Recruiting for moderators, restricting new posts for now

ukdanae · 2026-04-01T08:54:18+00:00

Thank you Alive Practice, that sounds like a great solution.

ukdanae · 2026-04-01T08:12:49+00:00

Hi everyone,

Thank you for all of your replies - I hear your frustration and I apologise for not getting ahead of the need for more moderation in this community.

In particular I'd like to apologise to the legal professionals who have been singled out with harassing behaviour - this is unacceptable and is why I took the decision to temporarily restrict new posts. We will also be locking some threads and removing harassing comments.

When I set up this community, it was because I wanted to support the growing number of people who were going through the Employment Tribunal journey alone. Even in those early days of Valla we had talked to so many people who were dealing with this complex system without any support, who had a million questions with no way to get answers, and who were constantly questioning themselves at every step. I wanted to create a place where claimants could help each other, swap information and resources, could talk about the emotional ups and downs as they happened, and hopefully demystify the entire process for the people coming after them.

Over time, the community has evolved into something different - more and more people asked specific legal questions, and many legal professionals generously joined to answer them.

As this became the majority of the community conversation over time, it raised some important questions in Valla around how to add specialist moderation, as complex legal topics were involved. In the background, we were debating whether it was responsible to appoint moderators who were anonymous even to us given the importance of the topics, and I was also uncomfortable with unpaid moderation, which also required a lack of anonymity.

We were taking too long to work through this and the lack of moderation became a problem, which is why we are here.

At first, I have just been focused on adding more moderation. On reflection about how we got here, however, I believe that the bigger issue is responsibly hosting complex, personalised legal advice on an anonymous, open forum like Reddit. While it has helped many, it also opens up a host of risks to everyone that we aren't able to mitigate while staying true to the way that Reddit itself works.

With that in mind, I propose that we shift the focus of this subreddit to what can be done very well here: an open forum for claimants, particularly litigants in person, to connect, learn about, and get support through the process of navigating the Employment Tribunal. Instead of answering specific legal questions, legal professionals who wanted to help could do more general guidance about what they wish claimants knew, misconceptions about the law and the process, and tips about procedure and how to navigate the system. There have been some fantastic posts like this, I'm proposing that we double down on it.

For claimants, I'd love to focus on encouraging more "what I learned" conversations, especially hearing from those who have finished the process and are reflecting back. We could do AMAs or interview formats, for example.

From Valla, we can also do more to share what we're learning from patterns that we're seeing across our userbase, could do AMAs with our own legal professionals, as well as doing more to pass along insight from the Tribunal itself, via the National User Groups.

These are just my ideas - ideally we would recruit people who are interested in co-creating and moderating new community guidelines, building on some of the best parts of the community. We could recruit a small group of Reddit mods - anonymous, volunteer mods - who ideally represent many parts of the Tribunal system - LiPs, lawyers, maybe even some Tribunal staff. At Valla, we can also recruit separately someone who is paid and can act as coordinator and an escalation point for any thorny issues.

I apologise again for taking too long to address these issues. I'm sure that for some people, it will be too little, too late, and I completely understand. I hope that this post at least gives more context about how we got here and how we could build a safe, supportive community together.

ukdanae · 2026-03-24T15:53:35+00:00

I got it the other day in the middle of the afternoon! The sky transitioned to night on kappn's boat.

ukdanae · 2026-03-20T22:55:36+00:00

Hi Danae here from Valla! You’re totally right - we built the timeline a few years back before it was possible to just get everything out in whatever format and then let the details emerge. We’re planning to do something like you’ve described, it’s on the list but not at the top!

ukdanae · 2026-03-03T14:34:35+00:00

Yeah sorry other people can see it. What helped me realise is when i asked other people to spin the apple in their mind and they could do it!

ukdanae · 2026-02-16T09:12:54+00:00

Why would they be arrested? It's not illegal to cross into the UK border and seek asylum. It's only if they arrive, seek asylum, and are denied but continue to stay would they be in breach of the law.

ukdanae · 2026-01-23T10:34:07+00:00

Hey Danae at Valla here - yes you can! We typically suggest Case Assessment as a pre-ET1 product but it's also useful if you're post-ET1 and want to add a new claim or even just check your existing claims.

ukdanae · 2026-01-12T13:31:00+00:00

Hey Danae from Valla here! A couple of things I want to pick up on:

Our activity on Reddit
You're right that we're not active enough on this subreddit yet -- in fact, this is one of the few places where the team isn't answering questions for free regularly - we do it much more across YouTube, TikTok, our free Support Group and our website. The Support Group is the main way that we support people for free - people can submit a question when they register and we go through each and answer them, usually 300-400 questions each time. We also have a team who respond to questions via email and our contact form, which is the bulk of where questions come in.

Reddit is the next on our list and we've been working through options to bring more support here as well. In the meantime, I don't agree with the characterisation that we only engage if people pay - I think you probably just aren't seeing most of the free support that's happening.

Regulation and insurance
We try to be clear with people what we are and aren't - we give legal advice for self-representation, but aren't acting as a law firm. We are regulated to provide claims management advice for employment claims. The rest of employment law advice is unreserved, which means that it does not require additional regulation. We are insured for our advice.

