# Was my hubbie unfairly dismissed?



## ailbhe (5 Feb 2007)

Hi all, 

Hubbie had his annual meeting last weeek. Has been with the company for 8 years and worked his way up to General Manager. At his meeting last year there were some minor issues, most of which he rectified this year (sales up, wages down etc). 
He was then told in this meeting (nobody representing him) that he was being let go. His choice was to take 3 months wages, bonus and holidays and get a good reference or (and I quote) "there's the door".
The condition was that he have his resignation in by the following morning. He panicked and sent it in.

The issues which they pointed out to him (reason for dismissal) were that merchandising wasn't up to scratch ie shop didn't look good enough. 

They did mention this but never in a "if-you-don't-sort-it-you-lose-your-job" kind of way. 
Hubby would have done anything to keep his job. He is never late, never off sick, has relocated 3 times in 3 years at their request.

What should we do? It just seems so unfair! He is the main breadwinner, we have small kids and now facr losing our house.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Feb 2007)

What, if any, reasons was he given for his dismissal? If it was an alleged performance/misconduct issue then was the relevant company disciplinary policy followed and was he given verbal and/or written warnings etc. along the way? There are also statutory rights in this area. On the face if things it sounds very dodgy. If I was you/him I'd contact the DETE Employment Rights section and ask them for advice on statutory rights in this area. CitizensInformation might also have some relevant info.


----------



## Danmo (5 Feb 2007)

I think you need to get some advice. First of all, does the company have dismissal procedures? Even if the company felt that his performance was  not up to scratch there should have been a process of some sort i.e. a warning followed by a written warning etc. What does his contract say?
It would seem to me to be quite harsh to be dismissed in this way after 8 years service and relocating etc. Check out the contract etc and ring the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment. They are very nice and quite helpful.


----------



## ailbhe (5 Feb 2007)

The reasons were as stated. On visits over the year the shop wasn't "up to their standard". There was a long queue at one till, the shelves weren't merchandised correctly. 
This was mentioned 12 months ago and is the only thing that could be considered a verbal warning though it wasn't stated at the time. No other warnings or written warnings. There are 2 MDs. One said he wasn't happy, the other is always full of compliments when he visits.
our solicitor has said hubbie compromised his case by resigning. He is also friends with the MD though so we're not sure whether to believe him!


----------



## ClubMan (5 Feb 2007)

What was his employment status - e.g. was he an employee or some sort of independent contractor? That could also be relevant in relation to enforcing employment rights. I didn't realise that he had actually resigned. However it might be interpreted that he was coerced into doing this. I presume that your solicitor should know better about the legalities than me or anybody else posting here. However do check out the _DETE _and _CI_ link/contacts. 

In the meantime has your husband at least signed on at the local _SW _office to claim any unemployment and/or family benefits/allowances to which he might be entitled? And he should also [broken link removed] any tax paid to date if he is unemployed for a while.


----------



## ailbhe (5 Feb 2007)

ClubMan said:


> What was his employment status - e.g. was he an employee or some sort of independent contractor? That could also be relevant in relation to enforcing employment rights. I didn't realise that he had actually resigned. However it might be interpreted that he was coerced into doing this. I presume that your solicitor should know better about the legalities than me or anybody else posting here. However do check out the _DETE _and _CI_ link/contacts.


 

He's an employee for a national chain of stores. Started as a general assistant when he left school and worked his way up over the last few years. Will check out those links. Thanks.
He has looked into signing on but as he "resigned" he has to wait 6 weeks.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Feb 2007)

ailbhe said:


> He has looked into signing on but as he "resigned" he has to wait 6 weeks.


Did _SW _tell you this? I think that he should sign on immediately and if there is a delay in obtaining any benefit/allowance payments then _SW _will tell him. He should not delay signing on unless he has tried already and _SW _told him to come back later.

Is he a member of a union or does any union represent any of the employees of this company?


----------



## Vanilla (5 Feb 2007)

> our solicitor has said hubbie compromised his case by resigning. He is also friends with the MD though so we're not sure whether to believe him!


 
Could you arrange a consultation with an independant solicitor? Who else was at the meeting where he was asked to resign?


