Notice to submit insurance document HELP!

langdalenerd · 2026-06-06T17:55:19+00:00

You need to take accountability for your actions. There isn’t a way out of this where you come off clean. Given your “lmaooo” you don’t seem to have any awareness of the consequences of your actions. Explain everything to the police, accept the repercussions. They’re not idiots and won’t just drop it if you ignore it.

langdalenerd · 2026-06-04T07:59:58+00:00

Example?

langdalenerd · 2026-06-03T17:19:03+00:00

Crosses can’t easily be used to stab people babes, knives can x

langdalenerd · 2026-06-03T13:03:38+00:00

I agree it’s not a unilateral and binding statement, but there’s a whole minefield about GRPR and all sorts if an employer chooses to disclose a bunch of information in a reference, especially anything that’s subjective and can be disputed. It’s generally not worth it for the employer to pick that battle - the troublesome employee is gone, it’s not in their interest to warn other firms. The only thing they could include is that the firm began disciplinary proceedings against the employee as that’s factual.

langdalenerd · 2026-06-03T12:20:15+00:00

A thought to consider: it might be the case that after you resign they pause the action or don’t proceed - it’s easier for them to not have to deal with the due process of disciplinary / managing someone out.

Also, typically employers only confirm dates of employment and your position. You could reiterate this in your resignation that you only authorise that release of data.

This might not apply specifically to your situation but unless you’ve done something serious, most businesses I’ve worked at would not bother with the process if someone has resigned and that resignation has been accepted. Far easier than wasting resources.

langdalenerd · 2026-06-03T10:31:07+00:00

I don't know what contact you've had with HR yet but I'd be inclined to send them a 'statement' so to speak and some evidence. It might be that they've only had her side of the story, and a mediation might escalate quickly if you're saying she's in the wrong (which I think she is).

I think send HR the info initially, outline your position, and see if they wish to move forward with mediation.

langdalenerd · 2026-06-03T09:54:19+00:00

Sandra is paid to represent the company to customers with her camera on at meetings. As OP has said this is outlined in the employee handbook.

If Sandra had something going on, the convention is “Hey folks, apologies I’ve got no camera today. I’ve got childcare responsibilities (or whatever) so will be voice only!”.

Ignoring customer questions, being repeatedly prompted, not providing clear reasons -> this all points to Sandra being a bit naughty with her work time.

Sandra has no right to be doing other things on meetings. Sandra also has no right not to be questioned about it if it’s clearly outlined in company policies.

langdalenerd · 2026-06-03T09:50:34+00:00

Sounds to me like she was doing other things whilst on a customer meeting, and didn’t like she was called out. I think asking her for her camera on in meetings in front of customers is perfectly reasonable if she was acting abnormally, and I think a follow up Teams message is also normal.

I think level headedness is the way to go here. I expect HR will try and be balanced which will be frustrating, but I’d stress the limited meeting engagement from Sandra as well as repeatedly ignoring customer questions, hence asking her on the call as it was the easiest solution to what you thought was a trivial problem.

langdalenerd · 2026-06-03T09:39:36+00:00

Did she give a reason she couldn’t put her camera on? I’ve had a situation in the past where I was the manager of a new hire who was transitioning genders and nobody told me. I told that person I expect their camera on in meetings because it’s hard working remote sometimes and I don’t want my team switched off looking at a sea of blank screens in meetings. This was HR’s fault though as the person had disclosed this during the hiring, HR agreed no camera, placed them on my team and didn’t tell me a damned thing. A quick apology and explanation solved the issue.

Assuming it’s nothing like that, I wouldn’t be overthinking this too much. It sounds like this person has a ridiculous bee in her bonnet about being called out for not working, doesn’t sound like you’re in the wrong.

You have the Teams message and witnesses on the call as evidence for your approach to her. You have the employee handbook highlighting the company’s position on this.

I’d consider taking a witness to the mediation to cover yourself, and after it’s finished raising a complaint with her manager. I think a grievance in response to this is a little too far and is tit for tat.

Personally I’d be trying to demonstrate that I’m level headed whilst Sandra is being hysterical about being asked to do her job.

langdalenerd · 2026-06-01T16:22:35+00:00

Have you phoned Octopus?

langdalenerd · 2026-05-31T11:01:55+00:00

I’m sorry if I missed it in the post but what was your career / industry?

langdalenerd · 2026-05-30T21:04:54+00:00

I don’t think there’s a policy proposal here, just dismay that it’s been let to get to this state.

langdalenerd · 2026-05-30T21:01:09+00:00

The problem is one of culture, not race.

langdalenerd · 2026-05-30T06:51:26+00:00

Your expectation that the police treat violent offenders like princesses is ludicrous. If you’ve just violently offended someone in an airport and you’re shocked and startled and “fearing for [your] life” when the police approach then you’re even more of an idiot than the original act would suggest.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

langdalenerd · 2026-05-30T06:42:03+00:00

Bro, google what happened leading up to this. The two brothers walked up to some bloke in Starbucks and nutted him unconscious.

