always be the first port of call, not the last.

But it's definitely a good idea to check.

Hannah2210

Removed...

Southend1

Sounds like the case is unlikely to succeed.

The union is not supposed to be impartial. It is supposed to act in members' best interests.

Just because the union won't back the case doesn't mean it is corrupt. It would be reckless to use members' subs to provide representation in cases that have little chance of succeeding.

I think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Is it worth your mum's while spending her own money on pursuing this or would she be better off trying to forget and move on?

jacques_chirac

There are two issues here, your insurer's late withdrawal and the ET itself.

On the first issue I would post on the Insurance board, the insurer has a duty to treat you fairly and pulling out at this late stage strikes me as anything but. Check the complaints procedure, this is something the ombudsman would be interested in.

With regard to the tribunal, contact them on Monday and ask for a postponement, explaining what has happened. That will give you some breathing space to work out what to do.

Is this a whistle blowing issue? If so, contact Public Concern at Work on Monday, they are a charity with a great deal of expertise in this area.

(Ignore the union militants, they're as blinkered as their bosses!)

sniggings

it's hard to say from your OP why she was sacked?

I doubt it was as you imply because she complained?

You also try and create a silly argument, saying they did not have to ask the barrister, once they get to the barrister stage of course they will listen to the barrister if they say they have a less than 51% chance of winning, are you suggesting if the barrister, who you agree is more experience say there is a less than 51% chance of winning they should ignore them and go ahead?

The rule is probably, they will not seek a barristers opinion early on if all sides agree, which they didn't do, they only listen to the barrister went they got to that stage.

Sorry, nothing you can do, you could try a no win no fee company but they work yo a much higher win percentage, something like 90%.

or fund it yourself.

Unless you can show the insurer has gone against their own rules, which your example does not do, then there is nothing you can do.

jacques_chirac

sniggings wrote: »

it's hard to say from your OP why she was sacked?

I doubt it was as you imply because she complained?

You also try and create a silly argument, saying they did not have to ask the barrister, once they get to the barrister stage of course they will listen to the barrister if they say they have a less than 51% chance of winning, are you suggesting if the barrister, who you agree is more experience say there is a less than 51% chance of winning they should ignore them and go ahead?

The rule is probably, they will not seek a barristers opinion early on if all sides agree, which they didn't do, they only listen to the barrister went they got to that stage.

Sorry, nothing you can do, you could try a no win no fee company but they work yo a much higher win percentage, something like 90%.

or fund it yourself.

Unless you can show the insurer has gone against their own rules, which your example does not do, then there is nothing you can do.

Repercussions from whistle blowing are common in the care sector, and in the public sector as a whole, so common that legislation has been introduced to cover such situations.

The OP did not ask what the rules 'probably' are, as ever you are trying to dress up your ill informed opinions as fact. Not in the least bit helpful.

sniggings

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Repercussions from whistle blowing are common in the care sector, and in the public sector as a whole, so common that legislation has been introduced to cover such situations.

The OP did not ask what the rules 'probably' are, as ever you are trying to dress up your ill informed opinions as fact. Not in the least bit helpful.

The OP did not say the sacking was a repercussion, they said they were sacked for complaining, as said I doubt the reason given for the sacking was "complaining", so I have asked what reason was given.

A reasonable question, as fighting on the grounds given for the sacking would be more likely to be successful.

again you choose not to help the OP but comment on others posts, I will not be reading or replying to you again, as you are clearly a sad person, that likes to argue.

Hannah2210

I'm not saying the union is corrupt because they won't back the case. They's other reason which I can't go into. She was sacked because she complaining and whistleblowing, but again I can't go into detail.
My question was why at this late stage they want a fourth opinion. I have contacted the financial ombudsman and it states they will only get the opinion of a barrister if both parties solicitors don't agree, which they did. And they also wait till 4 months down the line to do this, 3 days before the pre hearing.

Thanks Jacques, I will have a look

Hannah2210

I wish moving on was an option at this point just for sanity. But She's trained, studied for years and built a career so not too easy to walk away from a whole career and can't just roll into the same role elsewhere in the care sector with no references