----------



## gnubbit (5 Feb 2007)

Hi,

I'm not a solicitor but the way in which his options were presented sounds as though his resignation could be considered constructive dismissal.  I'd second Clubman's recommendation to contact DETE regarding this.  Also, speaking from personal experience, I found that not all solicitors are familiar with this field.  I had an issue with employment rights and spoke to dozens, all of whom claimed to be experts in employment law but most of whom were clueless.  I'd advise getting as much info on the subject as possible so you'll be able to weed out those who don't know their stuff.  I wonder did your husband keep any notes of the 'verbal warnings' - what was said, what measures he took in response etc?

Good luck!


----------



## dats_right (5 Feb 2007)

I know it mightn't seem like it now, but your husband's employer actually handled the issue better than most. In their eyes your hubby's work wasn't up to scratch, now they could always have went down the disciplinary route and eventually sacked him anyway. Then he would have been left with considerably less than he has got now, at least this way he gets 3 months wages + bonus and a good reference notwithstanding the fact that his employers weren't happy with his work. 

I know that it can be hard but you both should try be as objective and honest with yourselves as possible about the whole thing. Indeed you should try see it from the employers point of view. You should also think long and hard about what you would hope to achieve by going down the legal route. Is it more money or maybe some sort of vindication? Either way you must also consider the inherent risks asociated with bringing proceedings. Eg. by pursuing any claim your husband may find it extremely difficult to get a job as many potential employers will view him as a troublemaker. Also, in the circumstances (and please don't takes this as legal advice- for that you should consult your solicitor) you mightn't necessarily have the strongest case of constructive dismissal ever. 

If it was me in your husband's shoes, I would be hurt by the whole thing and of course my ego would have taken a bit of a bruising, but in the cold light of day I would probably come to realise that my ex-employer whilst they arguably could have handled it slightly better did treat me reasonably fairly. I would dust myself off and start looking for another job, who knows the way these things work out it might be the best thing that ever happened him. Enjoy the money and forget about it.


----------



## Lomond (5 Feb 2007)

Hi, 

I go along with what has been said and it seems to me that your husband was put in a situation where the stress/pressure of "there's the door", lack of warning or suport of a representative has not allowed him to respond/react in a fully informed manner. An employee has a right to know case against them,right to reply, right to fair treatment etc.

Definately go see a lawyer and as someone said earlier make sure its a firm that specialises in employment law. Check the websites for law practices etc. Gather all your information together.

Good luck


----------



## ailbhe (5 Feb 2007)

I know what you're sayings dats right and we have weighed it all up. We probably won't go down the legal route as it is so expensive. Its just that everyone who we have told has been shocked as he has really turned the store around since he took over. He met and exceeded all his yearly targets. 

At this stage we are just taking the money and getting out. I can't however see it from his employers point of view as they didn't give him a chance! With no warnings how was he to know. I just can't believe companies can treat workers like this. He has been known to work 80 hour weeks at busy times and all his employees like him.


----------



## KalEl (5 Feb 2007)

dats_right said:


> I know it mightn't seem like it now, but your husband's employer actually handled the issue better than most.


 
That's an outrageous thing to say. Assuming we're getting all the facts this poor guy has been treated appallingly given the service he has given the company.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Feb 2007)

ailbhe said:


> We probably won't go down the legal route as it is so expensive.


I don't think that this is necessarily the case. You may not need independent legal advice although that would probably be a good idea. As far as I know the LRC/Rights Commissioner procedures should not cost much if anything assuming that you have a good case to take it that far.

Based on the information that you've posted so far the situation sounds far from acceptable in my non professional opinion and I, for one, would certainly be looking at taking the matter further and looking to see if there are statutory rights that were breached.



KalEl said:


> That's an outrageous thing to say. Assuming we're getting all the facts this poor guy has been treated appallingly given the service he has given the company.


I agree with you _KalEl_. It may or may not be that they handled it better than most but if this still means that they breached employment law and the employee's statutory rights then it's largely irrelevant.


----------



## ailbhe (5 Feb 2007)

The thing that is worrying us though is whether him taking a case will hinder his ability to get another job. Our solicitor told us that the reference is worth more than any money we could get. And while I can honestly say it isn't about the money we can't afford for him not to have a job! As this is the only job he has ever had he has no other references. Though the manager he worked under when he was assistant manager(who was shocked at the news) has said he will givve him a reference. This would only be on an assistant manager level though. Plus, if put under pressure from the company(he still works there) he might not be able to.

There is so much to think about!


