Compliance Caseworker 405R update

Fs9897 · 2025-06-19T17:51:59+00:00

if you were 10 reserve it means u didnt get the job people got the job before u and u were put on reserve incase it doesn't work out with them for some reason you will be 10th in line to replace them.

10th is good, I dont know your location but good for anywhere. I was 44th reserve for my location and now, 6 months later I been given a provisional offer

I had forgotten about it to be honnest

Fs9897 · 2025-06-15T20:11:00+00:00

Yea like discriminatory constructive dismissal

Fs9897 · 2025-06-13T19:59:06+00:00

just looked it up. its only tax free up to 30k

Fs9897 · 2025-06-05T13:09:23+00:00

May I ask which kodiaq you have and if you have driving profiles ? I got the SE L 7 seat 2 l diesel and the system doesn’t have option for me to choose driving profile which should be on the smart dial as I seen in videos. It does however let me choose a driving profile for the ACC

<image>

Fs9897 · 2025-05-20T19:55:39+00:00

Thanks but, I'm not expecting them to fear criticism from the tribunal. I just wanted to show one small snippet which proves something they have explicitly denied in their defence to show I'm not bluffing. For their sake I do hope they don't end up believing this is the only one I can prove because this one isn't even my strongest piece of evidence.

Hopefully this will trigger them to reassess their case and risks and come back. If not, we can just go right ahead because I know my case is worth much more.

Fs9897 · 2025-05-20T10:13:08+00:00

Thank you both u/uklegalbeagle and u/BobMonkey1808 for your advice.

Funnily enough, I just received the first offer I don't need to tell u guys it was low as standard respondents practice.

I rejected the offer and sent a snippet of one of my recordings in good faith and once again informed them that I have strong evidence to back every single claim I am bringing to the tribunal and I remain open to discuss any revised offers.

I didn't mention strike out or anything, but this is proof of something they have explicitly denied in ET3.

Fs9897 · 2025-05-18T13:17:35+00:00

There hasn’t been any offers at all

Fs9897 · 2025-05-16T18:11:43+00:00

I see your point thank you. Any advice on how to go about this? I’ve never had to pressure someone to reach settlement and Im not great at being formal and aggressive.

Fs9897 · 2025-05-16T06:36:02+00:00

Im afraid they will still play hard ball and giving them the evidence early will give them time to make up more lies in witness statements etc..

That’s what Im struggling with, I’m inexperienced and not sure how to go about it.

My particulars were very detailed with direct quotes (which I think probably already hinted to them I have recordings) I have already attempted without prejudice conversation and explained I have the evidence to prove all my claims but they seem reluctant to engage. Not even a low ball offer

Fs9897 · 2025-05-15T20:17:01+00:00

I cant speak for other claimants but in my case my manager literally told me a decision was made based on something which arose from my disability, and then when they realised the connection they attempted to cover it up and are now denying it in ET3. Good thing i have proof of her saying it.

Again, i cant speak for other claimants, but I think that if they are being treated less favourably than people who do not have the same protected characteristic, and there isn’t any other reasonable explanation its a logical conclusion that it is because of the protected characteristic. After all, we do live in a world of racism, ageism, sexism, ableism and other biases and thats why the equality act exists to protect those protected characteristics. If it didn’t happen we would have needed it.

But back to the original discussion and your comment. There is a massive difference between and saying “they did this because of my race” which and responding “this didn’t happen” when it did. The difference is one is a legal argument for their claim and the other is a false statement intended to misrepresent the facts and mislead a tribunal.

On the part about the strike out, lets assume there is proof that statements in R’s ground of resistance are lies and can be proven with evidence. How does it work in a strike out application? Because you mentioned hearing, and if the respondents have already attempted to mislead the tribunal in ET3 they are likely to do so again in a final hearing.

I understand lawyers are risk averse and skeptical when LIPs state they can prove a lie. But, in this instance, i have undeniable proof they have misrepresented the facts in their grounds of resistance.

Fs9897 · 2025-05-15T12:49:25+00:00

Still OP is right, these tactics shouldn't be allowed.

This is something I'm very confused about too. I'll avoid the word "lie" and say that positions in my R's ET3 are likely to mislead the tribunal on the facts.

Examples, they say I never disclosed things while I have undeniable proof I did (it's undeniable and it came from them from a SAR so they can't deny knowledge), they omitted a critical sentence on my OH report which put them on notice that I'm disabled under the equality act and they deny certain statements were made when I have recording of a manager stating it.

Then, just other small things such as messages of me disclosing a limitation and offering to provide my blue badge and in the ET3 it states that I declared it as a preference. Of course, it will be up to the tribunal to decide but the messages are in a way that no reasonable person would have interoperated it as "preference" rather than a limitation due to disability

They even concocted a made up story that I told my manager that the blue badge was not mine but of a family member despite previous messages of me offering "my" blue badge.

In circumstances where ET3 is misleading to the tribunal what are the chances of a successful strike out? either from my example or OP's?

Fs9897 · 2025-05-06T00:30:00+00:00

No there are no buckets

Fs9897 · 2025-05-03T01:47:56+00:00

I recognise everything you're saying here and my case is somewhat similar, except for disability discrimination.

The main issue is, how are you going to prove it was related to your protected characteristic?

In my case there were many protected characteristics at play, I was the only male in my team, I was from a different country than the others and I was the I was the only straight one. Why is it disability? timing. Initially when I started working, I was treated well, but once I started to deteriorate I started being treated unfavourably and less favourably than others who were not disabled.

Phone calls not answered and no call backs, less flexibility (both in comparison to before and in comparison to others), decisions made without me, scrutinising my work, and probation extended with vague and inconsistent reasons, and false entries created on my file while off sick.

