COT3 Query - please help

sunflower888

IAmWales wrote: »

ACAS mediators are there to negotiate an agreement, and that is what they have done. Do you feel the mediator acted incorrectly or is it just that you regret your decision?

Both, the ACAS person didnt explain that if I agree the wording its binding.

So why do they ask you to sign the COT3 and what happens if I then don't?

sunflower888

sangie595 wrote: »

A COT3 does not need to be signed. The second you said you agreed it, it was legally binding.

So what happens when the ACAS person hasnt indicated that its binding and final once you verbally agree?

Surely you should be aware of that?

sunflower888

sangie595 wrote: »

I'm sorry but you do not get a chance to take independent legal advice on a COT3 - that is settlement agreements. I am afraid that it is your responsibility to know what you are doing - not theirs to tell you. If you wanted legal advice, you take it first - not afterwards. Sorry, but you are bound by the agreement that you have reached.

Why does one process allow to ensure you have legal advice and one doesnt? Doesnt that disadvantage the LIP?

sunflower888

sangie595 wrote: »

I don't think the OP will be back. They didn't like the advice so they've gone elsewhere to make the same argument.

Wrong, I am open to being told the correct.

And what happens when the advisor hasnt told you that?

sangie595

You have had that answer already. On two different forums. It is not their role to tell you your rights. It is yours to know them. If you did not know that a verbal agreement is binding that is your own fault for entering into something without understanding what you are doing. That is how the law sees it. The information on COT3 agreements is widely available, and you have had the right to consult a solicitor at any point to ascertain your position and rights. The fact you did none of these things is not something you can blame ACAS for! And the reason that the law gives a right in one circumstance and not in the other is because that's what the law says! I suppose that the difference is seen to be that an employer could coerce someone. ACAS can't. But that's a guess - I didn't write the law. And it's also irrelevant - this is what it is and you cannot change it. You agreed verbally to the agreement and now that is the arrangement. Continuing to argue about it won't get you anywhere.

Manxman_in_exile

sunflower888 wrote: »

I was not aware it was binding on agreement of terms. Whats the point of it being signed then?

In your own words you say you had agreed terms - that makes it binding. If you didn't like the terms you shouldn't have agreed to them. I know from your posts on another board that you felt pressured by the 5pm deadline, but your ex-employer is entitled to impose a deadline and you didn't need to accept the offer. (You mention "duress" on the other forum but a deadline isn't duress - duress is a gun held to your head).


As others have said, under English law a contract does not necessarily need to be signed (or even be in writing) to be legally enforceable. But ASUI if you don't sign the COT3, you may not get payment.


No - that's not "fair" but the legal system doesn't try to be fair, it tries to be just. Fairness and justice are not the same thing.


You are at a disadvantage if you don't get independent legal advice. Lawyers in particular recognise this in the old legal adage: "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."


As regards the "Draft" was it different from the terms you'd already agreed, and if it was different, did you raise this point?

Undervalued

sunflower888 wrote: »

sangie595 wrote: »

A COT3 does not need to be signed. The second you said you agreed it, it was legally binding.

So what happens when the ACAS person hasnt indicated that its binding and final once you verbally agree?

Surely you should be aware of that?

No, that is like saying because a policeman hasn't told you it is illegal to hit somebody over the head with a hammer you can't be charged with assault!

OP, the information you have been give here is correct. I know it is not what you want to hear but that doesn't make it legally wrong.

That is not to say I am without some sympathy for your position but that doesn't change anything. You agreed to the agreement verbally and as far as the law is concerned that is binding.

Manxman_in_exile

Undervalued wrote: »

sunflower888 wrote: »

No, that is like saying because a policeman hasn't told you it is illegal to hit somebody over the head with a hammer you can't be charged with assault!

OP, the information you have been give here is correct. I know it is not what you want to hear but that doesn't make it legally wrong.

That is not to say I am without some sympathy for your position but that doesn't change anything. You agreed to the agreement verbally and as far as the law is concerned that is binding.

Sorry - I don't understand the bit I've highlighted and can't find the post you quote(???).


Apart from that - Yes.

Manxman_in_exile

Apologies for the irrelevance - just a hobbyhorse of mine - but why do posters persist in describing oral/spoken/vocal contracts/agreements as "verbal"?


So far as I'm concerned, they're all verbal (ie relating to words) whether written or oral - sorry, spoken!