----------



## ClubMan (5 Feb 2007)

ailbhe said:


> The thing that is worrying us though is whether him taking a case will hinder his ability to get another job. Our solicitor told us that the reference is worth more than any money we could get. And while I can honestly say it isn't about the money we can't afford for him not to have a job! As this is the only job he has ever had he has no other references. Though the manager he worked under when he was assistant manager(who was shocked at the news) has said he will givve him a reference. This would only be on an assistant manager level though. Plus, if put under pressure from the company(he still works there) he might not be able to.
> 
> There is so much to think about!


I'm not sure what, if any, legislation might govern an employer threatening not to give a favourable reference but taken in conjunction with the rest of the company's alleged behaviour in this situation it certainly sounds unacceptable to me. You really need to get onto the _DETE _and see what they say. Once again, if it was me then I would not be letting this drop just yet.

I totally disagree with _dats_right's _take on this matter by the way but each to his own view.


----------



## greenfield (5 Feb 2007)

If I was you I would not give up yet.   I am not a lawyer but I do work in this area and have experience of unfair dismissals cases.   You do not necessarily need to be represented by a lawyer unless there are major points of law to be argued, the rights commissioner or the tribunal will assist you to present your case and will cross examine the employer on your behalf.   You could contact a trade union for advise.   On the facts you have given, there is a case to answer.   You have six months in which to lodge a case and if you really do not want to go through with it, you can withdraw before the case is called if you do not wish to proceed.  By lodging the case and looking like you are willing to pursue it you at least may get into a position to negotiate a better deal including getting a reference.   At the very least, go and take advise from someone with a little bit of a more robust attitude that the solicitor you have talked to.   Good luck


----------



## ailbhe (5 Feb 2007)

I would just like to point out dats_right that if he hadn't been meeting targets or doing the work then I would agree with you and say the reference plus money is great. 
But do you honestly think it's fair that their reason for sacking him was that on the 4 occasions they visited over the last year that once, there was a queue and a couple of other times there wasn't enough stock out in parts of the shop. 
If they can do that then we'd all be losing our jobs!!


----------



## KalEl (5 Feb 2007)

ailbhe said:


> I would just like to point out dats_right that if he hadn't been meeting targets or doing the work then I would agree with you and say the reference plus money is great.
> But do you honestly think it's fair that their reason for sacking him was that on the 4 occasions they visited over the last year that once, there was a queue and a couple of other times there wasn't enough stock out in parts of the shop.
> If they can do that then we'd all be losing our jobs!!


 
I think you should take the other posters' advice talk to a union or employee rights body. Presenting someone with a fait accompli of "resign or be sacked" fits any definition of constructive dismissal I know.

On a more positive note there is a shortage of retail managers and a lot of opportunities so he shouldn't struggle to find employment.
Best of luck...and don't let this get you too down


----------



## Luternau (5 Feb 2007)

I sympathise with yor plight. It seems way dodgy to me. if the employers case was as clearcut as some say, they had no need to give more than the statutory amount. From the sounds of it they are not in the charity business so it just not add up. You need legal advice.
If you PM me I can give you the details of a solicitor that is retained by one of the largest trade unions in the country and therefore deals in this regularally. My brother had a similar case-dismissed by letter-and took a case and employer did not turn up in the labour court to defend. Remember a lot of companies do not want this kind of publicity so that works in your favour.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Feb 2007)

dats_right said:


> Now under the relevant legislation the company could, after being seen to follow all the correct procedures, dismissed this chap anyway for his lack of competence.


His lack of competence has far from been proven here.


> this guy has got a reasonably good settlement


 Don't forget that if he was made redundant then he would have been entitled to statutory redundancy of 2 weeks per year plus another week or 17 weeks pay in total which would presumably exceed the 3 months severance that he did receive so perhaps the settlement was not necessarily as good as it seems?

By the way - it is quite possible that the termination payment that he did receive could be tax free but it may depend on how it was made.


----------



## MugsGame (5 Feb 2007)

> the employer's were obviously unhappy with this chaps work



That's not obvious at all. There are lots of reasons management might want to dismiss someone other than for cause, e.g.
* To cut costs and replace them with someone younger/cheaper
* To promote the owner's nephew/mistress/etc. into the role 
* The person is doing too good a job and makes other people (including their superiors) look bad
* To avoid a redundancy payment, as ClubMan points out



> to statutory redundancy of 2 weeks per year plus another week or 17 weeks pay in total which would presumably exceed the 3 months severance



Remember though that statutory redundancy payments are capped at €600 per week.


