Unfair clause in COT3 agreement/Consumer rights/Freedom of expression

Middlestitch

sam_75 said:

Undervalued said:

sam_75 said:

Middlestitch said:

sam_75 said:

Clauses in agreement prohibits me from making any damaging comments about respondent except as a consumer and in good faith.

And it also mentions that I will pay for damages and legal fees in case I breach the agreement.

There is huge outrage among consumers about poor customer service of respondent and I joined one such forum and made number of comments about poor customer service. My comments are in much lighter vein other members of that group with many using abusive language about respondent as many have lost money.

I have now received cease and desist letter from respondent.

Language is threatening and says I should stop making such comments as it is damaging their reputation.

I suggest you do indeed cease and desist, particularly as you were silly enough to make your comments in a way which ensured the employer could identify that you were the one making them.

It's not an 'unfair clause' as you call it; it is a condition of the agreement, so enforceable by your former employer.

Again some simpleton comments. I already know these stuff. May be someone can come up with something better instead of bashing. My post mentions about ASA, trading standards , ICO, IPSO etc. May be someone can say that no agreement can stop you from whistleblowing, just don't put that on social media. Google "acas cot3 whistleblowing" and first link says "But even if they do sign it, there’s nothing the employer can do by law to stop the employee from whistleblowing."

Oh dear!

There is a very narrow legal definition of "whistleblowing" and nothing you have posted here suggests that it applies.

You chose to agree to a legal settlement and by doing so accepted its terms. You didn't have to, you could have refused and taken your chances at an employment tribunal. Had you done that, win or lose, you wouldn't have been subject to any restrictions about what you could have said or done (obviously within the law that applies to everybody).

Terms regarding confidentiality and not speaking ill of the employer / employee are a common part of COT 3 and settlement agreements. Obviously the terms are negotiable (before signing!!)  and that was the time to have attempted to remove any terms you were not happy to accept. The employer may or may not of agreed but again you didn't, you signed, so you are now stuck with the terms that you agreed.

End of!

What's your qualification in law?

The advice is entirely correct. Here's my final piece of advice to you: when in a hole stop digging.

Undervalued

sam_75 said:

Undervalued said:

sam_75 said:

Middlestitch said:

sam_75 said:

Clauses in agreement prohibits me from making any damaging comments about respondent except as a consumer and in good faith.

And it also mentions that I will pay for damages and legal fees in case I breach the agreement.

There is huge outrage among consumers about poor customer service of respondent and I joined one such forum and made number of comments about poor customer service. My comments are in much lighter vein other members of that group with many using abusive language about respondent as many have lost money.

I have now received cease and desist letter from respondent.

Language is threatening and says I should stop making such comments as it is damaging their reputation.

I suggest you do indeed cease and desist, particularly as you were silly enough to make your comments in a way which ensured the employer could identify that you were the one making them.

It's not an 'unfair clause' as you call it; it is a condition of the agreement, so enforceable by your former employer.

Again some simpleton comments. I already know these stuff. May be someone can come up with something better instead of bashing. My post mentions about ASA, trading standards , ICO, IPSO etc. May be someone can say that no agreement can stop you from whistleblowing, just don't put that on social media. Google "acas cot3 whistleblowing" and first link says "But even if they do sign it, there’s nothing the employer can do by law to stop the employee from whistleblowing."

Oh dear!

There is a very narrow legal definition of "whistleblowing" and nothing you have posted here suggests that it applies.

You chose to agree to a legal settlement and by doing so accepted its terms. You didn't have to, you could have refused and taken your chances at an employment tribunal. Had you done that, win or lose, you wouldn't have been subject to any restrictions about what you could have said or done (obviously within the law that applies to everybody).

Terms regarding confidentiality and not speaking ill of the employer / employee are a common part of COT 3 and settlement agreements. Obviously the terms are negotiable (before signing!!)  and that was the time to have attempted to remove any terms you were not happy to accept. The employer may or may not of agreed but again you didn't, you signed, so you are now stuck with the terms that you agreed.

End of!

What's your qualification in law?

What's yours?

The trouble with these type of forums is that there is no way of verifying any poster's qualifications or experience. All you can do is look at some of their past posts and draw your own conclusions.

My response, based on the information you have provided is correct. It clearly doesn't fit with your preconceptions so you will no doubt ignore it! 

[Deleted User]

Undervalued said:

sam_75 said:

Undervalued said:

sam_75 said:

Middlestitch said:

sam_75 said:

Clauses in agreement prohibits me from making any damaging comments about respondent except as a consumer and in good faith.

And it also mentions that I will pay for damages and legal fees in case I breach the agreement.

There is huge outrage among consumers about poor customer service of respondent and I joined one such forum and made number of comments about poor customer service. My comments are in much lighter vein other members of that group with many using abusive language about respondent as many have lost money.

I have now received cease and desist letter from respondent.

Language is threatening and says I should stop making such comments as it is damaging their reputation.

