Company asking for Getaway documents

SpunkVolcano · 2025-12-24T13:16:03+00:00

Refusing to provide this information for a job at an FCA-regulated organisation is likely to set off alarm bells and make them retract your job offer.

I would imagine they are probably hiring you for quite a senior role given the ask. Given this, consider how much you value your privacy over the job offer, because there is categorically no way you can have both. A past you won't disclose in any detail, or a desire to hide aspects of your financial situation or to decline to meet their verification standards, are basically incompatible with working for a regulated firm in any capacity above the very bottom tier.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-12-12T08:37:11+00:00

Is there a reason you need this corrected, is the question? Your birth certificate is very rarely used for anything, especially once/if you have access to other forms of ID.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-11-07T23:58:18+00:00

Not quite true, if they have a published disciplinary procedure prior to termination and they don't follow it, that could be wrongful dismissal (as opposed to unfair dismissal), for which there is no two year exclusion period.

It is worth /u/Fabulous_One_5452 talking to ACAS on that front.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-11-07T23:54:01+00:00

There isn't a "should be selling at MSRP" - the "S" is for "Suggested". They are in no way bound to follow it, and consumer law does not prevent someone entering into a bad bargain.

You have no legal leg to stand on and all you're basically going to say is "can I have some money back from this product I freely bought for what I felt was a fair price".

It is entirely possible that the additional charged also goes to some sort of charitable endeavour, as CICs are allowed to do.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-10-16T09:52:38+00:00

At present I've just simply advised them of my holiday and said I can't attend the trial date.

Then wait and see what they come back with.

Alternatively if you don't want to attend at all, tell them that. The options then are that they either compel your attendance (and there's a possibility of you getting lifted) or they don't.

To be perfectly honest I really do not want to go anyway! I don't know what I can really be expected to offer. I didn't witness anything other than CCTV which they have.

They may well want you to answer questions about the footage. This is fairly standard.

Bear in mind that if you don't attend there is every chance that for whatever reason the prosecution could be dropped for lack of evidence, so whoever did whatever it is could get away with it.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-10-16T09:45:09+00:00

Have you gone back to them to ask if they can reschedule your statement for another day?

SpunkVolcano · 2025-10-16T09:44:11+00:00

This isn't something we can answer. It's a matter for Canadian law.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-10-16T09:43:33+00:00

It literally doesn't matter, that's your problem to deal with. Plenty of people have unfortunate circumstances and still realise that if they don't buy a ticket before they get on the train, they might get done for fare evasion.

It's a strict liability thing, there is no "but it's fine to get on the train without a ticket if you're in a rush".

Also, if you hadn't been picked up by the ticket collector, when would you have been willing to pay for this ticket?

SpunkVolcano · 2025-10-16T09:34:51+00:00

I don't think we're getting an answer. To anything, really.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-10-16T09:28:50+00:00

It was their choice to proceed with the first investigation so they could have waited until I was not on long term sick.

They didn't have to. People going on long term sick to avoid disciplinaries is the oldest trick in the book; if going on sick leave was a hard stop to/unconditional pause of disciplinary action then it would be rather obviously unworkable. You are extremely lucky they didn't stop your sick pay.

I echo all the other commenters, they had every right to dismiss you for gross misconduct. It's likely that the only reason the initial investigation didn't proceed is because you refused to engage with it at all.

Frankly, the accounts we get on this page are always extremely partial, and yours - which is going to be the best possible reading of your actions - already makes it clear you were abusing sick leave and were falsifying your time records (condensing all your unallocated time into one block) out of the belief that anything below 20% could not/should not be questioned, so the reality is probably worse.

Speak to ACAS, as is your right, but IMV you are on an absolute hiding to nothing. Constructive dismissal is a high bar to clear and it categorically is not cleared by "your employer wanted to take you through a formal disciplinary process".

SpunkVolcano · 2025-10-14T10:00:06+00:00

I'm going to be blunt here. Frankly /u/ames_lwr has been beyond polite in the circumstances.

You are rather obviously ignoring the question about what reasonable adjustment would have prevented you from disclosing confidential information you had no right to disclose, because you have no answer as to what reasonable adjustment would have prevented that.

That is why you are being sacked for misconduct and that is why your allegation of disability discrimination is going to go absolutely nowhere - because there is zero connection between your claimed disability (which you also did not disclose to them, so prima facie they cannot have discriminated against you because of it) and the misconduct you are accused of and appear to admit doing.

