Legal Issues with Contacting Old Customers

Tripledrop

Ok, a little more info from solicitor FYI:

We didn't have actually have an employment contract until 2014 (I didn't mention this before). My friend worked there from 2008 or 9. Solicitor asked if there was any sort of meeting as a consultation before the contracts were signed (which there wasn't, they just asked us to sign and return). He said unless employer can prove this consultation happened then none of it in enforceable.

He said he will still throw the kitchen sink at them (not sure what this would entail!) as they might not want to respond or dig around for information they don't have.

He has also suggested my friend can agree to not contact their customers but they will have to pay him as it will prevent him doing his job.

The only thing the employer can ask him to do is not speak to any old customers he had direct contact with in the last six months of his employment. Everyone else is fair game to go for

He's asking the employer for proof of loss of earnings, because it appears they are accusing him of this also.

He also advises the solicitor firm they are using (Gateleys) are known to be bullies and use threatening letters and scare tactics to force a signed agreement (I guess that's fairly common with the legal practice in general though).

A little more positive it appears?

SeanG79

Be careful...I would steer clear of ALL your previous employers customers for 6 months unless you want to test the restrictive covenant in court.

I am willing to bet your former employer can afford to spend a lot more on legal fees than you or your colleague...

agrinnall

Tripledrop wrote: »

We didn't have actually have an employment contract until 2014 (I didn't mention this before). My friend worked there from 2008 or 9.

You did, it just may not have been written down. Turning up in exchange for pay shows that a contract of employment existed.

sangie595

Tripledrop wrote: »

Ok, a little more info from solicitor FYI:

We didn't have actually have an employment contract until 2014 (I didn't mention this before). My friend worked there from 2008 or 9. Solicitor asked if there was any sort of meeting as a consultation before the contracts were signed (which there wasn't, they just asked us to sign and return). He said unless employer can prove this consultation happened then none of it in enforceable.

He said he will still throw the kitchen sink at them (not sure what this would entail!) as they might not want to respond or dig around for information they don't have.

He has also suggested my friend can agree to not contact their customers but they will have to pay him as it will prevent him doing his job.

The only thing the employer can ask him to do is not speak to any old customers he had direct contact with in the last six months of his employment. Everyone else is fair game to go for

He's asking the employer for proof of loss of earnings, because it appears they are accusing him of this also.

He also advises the solicitor firm they are using (Gateleys) are known to be bullies and use threatening letters and scare tactics to force a signed agreement (I guess that's fairly common with the legal practice in general though).

A little more positive it appears?

A little more positive than I believe, to be honest. There is no obligation to have a consultation per se. He was presented with a contract. Did he challenge it? Did he say no? Or did he sign it? If the latter, I'd love to see how his solicitor is going to get around that. It was voluntary on his part.

The part about them having to pay him to agree to not contact their customers is pure rubbish.

And the solicitors the company are using are a highly respected and capable company who do not need to resort to bullying - they use the law! It would be a foolish solicitor who thought they are bluffing. I can guarantee you that they will not be.

steampowered

Having a solicitor on board who is prepared to fight at can at least encourage the employer to reach a reasonable agreement. For example the employer might agree not to pursue the matter further if your friend will agree to reasonable undertakings.

sangie595

steampowered wrote: »

Having a solicitor on board who is prepared to fight at can at least encourage the employer to reach a reasonable agreement. For example the employer might agree not to pursue the matter further if your friend will agree to reasonable undertakings.

Whilst I would agree, I would remind the OP that the solicitor can afford to fight - he is going to win no matter what because he will be paid! It has already cost this individual £500. That was just for a conversation. The bill for a fight will be a lot higher!

steampowered

sangie595 wrote: »

Whilst I would agree, I would remind the OP that the solicitor can afford to fight - he is going to win no matter what because he will be paid! It has already cost this individual £500. That was just for a conversation. The bill for a fight will be a lot higher!

I was thinking along the lines of a letter from the solicitor setting out why the claim is denied and offering a sensible path forwards.

While I agree the employer probably has deeper pockets than the Op, there aren't many businesses that are prepared to spend large amounts of money on legal fees unless there is a strong business reason for doing so.

If the Op indicates that he will fight legal proceedings but offers a reasonable path forward, that severely damages the business case for the employer spending thousands on taking this to court.

sangie595

steampowered wrote: »

I was thinking along the lines of a letter from the solicitor setting out why the claim is denied and offering a sensible path forwards.

While I agree the employer probably has deeper pockets than the Op, there aren't many businesses that are prepared to spend large amounts of money on legal fees unless there is a strong business reason for doing so.

If the Op indicates that he will fight legal proceedings but offers a reasonable path forward, that severely damages the business case for the employer spending thousands on taking this to court.

Yes I agree. But remembering that all of this costs the OP so they need to be careful what they take on. And be clear about fees, because it adds up quickly.

getmore4less

Tripledrop wrote: »

Thanks for all your responses...

My friend has now obtained a solicitor (£500 to initially read the letters and contract!). He has sent a holding message saying he is taking legal advice.

Someone asked about why they targeted him... Basically he obtained a list of care providers from the CQC website, and sent out generic emails to them all. One of them was a customer of our old company, and decided he would tell them!

The new employer will be wondering what they have taken on, that generic email was not the actions of a smart person.

Tripledrop

Just as a conclusion, my friend's solicitor went back to the company with the points in my previous post, and the company have now dropped any action.

Not sure this was to do with the solicitor, or (more likely) because their aim was to scare my friend into not chasing their clients, which they did I guess.

Thanks again for all your responses.

TD