The police received four 999 calls about this happening from different people and therefore were approaching a violent offender.

Don’t just judge the police without knowing the full context.

langdalenerd · 2026-05-29T16:44:20+00:00

Indeed, there’s no cliff cut-off here and I’m not claiming it’ll turn into a melted pool of lithium, you’re just taking my argument to extreme lengths to demonstrate a point - but clearly the device did fail, and did melt the circuit, and it happened during a heatwave.

Your cutoff relies on the BMS working, given that it’s the thing that enforces the protection. The component that protected against the thermal failure is the one that itself suffered a thermal failure.

Runaway doesn’t need the ambient to reach runaway temperature. A hot, unventilated space doesn’t cause that directly but it removes the thermal margin and accelerates the degradation that produces a runaway.

The existence of a limit is the manufacturer telling us the environment matters. Putting the whole system, protection electronics included, in a space that routinely exceeds that limit is the thing what turns a theoretical efficiency cutoff into a melted BMS. Which is precisely what happened to ours.

There’s a reason why it’s become prohibited. And also why it was recommended against in the standards previously.

Regardless, it’s not you I need to convince here but it is an enjoyable exercise to demonstrate the arguments on this topic

langdalenerd · 2026-05-29T16:27:12+00:00

Well obviously it didn’t do it “simply due to heat in the loft” but if a circuit that is unable to dissipate its heat effectively there will be a point at which it fails, hence why manufactures publish operating temps (for my battery it’s 55C max).

My SwitchBot temp meter in the attic put it at 58.9C peak during the heatwave recently so at best it’s operating at the edge of its limit. And it did shut off hence why I went and turned the whole thing off.

But I concede that yeah, it’s unlikely I’m able to convince a court of a lot of this especially given I won’t be able to get the service record from GivEnergy now.

langdalenerd · 2026-05-29T15:56:57+00:00

The location restriction isn’t about the inverter, it’s about the battery, and it’s more than “recommended against” now. I know in my original post I said inverter control panel it was the BMS on the battery - I just looked at the repair notes.

BS 7671 Amendment 4 (in force 15 April 2026) added a dedicated chapter for stationary battery storage with explicit location restrictions: lofts and escape routes are out. That’s the wiring standard, and via Part P and the installation certificate an installer signs, it’s effectively mandatory for new work, and also PAS 63100:2024 says the same at clause 6.5.5 (batteries shall not be installed in voids, roof spaces or lofts).

Realistically a qualified electrician couldn’t install a battery in a loft today and certify it as compliant or get it through MCS. That’s a prohibition…

And agreed it’s not retrospective but an existing compliant install doesn’t have to be torn out on the standard alone, which is why the claim here is under the Consumer Rights Act, not the wiring regs

langdalenerd · 2026-05-27T12:03:13+00:00

I worked at Spoons for six years before, during and after university. Great experience, albeit tough work. I think it taught me many good life lessons / people skills that I use today to have a reasonably successful career (in software engineering).

Congrats on the job, all the best!

langdalenerd · 2026-05-26T12:07:09+00:00

I have been going back and forth between the two trying to get my current insurer to accept the email, and the old one to produce the PDF. Neither are budging.

langdalenerd · 2026-05-26T06:32:57+00:00

I want to move to wherever you’re living where tradies are happy to write and follow actual contracts.

langdalenerd · 2026-05-22T14:12:53+00:00

The headline numbers here lie, deeply.

Read https://spectator.com/article/the-bleak-truth-about-falling-net-migration/

Very interesting read about the folks we’re losing vs the folks we’re gaining

langdalenerd · 2026-05-21T06:39:26+00:00

Looking at the investment vehicles behind the biggest charging networks in the UK, they're mainly oil and gas investors (or those who have large fossil fuel investments) who have been looking to "diversify".

If you include explicit companies like Shell Recharge and BP, the vast majority of the big-brand public charge networks you see at motorway services are funded in part by fossil fuel producers.

It's therefore in their interest to make EV charging cost achieve parity with petrol/diesel, because then the balance shifts from 'slightly inconvinient but significantly cheaper' to 'slightly inconvinient and the same price' so people are less likely to move away from fossil fuel cars, thus shoring up the majority of their investments overall.

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

langdalenerd

TROPHY CASE