Latest news with #unfairtreatment
Telegraph
28-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
‘Brown lumpy liquid splattered me in Sainsbury's – I want compensation'
Has a company treated you unfairly? Our Consumer Champion is available to help. For how to contact her click here. Dear Katie, I am a 22-year-old soon-to-be graduate from the University of Strathclyde, and I've recently moved into my first proper flat with my partner. To help with the move, I hired a car to collect some Ikea furniture and move it into our new flat. We drove from the centre of Glasgow to the Braehead retail park where Ikea is. We stopped to pick up some quick bits for lunch at a Sainsbury's on the retail park. While we were shopping, a pipe that was running inside the store above aisle seven started leaking brown liquid with clumps, and fell from the ceiling on to us. The majority of the clumps landed just in front of us, as my partner pulled me backwards to avoid getting hit directly. The splashback of the clumps landed in a puddle of what appeared to be sewage. It came into contact with our hair, our face, our skin and our clothes. I have complained to Sainsbury's about this, and it has informed me that if I wanted compensation for my items, then I would need to travel into their store with the affected articles for inspection. I have declined to do this because myself and my partner would need to travel at our own personal expense on public transport, while potentially putting other users of this transport at risk of contamination. I've been told it cannot proceed with my complaint unless we can return to the store. What do you think my next steps should be? – RO, via email Dear reader, I asked if you had the receipt for your shopping on the day, to which you replied that Sainsbury's had already let you have it for free, as well as giving you a £40 gift voucher. I didn't ask for it, but you supplied me with an itemised list of what you and your partner were both wearing on that day – down to the socks, sunglasses on both of your heads and a smartwatch each. You also supplied me with a picture of your socks which appeared to have been lightly splattered with brown liquid. Clearly, you were hoping to be compensated for all your 'contaminated' wearable items. However, the seriousness of the case and whether you were going to be owed anything at all really came down to what exactly this brown, lumpy liquid was. If your hunch was right and it was raw sewage, then this had been a very serious hygiene incident indeed for Sainsbury's indeed, and I'd need to seek reassurance that it had been properly dealt with at the time. However, when I asked the supermarket to investigate, it confirmed that the leak was in fact just rainwater which had collected in a pipe containing moss, explaining what the brown lumps were. This makes sense, as sewage pipes do usually run underground. Although I recognise that being splattered with brown water would have been unpleasant and certainly not what you expected while buying a quick lunch in Sainsbury's, since your clothes aren't seriously contaminated, I'm afraid that I'm not prepared to ask it to do anything further for you. All your clothes need is a good wash, and you can easily wipe down your smart watch and sunglasses. Moving into your first flat together is an exciting but expensive time, and therefore, my advice is this: don't waste your money on bus fare travelling to Sainsbury's to have your clothes inspected because you won't win this one. Just enjoy your £40 voucher and move on. A Sainsbury's spokesman said: 'We apologised to the customer and his partner, after a rainwater leak affected their shop at our Braehead store. 'We covered the cost of their shopping, as well as provided a goodwill gesture and a new T-shirt. We understand they would like further compensation and we've explained how they can apply for this.'
