Improper use of work references by landlord My would-be landlord asked me for a work reference before I moved in and I gave him my line manager's contact details. My references were checked and I moved in. A month or so later my landlord emailed my line manager to ask a question that had nothing to do with the referencing process. The question had nothing to do with me either, it was a general question about the company. My landlord made no comment about having any connection with me when asking the question. I told my landlord that this was an improper use of my line manager's contact details and asked him to not contact him again for private matters. My landlord argues that I should have specified that he couldn't contact my manager. This feels wrong to me as it was implied that the contact details were shared as part of and only for the referencing process. What does the law say? This is taking place in the UK.
The Immigration Act 2016 introduced the so-called 'right to rent' provisions under which a landlord can be prosecuted for renting accommodation to someone who is not legally in the UK. Everyone in the UK, Brits included, is subject to the Act. This gives the landlord the right to examine your work permit and to see if your visa is valid. The landlord will make a copy of the information. This makes the landlord a data controller which imposes restrictions on how the information can be used. Because this became controversial, the Information Commissioner published a brochure on the things a landlord can do with your data. All things considered and based upon what you wrote, if the landlord did not get your permission to use the data, then it's likely he is in breach. But this does not mean it's actionable or that it would be advisable to make a formal complaint to the Commissioner. If you want to pursue it, you can use the Commissioner's "Report a Concern" page as a starting point. Alternatively, you can lodge a formal complaint with your landlord and he will have to respond to it. What does the law say? The act giving the landlord the right to access your data is in the 2016 act linked above. Everything else is in the Data Protection Act 1998. The ILPA Information Sheet is at "Right to Rent". "The information sheet was updated on 01 November 2016 to take account of the second commencement order issued by the government, on 31 October 2016, bringing further provisions into force." The information sheet is recommended reading for anyone in the UK on a work permit. Disclaimer: I'm a member.
Unless your employer agreed in a contract to not discuss your employment, then there is no legal restrictions on them discussing anything about your employment. If they say things that are untrue you could sue them for defamation.
How should I proceed? I am asking law friends to recommend some employment lawyers, but other than this, can I do anything else? You definitely don't need an employment lawyer for this. From a legal standpoint, the matter is very simple: If you grant their request (whether by signing or otherwise expressing your acceptance), you would be waiving any remedies currently available to you for their breach of contract. The company's attempt to override its contract with you is quite naive, but the company can always (and evidently does) try to get away with its liability nonetheless. I would not be surprised if the company subsequently tries harder to intimidate you, but that does not change your legal position &amp; merits unless you sign the waiver the company is pursuing. Asking for your post-termination availability reinforces the notion of company's poor planning and subpar management.
When do 33D(2) notices actually get used? When, in accordance with section 33D(1), Immigration Act 2014 the conditions at s.32D(2) have been met: The condition is that the Secretary of State has given one or more notices in writing to the landlord which, taken together,— (a)identify the occupier of the premises or (if there is more than one occupier) all of them, and (b)state that the occupier or occupiers are disqualified as a result of their immigration status from occupying premises under a residential tenancy agreement. What operational guidance procedures specify when the home office actually uses this provision? There are no, that I can find, open-source &quot;operational guidance procedures&quot; available. Those that may exist within the Home Office will in all likelihood follow the requirements and conditions stipulated in section 33D of the 2014 Act, section 8 Housing Act 1988, and at the Rules 83.9(5A) and 83.13(2) at Part 83 Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions. What can trigger the Home Office's operational procedures to actually send such a notice? When there is sufficient evidence, and it is proportionate and necessary to do so after taking in to account, for example, all the available information about the landlord, the occupiers' immigration status, and the public interest in terminating the agreement. Has the provision entirely fallen out of use? I have not been able to find any publicly available data on this topic, so one option would be to submit a Freedom of Information request for an answer. Also, from a comment: It is almost surely specified/codified in some operational guidance document somewhere, and even if such is non statutory guidance, courts are still semi-bound to lend it some weight in legal contexts. Whether or not to issue of a 33D notice is an operational case-by-case decision based on particular circumstances, so if a court (more likely an Immigration Tribunal) needs to consider the Home Office's internal mechanics, authorisation requirements, quality assurance and other such processes (which, hopefully, should be recorded in detail) then the normal production of evidence / disclosure / discovery rules would apply (with any non-relevant parts properly redacted to prevent unnecessary disclosure).
It is not uncommon for an employer to ask a former employee to assist with something as a courtesy, and sometimes the former employee will choose to do so. If it requires more than a small amount of time, this may be done under a short-term consulting contract for pay. But unless there was a contract of employment requiring such post-employment advice, there is no legal obligation for the former employee to provide such assistance. The most the former employer could do is give a poor reference if asked by potential future employers, and most large corporate employers now only give job title, salary range, and dates of employment to avoid claims of incorrect or defamatory statements in such references.
This is not an NDA (non-disclosure agreement), it is a non-compete agreement. An NDA would tell you that you cannot disclose anything you did or saw at your old employer's place. A non-compete agreement is what you have here, an agreement that limits your ability to get work. If what you say is correct, then your employer is not exactly the brightest. You stay that you haven't been given a written notice, and your contract says that a "Notice of termination will only be valid if it is given in writing". So you haven't been given valid notice. There is no reason why you would sign the non-compete agreement. If they plan to fire you without notice if you don't agree, they have a problem: Your contract doesn't allow them to do that. And they have apparently not given any written notice yet. So what they can do is as soon as they decide that you are not signing, they can give you one month written notice.
Financial institutions in the US are subject to regulations that restrict what sorts of things non-licensed employees can talk about with clients and advice they can give about structuring accounts and payments in ways that might avoid triggering money laundering alarms. I think this employee was being cautious about getting into a gray area and phrased the reason they couldn't talk about it poorly. The reason they were restricted from giving you an answer could be a legality, but not necessarily because they are giving you legal advice.
Residents agree that the receipt of mail by any individual not listed as a Resident or Occupant in this Agreement at the Leased Premises shall be proof of occupancy of that individual and a violation of this Agreement. I assume that the lease states that only the listed individuals can reside in the unit. Maybe they think that this says that receipt of mail by an unlisted person is a further violation of the lease, I don't think that is clearly enough stated that the courts would agree that receiving mail is itself a violation of the lease. Instead, it seems to be intended to say something about an existing clause – you can't have other people living there. The courts would look at the requirements of the lease, and ask "did you comply"? The question of whether you did a certain thing is a question of fact that has to be resolved in court. However, the revised lease language does not state that all mail must be addressed to Johnny Johnson – it only addresses receipt by a person not on the lease. You are (apparently) on the lease, so you may receive mail there. Nothing in the lease controls how such mail can be addressed. If you receive mail addressed to Tommy Thompson, your defense is that you received the mail, and you are on the lease, so you will not have violated the new clause.