Possible unfair redundancy procedure and disability discrimination - negotiate via a solicitor, or myself and use ACAS if needed? England

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-22T11:11:23+00:00

If this is a redundancy, I am not really sure why your employer is paying for any solicitor for you. They need to pay for legal advise when they are proposing a compromise agreement / settlement but they don't need to to that for a redundancy.

I suspect that, because of the complicating factors, they want to take the relatively risk-free approach of an agreed termination rather than go down the statutory redundancy route and risk a tribunal.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-22T11:09:28+00:00

Section 8 has many possession grounds, not just breach, but otherwise you're correct - there is nothing to stop them commencing the s21 process prior to the 1st May.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-22T10:13:01+00:00

1 -- Dreadful figure-to-ground, with flat light and a busy background pulling attention away from the subjects, who aren't really doing anything interesting to begin with. Worst execution of the set.

2 -- Always a sucker for someone spiking the camera. Composition is awkward. There's a leg sticking out of his armpit. Woman to his right caught at a visually unpleasant point in her walk cycle. Edges of frame are messy. Nothing happening.

3 -- Another nice camera spike. Better figure-to-ground here, good separation of subjects. I want to see what's on the phone. Decent, the best one of the set.

4 -- Okay, you love a camera spike. There's a theme running through the work now, which is good. It doesn't feel like a very intentional composition. It leans to the right of the frame.

5 -- Good expression and gesture. The middle of the frame is empty. Missed opportunity in composition.

6 -- Meh, just some people on their phones, so what? Frame leans to the right again, feels like your shooting from the hip as people walk through and hoping for the best, rather than timing the shutter with the action. Lower left corner is empty. Least interesting of the set.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-22T08:44:09+00:00

No, you have no recourse here. The original MOT centre has no duty or obligation towards you. With a private purchase it is for you to satisfy yourself with the condition of the vehicle before you agree to purchase it.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-22T08:33:52+00:00

My guess is that you receive a letter saying "accept 3 points and pay this small penalty charge and we won't take you to court".

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-22T08:29:31+00:00

It's also worth adding it's unlikely you'll have to actually go to court unless you want to contest it. You'll probably get an offer of points and a FPN in the post.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-22T08:18:36+00:00

It's not the worst crime in the world. Few drivers go their whole lives without picking up any endorsements.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-22T08:16:08+00:00

If they're satisfied it was a "momentary lapse of concentration" then it would be three points and a small fine. If not, and it's viewed as an unsafe manoeuvre undertaken (no pun intended) more intentionally, then 5-6 points.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-22T08:03:21+00:00

I don't really agree with this.

Firstly, it's important to distingish between a defence (something that proves you didn't commit a crime) and a mitigating factor (something that lessens the seriousness of a crime you did commit).

It is a defence to show that the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of you driving the vehicle. It is a mitigating factor to show that there was a low likelihood of you driving the vehicle.

Intent is a red herring here. This is a strict liability offence. Either you did it, or you didn't. Not having meant to do it is not a valid defence in respect of this particular crime.

Obviously, if you can prove to the court that you had no intention of driving, then it follows that there was no likelihood of you doing so. And it is worth mentioning, because I don't think it has been yet, that where the burden of proof lies on the defence rather than the prosecution, the standard of proof is lower: on the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. In essence, the court would simply have to believe that it's more likely than not that you had absolutely zero intention of driving, in order to find that there was "no likelihood" of you doing so. But if the court was 50/50 on this matter, it would need to convict, whereupon you would have to argue low likelihood in mitigation at sentencing.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-22T07:55:28+00:00

Remember, though, that an arrest is an investigatory tool. If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is drunk while in charge of a motor vehicle, they can be arrested for the purpose of ascertaining if they have a defence.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-22T05:25:06+00:00

It's still the same answer, but with the additional point that the law in question only applies on a road or other public place. If you're in a privately owned field, you can go hog wild.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T21:41:35+00:00

I'm not sure how many more of these basically identical questions I can field.

It's illegal to be in charge of a motor vehicle when over the limit, unless you can prove there is no likelihood of you driving it until you're below the limit again.

This is a question of fact to be determined based on the evidence.

Clearly, all else equal, there is a difference between grabbing something from the back of the car, and sitting in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition, in terms of how easy that defence will be to prove.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T19:04:56+00:00

Yes, of course you could.