I suggest you do indeed cease and desist, particularly as you were silly enough to make your comments in a way which ensured the employer could identify that you were the one making them.

It's not an 'unfair clause' as you call it; it is a condition of the agreement, so enforceable by your former employer.

Again some simpleton comments. I already know these stuff. May be someone can come up with something better instead of bashing. My post mentions about ASA, trading standards , ICO, IPSO etc. May be someone can say that no agreement can stop you from whistleblowing, just don't put that on social media. Google "acas cot3 whistleblowing" and first link says "But even if they do sign it, there’s nothing the employer can do by law to stop the employee from whistleblowing."

Oh dear!

There is a very narrow legal definition of "whistleblowing" and nothing you have posted here suggests that it applies.

You chose to agree to a legal settlement and by doing so accepted its terms. You didn't have to, you could have refused and taken your chances at an employment tribunal. Had you done that, win or lose, you wouldn't have been subject to any restrictions about what you could have said or done (obviously within the law that applies to everybody).

Terms regarding confidentiality and not speaking ill of the employer / employee are a common part of COT 3 and settlement agreements. Obviously the terms are negotiable (before signing!!)  and that was the time to have attempted to remove any terms you were not happy to accept. The employer may or may not of agreed but again you didn't, you signed, so you are now stuck with the terms that you agreed.

End of!

What's your qualification in law?

What's yours?

The trouble with these type of forums is that there is no way of verifying any poster's qualifications or experience. All you can do is look at some of their past posts and draw your own conclusions.

My response, based on the information you have provided is correct. It clearly doesn't fit with your preconceptions so you will no doubt ignore it! 

This forum is full of people who thinks they know everything and using high handed approach and using adjectives like silly and stupid. I thought I will find someone with better knowledge of law. Good bye. 

JCS1

sam_75 said:

Undervalued said:

sam_75 said:

Middlestitch said:

sam_75 said:

Clauses in agreement prohibits me from making any damaging comments about respondent except as a consumer and in good faith.

And it also mentions that I will pay for damages and legal fees in case I breach the agreement.

There is huge outrage among consumers about poor customer service of respondent and I joined one such forum and made number of comments about poor customer service. My comments are in much lighter vein other members of that group with many using abusive language about respondent as many have lost money.

I have now received cease and desist letter from respondent.

Language is threatening and says I should stop making such comments as it is damaging their reputation.

I suggest you do indeed cease and desist, particularly as you were silly enough to make your comments in a way which ensured the employer could identify that you were the one making them.

It's not an 'unfair clause' as you call it; it is a condition of the agreement, so enforceable by your former employer.

Again some simpleton comments. I already know these stuff. May be someone can come up with something better instead of bashing. My post mentions about ASA, trading standards , ICO, IPSO etc. May be someone can say that no agreement can stop you from whistleblowing, just don't put that on social media. Google "acas cot3 whistleblowing" and first link says "But even if they do sign it, there’s nothing the employer can do by law to stop the employee from whistleblowing."

Oh dear!

There is a very narrow legal definition of "whistleblowing" and nothing you have posted here suggests that it applies.

You chose to agree to a legal settlement and by doing so accepted its terms. You didn't have to, you could have refused and taken your chances at an employment tribunal. Had you done that, win or lose, you wouldn't have been subject to any restrictions about what you could have said or done (obviously within the law that applies to everybody).

Terms regarding confidentiality and not speaking ill of the employer / employee are a common part of COT 3 and settlement agreements. Obviously the terms are negotiable (before signing!!)  and that was the time to have attempted to remove any terms you were not happy to accept. The employer may or may not of agreed but again you didn't, you signed, so you are now stuck with the terms that you agreed.

End of!

What's your qualification in law?

if you want a lawyer's view, I suggest you pay for one.

Comms69

sam_75 said:

Undervalued said:

sam_75 said:

Undervalued said:

sam_75 said:

Middlestitch said:

sam_75 said:

Clauses in agreement prohibits me from making any damaging comments about respondent except as a consumer and in good faith.

And it also mentions that I will pay for damages and legal fees in case I breach the agreement.

There is huge outrage among consumers about poor customer service of respondent and I joined one such forum and made number of comments about poor customer service. My comments are in much lighter vein other members of that group with many using abusive language about respondent as many have lost money.

I have now received cease and desist letter from respondent.

Language is threatening and says I should stop making such comments as it is damaging their reputation.

I suggest you do indeed cease and desist, particularly as you were silly enough to make your comments in a way which ensured the employer could identify that you were the one making them.

It's not an 'unfair clause' as you call it; it is a condition of the agreement, so enforceable by your former employer.

Again some simpleton comments. I already know these stuff. May be someone can come up with something better instead of bashing. My post mentions about ASA, trading standards , ICO, IPSO etc. May be someone can say that no agreement can stop you from whistleblowing, just don't put that on social media. Google "acas cot3 whistleblowing" and first link says "But even if they do sign it, there’s nothing the employer can do by law to stop the employee from whistleblowing."