----------



## Lomond (5 Feb 2007)

dats_right said:


> Let's be clear about this, the employer's were obviously unhappy with this chaps work. Now under the relevant legislation the company could, after being seen to follow all the correct procedures, dismissed this chap anyway for his lack of competence. Obviously the statutory minimum notice period would apply i.e 4 weeks


 
Its my undestanding that dismissing someone for capability, competence is not that easy  - once you get into that arena then there is a whole bunch of employment consideratons such as job description, what was offered for training/development, efforts made to support employee if not reaching standards (performance meetings, assessment).  The bigger the company, the more likely these standards are likely to apply.

It can be done during a probationary period, but this guy worked here for 8yrs. Also with regards the reference, again its my understanding that if a company cant stand behind (ie paper trail) what they put in a reference (or say on the phone) then they run a risk of being sued for defamation.


----------



## bankrupt (5 Feb 2007)

On the face of it I think you have a very strong case for constructive dismissal (I am not a lawyer!) and I would urge you to pursue it.  I suggest you ignore dats_right's advice, the company seems to have behaved despicably and should have their actions investigated.   I suspect one of MugsGames' suggestions, or similar, could well be the real reason for this dismissal, if this is the case then your husband can expect to be compensated (hopefully handsomely).

Good luck.


----------



## dats_right (5 Feb 2007)

www


----------



## greenfield (5 Feb 2007)

Dats_right
I presume you have little experience of persuading the employment appeals tribunal of the legitimacy of a dismissal for lack of competence. Trust me, it is not that easy - they expect that you to produce not just evidence of the incompetence, but evidence that the employee was made aware of this and given every opportunity to reach the required level of performance. THEN the employer has to show that natural justice and the prescribed method of dealing with disciplinary matters has been followed (as set out in statutory instrument) - the reailty is that this is the hardest kind of dismissal to justidy and the kind of case an employer is most likely to lose.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Feb 2007)

dats_right said:


> Firstly, I think that it fairly safe to presume that this chap is going to be replaced. Regardless, it really doesn't sound like a genuine redundancy situation.


Just mentioning it in case it might prove to be relevant. For all we know the company might ultimately want to close the outlet in question in which case redundancy may well be relevant.


> Secondly, this guy resigned his job so it is not a straight forward unfair dismissal claim.


 No - but it could still be a constructive dismissal case.


> But, if it were and if the company had sacked him for his apparent lack of competence, it really isn't that difficult for them to prove incompetence.


 What about them seemingly not having given written warnings as required by law as far as I know. Also bear in mind what CitizensInformation has to say on this specific matter:


> *Competence
> 
> *   Competence refers to your ability to do your job. In the first place, you need to be made aware of the standards that are expected of you, and these must refer to the job you were hired to do.
> 
> ...





> Particularly, if there are HR people being seen to apply correct procedures.


 Based on what has been posted so far there is a strong possibility that the relevant statutory procedures were not followed in this case.


----------



## KalEl (5 Feb 2007)

dats_right said:


> Club man,
> 
> Firstly, I think that it fairly safe to presume that this chap is going to be replaced. Regardless, it really doesn't sound like a genuine redundancy situation.
> 
> Secondly, this guy resigned his job so it is not a straight forward unfair dismissal claim. But, if it were and if the company had sacked him for his apparent lack of competence, it really isn't that difficult for them to prove incompetence. Particularly, if there are HR people being seen to apply correct procedures. So his incompetence could have been easily shown


 
He resigned under duress. The man was presented with what most us agree was an unjust fait accompli.
Employees have to be protected. By not pursuing this the OP and her husband would be doing themselves and other employees a disservice.

If he was that "incompetent" why did he rise up the ladder in the way he did. On the basis of what I've heard this is a cynical cost-cutting exercise.


----------



## dats_right (5 Feb 2007)

zz


----------



## KalEl (5 Feb 2007)

An employer can't just tell an employee the shelves are untidy once, tell them the queues are a little long another time and then just sack them!

The employee must be made aware of the problem and the potential consequences verbally and in writing. They must also be offered training and/or help...in this case a merchandising course or something similar.