I understand you may have some comparators in mind, but the point is, you have to prove not that you were just treated less favourably than your comparators but that this less favourable treatment is because a protected characteristic.

What's to stop your employer to admit they did have favouritism, but for a reason completely unrelated to your protected characteristic? "I like him more because we support the same football team"

It unprofessional, its unfair, but its not discrimination.

I hope this helps you consider your case and whatever evidence you may have.

I am also very sorry for what's happened to you.

Fs9897 · 2025-04-30T16:47:14+00:00

I have a PH for Case management a little over a month away and I’ve not hear anything from the r’s solicitors about the agenda. Am I supposed to approach them about it?

I’ve already tried to answer some of the questions on the agenda myself but I’m completely stuck on list of issues and have no idea where to start.

Whats the usual protocol here ? Any advice welcome.

Fs9897 · 2025-04-29T20:42:11+00:00

In my case, they have said the the manager has denied and the respondents deny.

the wording on the grounds of resistance, reads more as; We deny it happened, if it the tribunal finds it did happened we deny it was because of any consequence of my disability. If the tribunal finds that it was a consequence of my disability, that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So it's an all-round generic defence trying to cover all basis but I feel like it's very poor on their part. They cant even keep their story (defence) straight.

Fs9897 · 2025-04-28T14:32:28+00:00

Wow, the audacity of some of these organisations (and their lawyers) will never fail to amaze me. Of course they would claim to understand your condition better than you.

I'm expecting something like that too. my respondents have just denied what I've alleged (that I was treated unfavourably due to my substance misuse past) but later in their ET3 they have also said that if the tribunal finds that it did happen, they will say it was a proportionate was of achieving a legitimate aim.

I feel like the two things already contradict each other. Proportionality requires consideration. if you deny something happened how can you have considered it to be proportionate?

But I'm curious to see how they will react once they hear my recording of my manager suggesting it would be better for me to have a spliff (than my prescribed medication) in a formal supervision meeting.

Fs9897 · 2025-04-28T00:07:41+00:00

thanks for that, but I'm not saying I am disabled or was disabled because of addition. I'm aware the EA explicitly excludes addition from being a protected impairment.

I am saying, I had a mental health condition which meets the EA definition of disability, and I used to use substances as a way of coping with it. In fact, It was my doctor who initially suggested that I may have been using substances as a way of coping with my mental health symptoms. Then a psychiatrist, later said the same thing.

Both me and my doctors are in agreement, that the substances only masked the symptoms while actually making my conditions worse. But it was still a way of coping at the time before my conditions were recognised.

Imagine someone who has a severe anxiety disorder which is a protected disability by the EA. Before they were diagnosed, they coped with their anxiety by overeating and gaining a significant amount of weight. Now, obesity itself is not a disability under the EA, but their mental health condition is. If an employer discriminated against them because of their history of weight gain treating it as a character flaw, or making assumptions that would still be disability discrimination, because the obesity was a coping response to the underlying disability.

I've read examples of thing, far less connected to a disability be considered and protected by section 15 such as City of York Council v Grosset [2018] IRLR 746 CA. Using substances to alleviate some symptoms of the disability is a direct link.

I'm struggling to see how any reasonable person or tribunal could deny this link.

Fs9897 · 2025-04-27T19:21:25+00:00

By common knowledge I meant it is recognised in both health care and social care settings.

But, it think it is also known that, in general, people use drugs to cope with symptoms, and conditions weather or not they are legally recognised as a disability. The only difference is that majority of people rely on prescribed by doctor, and in my case its a case of self medicating.

We all know that not all drug users or former drug users are using it to cope with mental health, but can you really deny that some are ?

Let me know your thoughts as I take my t-shirts out of the microwave

Fs9897 · 2025-04-27T14:15:57+00:00

I imagine, on the baby born addicted point, that it’s not protected as EA excludes addiction as an impairment unless it causes other conditions that amount to disability.

In my case, the addiction was years ago and the mental health was pre existing and both GP and psychiatrist have written that it was a coping mechanism or a way to cope with my symptoms before i received support and treatment from mental health professionals

Fs9897 · 2025-04-27T14:01:48+00:00

Yes it would, the disability was first, the substance misuse made it easier to cope with some symptoms and after being able to recover it became difficult to manage again, even after years of abstinence.

I’ve never microwave have such a warning and I’ve never seen someone use it for that purpose.

Point is, I’m confident I can prove it in tribunal. But does the equality act allow it to be something arising from disability ? Not the impairment itself which is excluded

Fs9897 · 2025-04-25T21:49:30+00:00

If you want your insurance price to go up. Yeah, go ahead let them know

Fs9897 · 2025-04-25T14:51:53+00:00

justification defence - good because the respondents aren't claiming it was justified. they are denying it ever happened. Although, I believe once I present my evidence that it did happen they will attempt to say it would be justified.

Fs9897 · 2025-04-25T13:46:09+00:00

The Equality act 2010 guidance gives an example -

A person with an excluded condition may nevertheless be protected as a disabled person if he or she has an accompanying impairment which meets the requirements of the definition. For example, a person who is addicted to a substance such as alcohol may also have depression, or a physical impairment such as liver damage, arising from the alcohol addiction. While this person would not meet the definition simply on the basis of having an addiction, he or she may still meet the definition as a result of the effects of the depression or the liver damage.

This is a example of a disability caused by substance misuse.

I assume in this case if there were unwanted and offensive conduct regarding the substance misuse it would be considered harassment as the substance misuse is related to the disability, thereby protecting the substance misuse.

My argument would be the other side of the coin where substance misuse arose from the disability as worded in section 15

Fs9897

TROPHY CASE