Car finance troubles - bank haven't paid garage now garage is threatening me

nobbysn*ts

colino wrote: »

Whole point of checking IDs is actually checking them. Fax, scan or photocopy is of absolutely no use whatsoever. The traders rep "checked", authenticated as true and initialled/signed the finance agreement as such.
If this did happen, the traders rep will be on the phone on the hour to get the proofs in or the car back as to all intents and purposes this person has given away a car (Police will not be interested).
If this has happened, car back or finance in place, that person will undoubtedly be sacked.

So, no verbal warnings, no written warnings, no disciplinary procedure, just instant dismissal? Have you ever had a job?

colino

What I have is several businesses, a current Consumer Credit Licence and given enough training to those that work for me to throw them out the door if they give (car +V5c + no payment) a long walk down a short plank.
Whatever you do, ask if your boss would give you a pat on the head for giving away several thousand pounds of merchandise that could take several hundred more to recover.
Then again, did the OPs situation really come up?

nobbysn*ts

colino wrote: »

What I have is several businesses, a current Consumer Credit Licence and given enough training to those that work for me to throw them out the door if they give (car +V5c + no payment) a long walk down a short plank.
Whatever you do, ask if your boss would give you a pat on the head for giving away several thousand pounds of merchandise that could take several hundred more to recover.
Then again, did the OPs situation really come up?

I'm impressed, "several businesses" but obviously no idea of disciplinary procedures if you think you can just give training then throw them out of the door, and you wonder if the op's making up their post?

BeenThroughItAll

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

I'm impressed, "several businesses" but obviously no idea of disciplinary procedures if you think you can just give training then throw them out of the door, and you wonder if the op's making up their post?

Gross misconduct could easily be grounds for instant dismissal. How you define gross misconduct could include theft, fraud, gross negligence etc.


I put it to you, sir, that you are the one who does not fully understand disciplinary procedures.

AdrianC

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Gross misconduct could easily be grounds for instant dismissal. How you define gross misconduct could include theft, fraud, gross negligence etc.

I put it to you, sir, that you are the one who does not fully understand disciplinary procedures.

You're right, gross misconduct usually is grounds for instant (and perfectly legitimate) dismissal. However, a simple human error in failing to follow procedures is VERY unlikely to be legitimately counted as gross misconduct, and if the employee takes it to an employment tribunal, it could get expensive. It's fairly straightforward to cease somebody's employment in the first couple of years, but still not utterly trivial - after two years, they have more protection in law.

colino

I doubt if anyone sacked by a genuine employer will stomach the cost of the tribunals nowadays.

arcon5

colino wrote: »

I doubt if anyone sacked by a genuine employer will stomach the cost of the tribunals nowadays.

Very true the new fees will put off a lot of employees. But even so any employer who takes an unnecessary gamble on this is stupid to say the least. The cost of defending a claim is not small, even if you win!

BeenThroughItAll

AdrianC wrote: »

You're right, gross misconduct usually is grounds for instant (and perfectly legitimate) dismissal. However, a simple human error in failing to follow procedures is VERY unlikely to be legitimately counted as gross misconduct, and if the employee takes it to an employment tribunal, it could get expensive. It's fairly straightforward to cease somebody's employment in the first couple of years, but still not utterly trivial - after two years, they have more protection in law.

All true, and I'm well aware of that; but I think the employer *could* quite legitimately argue that although a human error, the potential loss of thousands of pounds worth of stock (I don't remember if the OP named the vehicle/price, but it could be significant) does indeed count as grossly negligent; especially since admin cockups like that could put their reputation at risk with the finance house.


If their standard contractual terms of employment include a definition of gross misconduct as including negligence in financial transactions, they would likely have an arguable case.


All speculation of course; and irrelevant to the OP. I was only making the point really that summary dismissal is a sanction that can be taken against an employee, which was something which had been questioned by another poster.

nobbysn*ts

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

All true, and I'm well aware of that; but I think the employer *could* quite legitimately argue that although a human error, the potential loss of thousands of pounds worth of stock (I don't remember if the OP named the vehicle/price, but it could be significant) does indeed count as grossly negligent; especially since admin cockups like that could put their reputation at risk with the finance house.


If their standard contractual terms of employment include a definition of gross misconduct as including negligence in financial transactions, they would likely have an arguable case.


All speculation of course; and irrelevant to the OP. I was only making the point really that summary dismissal is a sanction that can be taken against an employee, which was something which had been questioned by another poster.

No, I figured someone would play the "gross misconduct" card. Now the laughable bit would be trying to prove at the tribunal that someone who went through all the procedures, checked all the documents, but simply made the minor error of not spotting one figure in the year on one document had been passed, is guilty of "gross misconduct". Think you've a good case?

motorguy

I would have thought any sane employer, who otherwise had a valued employee would be very foolish to fire an employee over a simple error like this, particularly given it is "correctable".