----------



## KalEl (5 Feb 2007)

dats_right said:


> Bankrupt,
> 
> with all due respect you don't appear to know what you are talking about. You admit to not being a lawyer yet somehow are able to offer the opinion that the OP has a very strong case. I would suggest that it is utter folly to say that on the strength of what the OP has stated.
> 
> ...


 
With all due respect I'd have more faith in the views of the posters you're so quick to dismiss than an unqualified solicitor who doesn't work in this field.
One of my employees recently asked me for a reference as he was leaving. I consulted my solicitors as I didn't want to give him a good reference and was told categorically that giving a bad reference was not an option. That's from A&L Goodbody


----------



## dats_right (5 Feb 2007)

zz


----------



## KalEl (5 Feb 2007)

dats_right said:


> Club man,
> 
> you are obviously missing the point. This guy was not dismissed he resigned. There is possibly a case to be made out that he was constructively dismissed, but I don't necessarily think it is the strongest such case ever.
> 
> ...


 
Dats Right, your argument is outrageous.

They could have followed proper procedures and got rid of him by the book anyway, so stitching him up like this is ok?!

Employment law exists for a reason...procedures exist for a reason.

What's happened here is not right or fair.


----------



## Vanilla (5 Feb 2007)

dats_right said:


> Club man,
> 
> ...despite the rent-a-mob attitude to fair play ...


 
Hmmm, I don't think you're doing yourself any favours with this kind of remark. Just because the majority of posters don't agree with you doesnt mean they are a 'rent-a-mob'. In fact I think most of the posters have expressed some very good points. At the risk of repeating myself I do think that the OP and her husband should arrange a consultation with an independant solicitor- Luternau seems to have a recommendation for an experienced practitioner. This should give them a reasonable idea of the cost of and likely outcome of any such action for constructive dismissal. I don't think it's possible to say, given the limits of this medium and the very limited details given, whether or not the OP's husband has a strong or weak case.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Feb 2007)

dats_right said:


> Club man,
> 
> you are obviously missing the point. This guy was not dismissed he resigned. There is possibly a case to be made out that he was constructively dismissed, but I don't necessarily think it is the strongest such case ever.


How did I miss that point when I said precislely the same thing above? 


> But the facts of the matter are that this guy resigned and was not dismissed, so the onus is on him to show a constructive dismissal and despite the rent-a-mob attitude to fair play this may well prove problematic in law.


 Not sure what you mean by "rent-a-mob attitude" but this comment and a few others (e.g. ) from you in previous posts don't really serve to foster constructive discussion of the topic in hand. 

We should probably agree to disagree and my comments/advice to the original poster stand.


----------



## dats_right (5 Feb 2007)

rr


----------



## MugsGame (5 Feb 2007)

An employer is not prohibited from giving a bad reference, but good practice nowadays is to either give a good reference (where deserved) or to give none at all. Giving a deserved bad reference, or an undeserved good reference, potentially exposes the employer to legal action, as you have alluded to. So the advice KalEl received was correct, at least in terms of the action he took.

To avoid this some employers no longer give references, to anyone, as there is no legal right to a reference. A less extreme variant is to give everyone a 'reference', but restrict it to a statement of facts ("A was employed by B Ltd from Date X to Y.")., with no comment on aptitude or performance. Such a reference is next to useless, as those facts can be verified from a P45 and P60 alone, with no further input from the employer.


----------



## KalEl (5 Feb 2007)

MugsGame said:


> An employer is not prohibited from giving a bad reference, but good practice nowadays is to either give a good reference (where deserved) or to give none at all. Giving a deserved bad reference, or an undeserved good reference, potentially exposes the employer to legal action, as you have alluded to. So the advice bankrupt received was correct, at least in terms of the action he took.
> 
> For this reason some employers no longer give references, to anyone. A less extreme variant is to give everyone a 'reference', but restrict it to a statement of facts ("A was employed by B Ltd from Date X to Y.")., with no comment on aptitude or performance.


 
That's more or less the advice I received. Essentially, the employee can sue you and will probably win if you give them a bad reference unless it contains matters of fact. So while it's not "prohibited" doing so is a really bad idea.
It makes sense really...if you say a guy is lazy you'll be asked to prove it. "Eh, he just is" won't wash.


