Oh those Consumer Action Group Wags!

[MarillionFan]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...php?f=88&a=140

Perhaps, airing your laundry in public isnt such a good idea hey?

As you sow, so shall you reap.

[Bob Dalek]

"We have just learned that Martin Lewis will offer some help to try and sort things out without the need for court action"

They are sunk already!

[cailin maith]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...php?f=88&a=140

Perhaps, airing your laundry in public isnt such a good idea hey?

As you sow, so shall you reap.

I'm confused....

they are being sued by their admin assistant?

[expat]

I'm confused....

they are being sued by their admin assistant?

As I read it, they are being sued by their ex admin assistant, who wants an apology published for certain things they said about her. They refuse to apologise, believing that what they said is true. Therefore the lawsuit will proceed and will seek damages and costs.

It seems to have 2 parts:
1. they alleged that she had
a) hacked or otherwise modified chat room software to gain access, and
b) revealed the identity of a whistleblower therein.
2. they accused her of "stealing" 416.00.

Her reply was that:
1.
a) as admin she already had access, therefore did nothing wrong to gain it, and
b) did not know the identity of the whistleblower and did (therefore) not reveal it.
2. she had received this sum from them by the usual standing order for her employment, after this employment had been terminated (i.e. due to their error, not hers); and failed to return it for a while because bank charges had reduced the balance to a point where she could not from that account; so she had to make other arrangements, which she has done and the sum has been repaid - making it hard for them to assert that she had intended permanently to deprive them of this money (an essential part of the definition of "theft").

AIUI.

I am not myself asserting any of those claims or commenting thereon, merely attempting to summarise public information on the topic.

[TykeMerc]

In April 2007 we were obliged to terminate the contract of our admin assistant. This parting was acrimonious.

Seems to be at variance with

We never charge anyone any money. No one gets paid, draws dividends or even runs an expense account.

Something doesn't ring entirely true to me.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I've read a bit of that stuff and it's a real clash of the titans!

[Bagpuss]

-an

[Bob Dalek]

I've read a bit of that stuff and it's a real clash of the titans!

tits

[cailin maith]

As I read it, they are being sued by their ex admin assistant, who wants an apology published for certain things they said about her. They refuse to apologise, believing that what they said is true. Therefore the lawsuit will proceed and will seek damages and costs.

It seems to have 2 parts:
1. they alleged that she had
a) hacked or otherwise modified chat room software to gain access, and
b) revealed the identity of a whistleblower therein.
2. they accused her of "stealing" 416.00.

Her reply was that:
1.
a) as admin she already had access, therefore did nothing wrong to gain it, and
b) did not know the identity of the whistleblower and did (therefore) not reveal it.
2. she had received this sum from them by the usual standing order for her employment, after this employment had been terminated (i.e. due to their error, not hers); and failed to return it for a while because bank charges had reduced the balance to a point where she could not from that account; so she had to make other arrangements, which she has done and the sum has been repaid - making it hard for them to assert that she had intended permanently to deprive them of this money (an essential part of the definition of "theft").

AIUI.

I am not myself asserting any of those claims or commenting thereon, merely attempting to summarise public information on the topic.

Thanks

Seems to be at variance with



Something doesn't ring entirely true to me.

Yep, thats where I first got confused, after that.... I gave up!

[The Lone Gunman]

It is rather ironic.
The whole site is infested with people who claim to know all the legal ins and outs of every situation. They seem quite happy to tell all and sundry that they should sue.