BBC News
05-06-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Teachers strike at St Andrew's primary school in Hull
Teachers at a school in Hull have walked out for a second day over the "unfair treatment" of staff, their union classes at St Andrew's CE VA Primary School, Grandale, Hull, were sent home due to strike action by National Education Union (NEU) Burgin from the Hull branch of NEU said staff were striking over "inconsistent application of policies around pay, sickness absence and discipline that has led to unfair treatment of staff".A spokesperson from the school said the governing body was committed to work with the union to address the concerns that had been raised. Ms Burgin said the dispute formally began in March when staff put forward a list of complaints to school governors. She said policies being changed without consultation and parents complaints not being actioned were among a "plethora of issues" raised. Ms Burgin added that the resignations of two assistant head teachers in December had left "a bit of a vacuum at the top for leadership" which led to "disorganisation through the whole school". Head of religious education at the school Irene Treston-Waller said there were not enough staff to adequately supervise children during playtimes. Ms Treston-Waller, who has worked at the school for more than 12 years, said: "We are doing our best but we would really like additional support for those children who need it most."Overall, we've got lots of issues that have been raised and I think they all need to be addressed... and in a timely fashion so that we can get on with our job which is not being in here it's being out their teaching our children."A spokesperson for the school said: "We will ensure that all parents are kept fully informed about whether there will be any further strike action, however we hope to be able to avoid this by having constructive dialogue with trade union representatives."The BBC put staff concerns to the school, but it did not address them directly. Listen to highlights from Hull and East Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
BreakingNews.ie
29-05-2025
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
Billionaire Magnier claims his name being 'slaughtered' in court
Bloodstock billionaire John Magnier has complained of his alleged unfair treatment as he faces cross examination over a failed €15 million land deal in the High Court. The founder of the world famous Coolmore Stud at the start of Thursday's hearing asked the judge's permission to address the court. Advertisement He said he thought he was being "treated unfairly" Wednesday, by the opposing senior counsel for Barne Estate Martin Hayden SC during cross examination. He claimed counsel "unfairly went after" his good name and Mr Magnier declared he came to court for "protection, not to be slaughtered". Lawyers acting for Mr Magnier have claimed before the High Court that a US-based construction magnate, Maurice Regan, the preferred buyer, engaged in a "full-frontal assault" on Mr Magnier's claimed deal to buy 751 acres of land in Tipperary for €15 million. Mr Magnier's proceedings claim that Barne Estate reneged on the alleged deal, preferring to sell the land at the higher price of €22.25 million to Mr Regan, the founder of the New York building firm JT Magen. Advertisement Mr Magnier – along with his adult children, John Paul Magnier and Kate Wachman - wants to enforce the alleged deal. They say the deal was struck at an August 22nd, 2023, kitchen meeting at Mr Magnier's Coolmore home. They also claim an exclusivity agreement that was in effect from August 31t to September 30th stipulated that the estate would not permit its representatives to solicit or encourage any expression of interest, inquiry or offer on the property from anyone other than Mr Magnier. Barne Estate has been held for the benefit of Richard Thomson-Moore and others by a Jersey trust. Advertisement The Magnier side have sued the Barne Estate, Mr Thomson-Moore and three companies of IQEQ (Jersey) Ltd group, seeking to enforce the purported deal, which they say had been "unequivocally" agreed. The Barne defendants say there was never any such agreement and subsequently they preferred to sell the estate to Mr Regan. Mr Regan is not a party to the case. At the High Court on Thursday , Mr Magnier repeatedly told the court that when it came to legal and financially detailed matters that he hired experts who would decide and report on the progression of land deals for him. Advertisement Mr Magnier said "I don't think you believe me - I am not a solicitor" to Mr Hayden and said that he was answering the same questions "again and again and when I answer you look out the window". Mr Hayden said he was being "polite" to Mr Magnier in letting him finish his answers but that after any "rambling" by the plaintiff he would still be asked to specifically address the question originally asked. Mr Magnier told Mr Hayden that while he was "smarter than me" he was not going to allow Mr Hayden to put "your words in my mouth, I am not going to do that". Mr Magnier claims that on the night the Thomson-Moores went to another room in Coolmore to ring the trustees of Barne to get the go-ahead on the deal and returned with the permissions needed. Advertisement Mr Hayden said that phone records show that neither the Thomson-Moores nor estate agent John Stokes, also present at the meeting, made any contact with the trustees. "You had to come up with another story which was that they said they were calling them," said Mr Hayden. "They did say they were going to call. I have not changed my story at all. It's unfair to say so. It's untrue," said Mr Magnier. "I shook hands with the three people who were there," he said, adding "my word is my bond". Mr Magnier said that it was his suggestion to present a "no strings attached €50K" in two envelopes on September 7th, 2023, to Mr Stokes who gave it to the Thomson-Moores because the family were allowing Mr Magnier's people onto the land, were resisting bids and claimed that Mr Stokes had told him the family were "strapped for cash" Mr Hayden said that it will be Mr Stokes' evidence that he never said the family were strapped for cash. However, the money was returned to the Magniers days later and Mr Magnier told the court that it was his estimation that this was a signal that the family had now changed their minds and were going with the higher bid. The case continues before Mr Justice Max Barrett.