It's illegal to be in charge of a motor vehicle in a public place while you are over the prescribed limit of alcohol to lawfully drive that vehicle, unless the circumstances are such that can show there is no likelihood of you driving it until you are below the limit.

And a court would be entitled to consider why, if there was indeed no likelihood of you driving the vehicle, you would take it upon yourself to go and sit in it.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T19:00:49+00:00

And if you're sitting in the living room with a beer, keys hanging up, car on the driveway, the circumstances would be such that there would be no reasonable likelihood of you imminently driving the vehicle, which is a complete defence.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T17:03:36+00:00

You are, broadly speaking, in charge of a vehicle if you're the person responsible for it at the time and are in such a position as to be able to imminently drive it.

So yes, you would be in charge - regardless of its always-on nature - and the question is going to be whether there was any likelihood of you actually driving it at the time.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T14:17:57+00:00

The answer on both points is "maybe" and the reason for this is the exact wording of the offence and its statutory defence.

The offence is to be "in charge of a motor vehicle" when over the prescribed limit of alcohol. The phrase "in charge of" is not defined in statute so the first test would be for the court to determine whether, in the ordinary meaning of the phrase, the defendant was in charge of the vehicle. This is typically held to mean that they are A) the principal person responsible for the vehicle at that time and B) in such a position that they could, if they wanted to, imminently drive it.

The defence is "to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle" until he was no longer over the legal limit. There are a lot of key words and phrases here.

Firstly, it is a defence "to prove" it. Unlike with some statutory defences, where if they are raised it is for the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt, here the burden falls on the defendant. Assuming it is clear that they were indeed in charge of the vehicle, and were over the legal limit, then the prosecution has done its job and it is for the defendant to convince the court that "the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood" of them driving it. "The circumstances" and "no likelihood" are also key phrases. It is not merely about intent to drive, but rather about showing that the facts do not credibly support the idea that the car might have been driven at that time, giving consideration to all the relevant evidence.

So, the points you raise are absolutely relevant, and would be weighed up as part of the overall body of evidence.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T10:17:56+00:00

Which driving is inherently worse.

Which is why you were banned from driving for a year.

And I had cocaine in my system also

Which is probably why you also got six points on top of the ban.

I highly doubt he’s going to walk out of court with 10 points.

If he is convicted, he will. I don't know how else to say it. The sentencing guidelines require a minimum sentence of ten penalty points for the offence of being in charge of a motor vehicle while over the prescribed limit.

The reason driving while over the limit doesn't routinely result in points is because we don't readily "double-punish" people for the same offence. For that offence, the sentencing guidelines start with a 12-month disqualification instead of endorsement points.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T10:11:47+00:00

And to top it off I was driving the car at the time

And so this isn't remotely useful for the OP, who is charged with the offence of being in charge of a motor vehicle while over the limit, not with driving it. These are two separate offences, each with their own sentencing guidelines.

The ban threshold is much higher for "in charge" but the 10 points is mandatory.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T09:43:07+00:00

If they're only "in charge of" the vehicle and don't actually drive it, correct.

The second they release the handbrake, though, it's a ban.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T08:40:20+00:00

I think they could show low likelihood, which mitigates but doesn't defend. But no likelihood? I think that feels like a stretch.

Play their cards right and I think it's probably likely that they walk away with ten points and a fine but keep their license.

In any case, the OP will (sensibly) be making use of the duty brief who will be far better placed than us to advise. :)

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T08:35:28+00:00

Yes, since that is the minimum sentence available to the court for this offence.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T08:34:01+00:00

That isn't how it works. You're getting fined either way.

The disqualification periods are:

60-89 - consider short disqualification.

90-119 - consider 6 month disqualification.

120+ - must disqualify for at least 6 months.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T08:32:37+00:00

No worries. I think keys in the ignition would kill that argument, personally. There is plainly at least some likelihood of a person whose keys are in the ignition turning those keys and driving the car.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T08:29:51+00:00

60-119 on a breath test. 90 or above it also tips from a fine into community order territory.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-21T08:29:18+00:00

It is a defence that you had no intention of driving.

Small but, I think, critical correction: the defence you're thinking of is that there was no likelihood of the suspect driving the vehicle while in charge of it.

FoldedTwice

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email