----------



## greenfield (5 Feb 2007)

Ailbe
Poor you, you look for advise about what I am sure is an extremely stressful situation and war breaks out.   Obviously you do not know the bona fides of anyone offering their opinions or advise here, as I said before I would look for further professional advise


----------



## ailbhe (5 Feb 2007)

Hey all. Thanks again for the advice. We had a talk about it over lunch and he has decided to just let it go. We don't have the money to risk a poor reference (those ones that say employee worked here from A to B and nothing else) as the most important thing is keeping a roof over our heads. 
He is still only in mid 20s and should be able to get another job based on his experience. Had he not sent in his resignation we probably would take it furthur as the onus is now on us to prove he was constructively dismissed as opposed to them proving they dismissed him fair and square.

We won't be so naiive should it ever happen again. It is disgusting the way the treated him but they will suffer in the long term as they have hired a younger, less experienced guy to do the job (less expensive) and husband will definitly NOT be showing him the ropes and lighting his way. Therefore the shop will (hopefully!) suffer. Their loss.


----------



## sheena1 (5 Feb 2007)

Just a thought, as the company said they will provide you with a good reference could you not ask the company for a reference in writing now and use this to support your claim that your hubby was not incompetent? 
While it is frustrating for you both that the company can treat him like this in what is obviously a crude cost cutting exercise and seemingly get away with it, perhaps you should think about speaking to a rights commissioner just to get a professional opinion and some indication of the time and costs which would be involved.


----------



## jhegarty (5 Feb 2007)

ailbhe said:


> Hey all. Thanks again for the advice. We had a talk about it over lunch and he has decided to just let it go. We don't have the money to risk a poor reference (those ones that say employee worked here from A to B and nothing else) as the most important thing is keeping a roof over our heads.
> He is still only in mid 20s and should be able to get another job based on his experience. Had he not sent in his resignation we probably would take it furthur as the onus is now on us to prove he was constructively dismissed as opposed to them proving they dismissed him fair and square.
> 
> We won't be so naiive should it ever happen again. It is disgusting the way the treated him but they will suffer in the long term as they have hired a younger, less experienced guy to do the job (less expensive) and husband will definitly NOT be showing him the ropes and lighting his way. Therefore the shop will (hopefully!) suffer. Their loss.




I won't tell you to risk your house... but once he is setteled into a new job and doing well it may be worth looking at again....


----------



## greenfield (5 Feb 2007)

Hi ailbe
to back up what jhegarty and sheena have said, you have six months to lodge a claim, so you can hang tight for now and as I have previously said, you do not have to be legally represented at an unfair dismissals case.   You can represent yourself, or be represented by a trade union.   I have seen claimants win their cases on their own, even when opposed by lawyers - the tribunal or the rights commissioner ensures that the matter is dealt with fairly.   What I would do for now is (1) get your reference (2) preserve any letters, memos etc (3) get your husband to write an account of everything that has happened, sign and date it (4) have a chat with the staff in the rights commissioners - that costs nothing.


----------



## dats_right (5 Feb 2007)

OP you may well have saved you and your spouse a great deal of uncertainty and aggravation. 

Indeed I too want to avoid unnecessary aggravation. For, I am now going to leave it all to the 'experts'. Those among you who know everything about everything, that's the majority of you by the way, how lucky you all are! I wish I was as able and wise as you all, I really wish that I too was smart enough to offer a definitive opinion on everything conceivable.


----------



## KalEl (5 Feb 2007)

dats_right said:


> OP you may well have saved you and your spouse a great deal of uncertainty and aggravation.
> 
> Indeed I too want to avoid unnecessary aggravation. For, I am now going to leave it all to the 'experts'. Those among you who know everything about everything, that's the majority of you by the way, how lucky you all are! I wish I was as able and wise as you all, I really wish that I was smart enough to offer a definitive opinion on everything conceivable.


 
I think everyone was in an agreement that the OP and her husband should get professional advice. That's a given. 

It's not a crime to discuss topics in an intelligent way...and if someone can benefit from another's experience or mistakes that can only be good. I thought that was the point of AAM.
I could equally criticise you for advocating the gutless easy way out when faced with a problem...but I won't!


----------



## Jimmy Mook (5 Feb 2007)

dats right, welcome to the internet.


----------



## MugsGame (5 Feb 2007)

I've locked the thread as I don't think there's anything constructive left to add.

If when the dust has settled the OP does decide to take further action, it might be interesting to hear the outcome.


----------