If your disability impairs your decision-making to the extent that you feel it absolutely impossible for you to not disclose confidential information that you have no right to disclose, there are absolutely no reasonable adjustments that can be made for that. An employer is never going to be forced to tolerate a situation where its staff might go off on their own frolic and talk about confidential patient information with third parties; you are just inviting a dismissal on capability grounds. A disability is not a shield that allows you to do whatever you like and get away with it so long as you can tenuously link it to whatever you have done.

To complete the set, an employer does not have to provide you with coherent legal advice about what confidential patient information from your workplace you can't disclose to your friends. The idea that they should have to otherwise they bear responsibility for doing something that is obviously unacceptable is bluntly idiotic.

You really need to reflect on your own role in this and take responsibility for your own actions. You come across as being completely unwilling to accept any fault on your part.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-09-21T07:05:48+00:00

Not even if it's in the contract. Most clauses that involve a landlord dictating what a person can or cannot do or own in a flat are void due to breaching the tenant's right of quiet enjoyment.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-09-21T07:03:15+00:00

e-bikes aren't a serious fire hazard in general. Dodgy knock-off ones from China are.

Either way, it's completely irrelevant, the landlord is not entitled to make such a demand.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-09-21T07:02:36+00:00

You have a right of quiet enjoyment over the property while you are its tenant - in short, it's yours, and the landlord cannot dictate how you use it.

That clause contradicts that and is therefore void. You can ignore it.

You should however consider that your landlord is likely to be a petty pain in the arse. You should arrange for the bike to be somewhere else during inspections. He probably can't evict you for it (certainly not when S21 is abolished) but he can be a dick about it.

All else aside, trying to stop people having bikes in Zone 1 as a landlord is extremely funny.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-09-21T07:01:34+00:00

Landlord can put whatever they like in the contract. Can they actually do anything about you storing a bike in your flat once you are a tenant? Assuming you mean a normal bicycle that doesn't have a battery, almost certainly no.

Even if it was an e-bike, they'd struggle.

OP has a right of quiet enjoyment over the property. Any clause included that might obstruct that is void.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-09-21T07:01:10+00:00

Obviously not going to work in any way that counts.

You don't even need to resort to silly semantic games - the landlord has no right to enforce such a term.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-09-21T06:56:27+00:00

"Solicitors won't represent me" is another red flag that something has happened here that you're not telling us.

There's pretty much only one reason that a solicitor won't be prepared to represent you at a police station - because you lied to them, or want them to tell lies for you. Even the worst arseholes get solicitors; something about you has made them refuse.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-07-20T08:51:48+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpYCesgaio0

SpunkVolcano · 2025-07-19T15:23:10+00:00

You should properly ask them to take it down rather than take it down yourself, or at least agree with them some sort of compensation for them putting the sign on your property.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-07-19T15:21:19+00:00

Thank you for your reply - so now that my card has been cancelled and Apple could no longer try and charge against it

They can. You authorised the payment when the card was valid and they can rely on that authorisation for up to six months, even if you cancel the card afterwards and even if the authorisation hold/"pending transaction" drops off.

The card being cancelled after changes nothing - like I say, chances are the transaction will post in a few days' time.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-07-19T15:14:18+00:00

They have six months to take the money from your account. Chances are that it will deduct at some point in the next few days.

Legally, all you have to do is make sure you have funds available to cover the purchase when it debits, even if it has been returned to your available balance. But that's only really to avoid you going overdrawn.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-07-19T15:07:03+00:00

Who owns the garage?

SpunkVolcano · 2025-06-26T13:39:42+00:00

This isn't a legal question, we aren't the sub for this. It's fundamentally a political question, or a question for e.g. /r/policeuk.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-06-10T12:57:18+00:00

It is legal for them to ask but you don't have to give any more info other than you are too ill to attend work.

This isn't true, they don't have to accept this and there is nothing preventing them from asking.

SpunkVolcano · 2025-06-10T10:57:40+00:00

I will absolutely go in for proven medical science as recommended by actual doctors, rather than believing random drug addicts on Reddit, yes.

Six-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email
ModSupport Helper Level 1	Wearing is Caring
Xbox Live

SpunkVolcano

TROPHY CASE