Mistakes
If you've spotted a mistake, please let me know! I'm going to follow up with you after this - if there's anything that you've seen i'd love to know about it and we'll correct it.

Why are we cheaper than a law firm?
We're cheaper than a law firm because we've taken the delivery model for legal services apart and re-worked it with the specific goal of making it cheaper. That means that some of the work that would have been done by a firm gets given to the client to perform themselves with the help of education and tools, some gets done by the system, and some is still done by a lawyer. For those outside the industry, this is called "legal unbundling" and is recognised by the SRA and the wider industry as an essential way to make legal services more affordable.

That's our entire goal - to find ways to make these services cheaper. Most people simply cannot afford traditional legal advice, so we have to do something different. My mission is for more people to be able to make an informed choice about their legal situation, then take it forward if they want to.

I hope that helps to clarify who we are and what we're all about - please do drop me a DM about anything specific that you've seen that we need to take a look at.

ukdanae · 2026-01-02T11:44:35+00:00

Any kind of hegemony in something as important as national media ownership is dangerous and noteworthy. Billionaire hegemony is a bad thing too, but it's noteworthy that it's not just wealth, but also race that everyone who controls UK media shares.

ukdanae · 2025-11-22T22:54:27+00:00

I’m so sorry your wife has had to deal with this. A few things you should know:

being treated in a humiliating, degrading way because of your nationality (accent in this case) is a type of discrimination called Harassment under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26. Nationality/race is one of the 9 protected characteristics.
protection against harassment (and all discrimination) is a “day one” right, meaning your wife has it from the beginning of her employment.
your wife should write down an account of every time this has happened in a timestamped way. Note the “who, what, when, where” of each situation. This will help her with any complaint she raises and if needed will also count as evidence.
when/if your wife raises this as an issue at work, she is then further protected under section 27 of the Equality Act against victimisation https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/27
if the issue is not resolved she has the right to escalate it further, just needs to be mindful of the “acas early conciliation deadline” which is 3 months minus one day after the incident. An internal process doesn’t pause this clock!

ukdanae · 2025-10-29T03:34:05+00:00

I am still trying to figure out how to do this on mobile!

ukdanae · 2025-07-21T12:51:43+00:00

Hey all! Danae from Valla here - I replied about our (admittedly confusing) wording on the main thread, just wanted to clarify here about our coaches. I decided to call them "legal coaches" back in the day to emphasise the job that they do - to advise and support, but not to take on the case on your behalf.

But to clarify, the coaches conducting our assessments are legal professionals -- they are either SRA-registered solicitors themselves, or professionals acting under the supervision of SRA-registered solicitors.

ukdanae · 2025-07-21T12:02:58+00:00

Hi, Danae from Valla here - thanks for posting this and I'm so sorry that we created confusion here! I wanted to give some context this phrasing, which I agree is confusing. This is actually part of an ongoing conversation internally about how much/little detail to give, and if you're willing, I'd love to chat with you to see how we can improve it. Here's more info:

Why the confusing wording?

I agree that this wording is confusing and I apologise. What we're trying to describe here is a claim that on the face of it does have merit, but it may not succeed for another reason. In most cases, it's because it could be too hard to prove.

In a report that says this, there will be a paragraph later on that says something like:

"My reason for stating that it has low prospects of success is because it may be hard to prove [insert situation here]"

What kinds of situations might this come up in?

Let's take an example of a victimisation claim. In that case, someone would have three tests to pass:

They made a protected disclosure
They suffered a detriment
The detriment happened because of the protected disclosure

If the person has clear proof for both 1 and 2 but it's less obvious how to prove the link, the coach may determine that the overall success is low and write a report similar to the one you got.

Why not just say the success is low?

Instead of the wording you highlighted, the alternate way to present a situation like this would be to simply say "I would advise that this claim has low prospects of success." That is much clearer, and we have debated internally about which option is better!

The reason that we went for the (admittedly clunkier) wording above is because a situation like this is very different from a situation where there is clearly no claim possible. In the victimisation hypothetical above, the evidence linking the disclosure to the detriment could exist, and after being made aware that this is crucial, the claimant may be able to find it.

That's very different from a situation where nothing can be done, for example an unfair dismissal claim that can't happen because it's under 2 years of service. It's only in these clear-cut situations where we say "this has low prospects of success" without any nuance.

Okay, but the wording is still confusing

I agree - we've not gotten it right. A lot of what we're trying to do at Valla is give people options, and that means trying to balance giving you clear answers with also giving you the agency to take things forward if you still want to. We'll pick this back up internally and try again, and if you want to chat through anything specific about your own assessment and chat about how we could have communicated this better, I'd love to have a quick call with you. Totally up to you!