Oh dear!

There is a very narrow legal definition of "whistleblowing" and nothing you have posted here suggests that it applies.

You chose to agree to a legal settlement and by doing so accepted its terms. You didn't have to, you could have refused and taken your chances at an employment tribunal. Had you done that, win or lose, you wouldn't have been subject to any restrictions about what you could have said or done (obviously within the law that applies to everybody).

Terms regarding confidentiality and not speaking ill of the employer / employee are a common part of COT 3 and settlement agreements. Obviously the terms are negotiable (before signing!!)  and that was the time to have attempted to remove any terms you were not happy to accept. The employer may or may not of agreed but again you didn't, you signed, so you are now stuck with the terms that you agreed.

End of!

What's your qualification in law?

What's yours?

The trouble with these type of forums is that there is no way of verifying any poster's qualifications or experience. All you can do is look at some of their past posts and draw your own conclusions.

My response, based on the information you have provided is correct. It clearly doesn't fit with your preconceptions so you will no doubt ignore it! 

This forum is full of people who thinks they know everything and using high handed approach and using adjectives like silly and stupid. I thought I will find someone with better knowledge of law. Good bye. 

Cant believe the responses you've had. Total nonsense, you carry on posting whatever you like! /s

Marcon

sam_75 said:

Undervalued said:

sam_75 said:

Undervalued said:

sam_75 said:

Middlestitch said:

sam_75 said:

Clauses in agreement prohibits me from making any damaging comments about respondent except as a consumer and in good faith.

And it also mentions that I will pay for damages and legal fees in case I breach the agreement.

There is huge outrage among consumers about poor customer service of respondent and I joined one such forum and made number of comments about poor customer service. My comments are in much lighter vein other members of that group with many using abusive language about respondent as many have lost money.

I have now received cease and desist letter from respondent.

Language is threatening and says I should stop making such comments as it is damaging their reputation.

I suggest you do indeed cease and desist, particularly as you were silly enough to make your comments in a way which ensured the employer could identify that you were the one making them.

It's not an 'unfair clause' as you call it; it is a condition of the agreement, so enforceable by your former employer.

Again some simpleton comments. I already know these stuff. May be someone can come up with something better instead of bashing. My post mentions about ASA, trading standards , ICO, IPSO etc. May be someone can say that no agreement can stop you from whistleblowing, just don't put that on social media. Google "acas cot3 whistleblowing" and first link says "But even if they do sign it, there’s nothing the employer can do by law to stop the employee from whistleblowing."

Oh dear!

There is a very narrow legal definition of "whistleblowing" and nothing you have posted here suggests that it applies.

You chose to agree to a legal settlement and by doing so accepted its terms. You didn't have to, you could have refused and taken your chances at an employment tribunal. Had you done that, win or lose, you wouldn't have been subject to any restrictions about what you could have said or done (obviously within the law that applies to everybody).

Terms regarding confidentiality and not speaking ill of the employer / employee are a common part of COT 3 and settlement agreements. Obviously the terms are negotiable (before signing!!)  and that was the time to have attempted to remove any terms you were not happy to accept. The employer may or may not of agreed but again you didn't, you signed, so you are now stuck with the terms that you agreed.

End of!

What's your qualification in law?

What's yours?

The trouble with these type of forums is that there is no way of verifying any poster's qualifications or experience. All you can do is look at some of their past posts and draw your own conclusions.

My response, based on the information you have provided is correct. It clearly doesn't fit with your preconceptions so you will no doubt ignore it! 

This forum is full of people who thinks they know everything and using high handed approach and using adjectives like silly and stupid. I thought I will find someone with better knowledge of law. Good bye. 

You've already found them. You just didn't like the answers.

steampowered

The Op is correct to say that a COT3 or non-disclosure agreement does not prevent "whistleblowing", as explained on the ACAS website: https://archive.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1919. 

However, "whistleblowing" has a very specific legal meaning, meaning that the concept is unlikely to help the Op. If the Op thinks she can rely on whistleblowing legislation he or she may find that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
 
- "Whistleblowing" means a complaint to a specific regulatory body. Posting about an issue on social media is not whistleblowing and is not protected.

- The "whistleblowing" needs to be about a limited categories of things, such as breach of law or a criminal offence. General grievance and complaint doesn't count. 

- The whistleblowing needs to be in the public interest. In this case, I suspect people would see straight through the Op's bluster and would conclude that the disclosures were made to pursue a personal vendetta - not to pursue the public interest.

bucksbloke

You should have got legal advice before you signed. You've signed a legal agreement saying you won't say certain things and are breaching it. This is not a case you can win. 

robatwork

Looks like this thread already died which is a shame as I would have liked the opportunity to donate my no doubt judgmental-simpleton view to the OP. 

This situation is exactly why it shouldn't be left to a vexatious ex-employee to be able to use the Tribunal system in effect for free without up front costs or penalties. This one just seems to want their day in court and I'd love to be there.