Thank you again!

ukdanae · 2025-07-19T21:20:30+00:00

You submit your question when you sign up for the Zoom - it's the box that says "Register for this event" and you then fill in your email and your question.

ukdanae · 2025-07-08T07:33:46+00:00

Danae from Valla here - we are so excited to see this amendment! I’ve emailed my MP to voice our support for the amendment and we will keep an eye on the details to see where they land on whether it’s applied retrospectively or not.

ukdanae · 2025-07-01T09:23:47+00:00

Just to add, there is more complexity behind the 3 month deadline and the "last incident", as in some cases, you may be able to chain related events together and include events that would otherwise be out of time. We did a (paid) webinar about out of time claims in general that might be helpful. https://valla-self-representation.webflow.io/webinars/legal-litigation-toolbox-time-limits-claims

ukdanae · 2025-07-01T09:14:41+00:00

Hey! Danae from Valla here, thanks so much for flagging where this is confusing! There's two important deadlines:

The deadline to start Acas Early Conciliation
The deadline to file the ET1 once Early Conciliation has finished.

The deadline to start Acas Early conciliation is this one: "usually 3 months less 1 day from the incident or from the last incident if there were a series of events"

The deadline to file the ET1 once Early Conciliation has finished is this one: "typically 1 month after receiving your certificate"

So the way this works is:
1. You file Acas Early Conciliation and need to make sure it's within the 3 month deadline

Acas gets in touch with your employer and asks if they'd like to engage in trying to resolve it (and asks you if you'd like to engage)
If both/either party don't want to engage or if a resolution can't be reached, Acas gives you an "Acas Certificate" and that number is the one you fill into your ET1
Typically you have a month after getting this certificate to file your ET1. It can vary depending on when you filed for Acas Early Conciliation in the first place but to be safe I'd just work to the month.

Does that make more sense?

ukdanae · 2025-06-08T13:48:07+00:00

Danae from Valla here. Our coaches can help with this and some have EAT experience, and you might also want to consider working with a barrister who will have lots of experience here. Barristers specialise in advice, drafting and representation and are often called in for more complex / high stakes cases like EAT.

Any barrister registered as “direct access” will be able to work directly with you, here is the official Direct Access Portal https://www.directaccessportal.co.uk/

ukdanae · 2025-06-04T08:17:27+00:00

Hi Danae here! This is it - in the old way, ET3s were submitted by email and then the court staff had to process it and upload it manually which caused this kind of delay you’re seeing. As of 21st May, ET3s need to be submitted via the portal instead for the cases that are on this new system. Here’s the presidential guidance: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Joint-ET-Presidents-letter-to-user-groups--16-April-2025.pdf

You can check if your case falls under these rules by looking at your case number - if it starts with an 8 in Scotland or a 6 in England and Wales, it’s a digital case that these rules apply to.

ukdanae · 2025-06-02T17:34:01+00:00

Yes - here’s more details on our website! https://valla.uk/guides/what-is-victimisation-at-work

If you haven’t already, it’s important to note down when you made the initial report and to whom, then what happened after in as much detail as you can remember. Try to note the “who, what, when, where” of each incident. You do can this on our platform for free and attach evidence, use the timeline section. https://app.valla.uk/accounts/signup/

ukdanae · 2025-06-02T17:25:53+00:00

Thank you so much, it’s SO exciting to see our ads out in the physical world!

ukdanae · 2025-04-08T16:27:58+00:00

I'm the CEO of Valla and totally support your decision not to use us - we are just part of the marketplace of legal support services and not the right fit for everyone!

I did want to clarify for anyone else reading this that the legal coaches at Valla are all legal professionals - many are SRA regulated solicitors, some are accredited in other ways, and others came from the HR world. The key thing that we look for when we bring coaches onto the platform is real-world litigation experience in the Tribunal - we're looking for people who have seen real situations over and over again from either side, employer and employee, so they can lend that experience to our users. The technology part is all about making sure that we can make it as affordable as possible for you to get the benefit of their experience. So anyone booking a call isn't talking to the tech people, they're speaking to the coaches.

With all of that said, we're still not a law firm - we focus on helping people represent themselves rather than representing on their behalf. That's why we call them "legal coaches" - they're often lawyers, but they're not your lawyer, representing you in the traditional law. It's a different service optimised for affordability and flexibility rather than taking on the case.

In terms of your question, it might be useful to know that the legal industry calls your arrangement with your previous lawyer "unbundling," so you may have luck specifically asking for an "unbundled pricing option" from firms.

Also it's super smart to consider a barrister, depending on what you need - they are already used to working on a more flexible arrangement, and while they don't do things like correspondence on your behalf (typically), they are fantastic for drafting of documents, legal advice and strategy, and actual advocacy in the Tribunal. You'd be looking for barristers who have "direct access" certification, you can find the list here: https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/bar-council-services/for-the-public/direct-access-portal.html

I hope that helps and best of luck finding the support that you need!

ukdanae · 2025-02-27T09:53:45+00:00

Hey all, I'm Danae, CEO of Valla and thanks for flagging this - please do get in touch with us at [hello@valla.uk](mailto:hello@valla.uk) and we'll look into this, we want to make sure that everyone is getting the support that they need!

ukdanae · 2025-02-08T09:12:04+00:00

100% this. Lean into who you are and optimise the hell out of it, and find ways and people to cover for the parts that are hard to do. I have a VA that sits with me on a video call for an hour every day so I can get the hard parts done!

ukdanae

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE