Evening HB, Thanks for the advice. Is this lot going through their own procedures? Yes, finally months down the line. HB, you'll have a laugh when you read my previous reply above. EHRC, out of time - but have proof. Not treated in the same way as other members of staff ? Am aware of proof of that. That is why I want to do a SAR but figuring out who to send to has proved to be a problem. I have plenty of proof, getting to a point where I can use it seems to be the current problem.

Evening All papasmurf1cx, I have all the emails. Just to make things more intesting I did a search for my place's ICO on our website. Nothing. Did it another way and it pops up. Strange. Well I go into work saying there is no way that what has happened before can be topped... It seems I am wrong. Or as some would like it, Dead Wrong. Todays happenings is interesting. I rang ACAS about a group Greviance after getting a slap down from management, where I was told unless specifically in Greviance Procedures I could continue. I requested in writing for specifics where in documentation or anywhere else where my approach was excluded, I asked this of the kind independant person from external HR. Less than ten minutes later I get a phone call whereupon said Kind Indi instruct me in no uncertain terms I was wrong [by implication, so is ACAS] & they must all be sent in seperatly, also pressed for what I wanted out of G-Procedure, I indicated that only one option as far as I was concerned - kicked out as so much evidence - was promptly told "highly unlikely". I have so much written evidence it is a laughing matter that someone even suggests that. Just to add insult to injury I was told I could not pull up manager in future when caught he/they are caught lying, plus this will drag on for upto 6 months!!! I know of someone who was out in three weeks - not a senior manager though. I get the feeling the fix is in. I am seriously concerned about the above, no reply in writing, just phone call, badgering for what I thought was appropiate resolution only to be told no despite evidence, [asked if I had sent said evidence which I had weeks ago!!!] told that I had to go via mediation process, only to learn that will stretch it out to 6 months... papasmurf1cx, I work in the GOV.

[changed to adjust formating as suggested by honeybee13]

Good Evening All I would like to ask people advice on a few issues I and others are experiencing. I and my boss are victims of lying, bullying, harrasment, victimsation, collusion, abuse of power, ... need I go on? [try this for size - job evaluated at higher level on temp - following team merger, temp position taken away, but still doing the same job that was evaluated at higher level! is that legal in what I evaluate as being a imposed demotion?] Can a bunch of people submit a a joint Greivance at ommissions from a important meeting notes? I know I can but can find no literature saying a bunch of us cannot do it jointly. No, not a member of union - I know or can find out more about the law than the union does!!! [i am a great believer in knowing your rights]. A Little list of the other stuff is below: -Manager confronted me with spurious claims about email content - I challenged her to name what it was - was told three time "concerned by the tone of my email", concerned by the fact I was not getting a clear answer I asked for exactly what was meant by Tone of email and she simply repeated the same phrase. I thereupon terminated the conversation and requested written explanation - I still await it even now - I was told it would not be supplied so I said I was going to do so in writing from her. -I have still yet to receive in any shape or form a clear answer to the questions I asked when I made my initial complaint three months ago. -after not getting a response after just under two weeks I escalated the complaint to being a Grievance which after speaking to The Employment Tribunal I have been informed is my right under the law-certain persons assert that EmTribunal is wrong!!! -Manager out of hand dismissed everything that I had said. In fact he fully supports other manager's claim that there was something wrong with the emails -claims my terminating the conversation stopped the matter from being resolved informally which clearly my request for a written explanation shows that I was in fact attempting resolve the matter but in a way I felt confortable with. I stopped the meeting as it was clear that I was getting nowhere in getting a clear answer from the other manager. -I asked what he meant by "acceptable in our culture" - I have yet to receive a reply [i'm Black]. -Manager accuses me of not listening-this despite my attempt in resolving the Matter in the way that I did after I was told "Tone of Email" 3 times in a row with no clear explanation behind that. -Other Manager has issues with the tone and manner of my communication. No Indication as to what that is - then or now - still waiting!!! -Manager says that I am not'perceived' as being honest, polite and professional - requested clarification and proof - still waiting... This was all news to my line manager I can tell you. -a attempt was made to appoint a junior officer to investigate a senior officer in this matter. Clearly shows inappropriate behaviour / misuse of power/position, bullying, unfair treatment,also attempting to create inaccurate and malicious information about myself. -In a related incident concerning a forced merger of teams --- asked a question three times [red flag time] "can you work in the new team", all inside of three minutes. I was told "it was not my place" when I asked why it was being asked morethan once. I have yet to receive a answer as to what exactly was meant by that remark which I deem offensive. -claim made have not acted in a appropriate way - no proof offered. -no one made a attempt to take action to resolve this matter in a satisfactorily manner - up to them even following their own internal procedures! -expressed my concerns with the behaviour of both managers to senior manager - they displayed behaviours encompassing harassment in trying to force me down the informal route, senior manager insiting I take that route which is suspicious. - using their rank to stifle this matter and stopping it going any further, and victimisation in the way my concerns have been inadequately addressed. -despite emails detailing grevience only moved to instigate greviance proceeding after further followup email from myself. - person in colluson with other manager making claims with no proof - questioned I have received no answer. - I am currently going through the greviance procedure but the senior manager seems to have worked everywhere and something I saw today leads me to believe the person handling my case is acting in concert with that manager. Any advice for the above matters from anyone? Are there any execeptions to a SAR request being put in to request specific electronic data like documents, emails etc which can be ignored by anyone [for instance Companies, Goverment Departments, Councils, clubs etc] this also includes infor held by HR and email communicatons between individuals other than myelf where my name crops up. Systems in place for Managers to investigate lower ranking people but nothingplace to investigate the other way round - up to and including no clear place where to send official SAR request, only an internal form - no doubt that will get lost in the system.....

Hiya Mate, As a way of making sure you don't get fobbed off I would flinig the book at them at the first hint of them not being helpful - i.e. they send a letter [ignore what they say on the phone as they can just deny it] saying they will impose charges, no refund etc. Mate had a similar problem with llolyds, still have not got a straight answer out of them as to how it happened and what theyhave done to track down the perp - even though the second time [yes it happened twice] someone paid off a bill!!! If you can for the day or so around when this happened, note down your movements and computer usage - this is to show you could not have done this. Step 1- ask for written confirmation of their stance and a clear and full explanation of why, spell out you want the names of those making this decision. Step 2- send in a SAR, specifically stating you want the records showing the internet records of said transactions and times. Step 3- ask for the details of who they are comunicating this with in the police force as this was a crime. I would start getting suspicious if they say nothing to this request. Step 4- Specifically Ask for details of whether the same internet connections were used in any other crime - if you got hacked, probably others did so it wasn't you losing/giving away your account details which seems to be favorite tactic banks use to deny liability with regards to Chip N Pin. If they say that it is impossible for accounts to be hacked, do a search on the internet, there was one story on the teregister.co.uk about the head internet editor at the washington post investigating 2 banking account hacks. Personally, I do not do intenet banking, if I did I would do as the washington post editor above does, do not use Windows, use a Linux LIVE CD, it leaves no footprints on the HDD, so no information is available to a hacker nor can trojans get anything. Here's the article: Security Fix - Avoid Windows Malware: Bank on a Live CD Laters

I am sorry but I have to point out that there is one circumstance where that is not true - background first is that the ecomomist who predicted the Credit Crunch is saying loud and clear that the means/reasons which caused it have not changed, infact that the next crash is building as we speak - I would point out that next time, and from all indications I see, it will be a lot sooner than people realize, where exactly will the money come to carry out that rescue? We are going to be paying off this one for a long long time to come, never mind wonderful PFI and whatever what not that the Treasury/City has come out with to avoid raising Taxes. The avoidance of that is what is going to bite us all...

Hellooo A... Well the saga continues, now Red have popped up [sorry is that Lovells, Red. Lovells... I'm confused...] to say : We have now referred your account to our client for thier autherisation that legal action to be commenced against you and we expect an answer from them within the next 10 days. If you contact us now and negotiate settlement of your account or enter into a monthly re-payment plan we will submit your porposal to our client and await thier decision. If accepted this will mean we will not commemce proceedings against you to recover the debt or to petition for your bankruptcy should your balance exceed the insolvency threshold of 750. We do not intend to correspond with you further regarding this matter, unless you enter into an asgreement with us for re-payment of the debt. Any further correspondence may then be from the court if legal action is commenced against you (if this is seen as viable option), or from a licenced Field Agent who may call at your poperty during a period to be notified to you to either collect the outstanding debt or assess your means with a view to continuing with any permitted action to recover the debt. Call NOW on telephone number 0844 844 3744. Yours sincerely Karen Williams Head of Recoveries. Now where do I start in disecting this threatogram missive? A] Red have not replied concerning my request, addressed and paid to themselves for information about this account - Breach coming. b] They state will not comunicate any further except if they take it to court - threat, Breach. C] this is a threatogram, vias a vis Court Action, despite the fact account in dispute - threat, Breach D] Contact themselves to make payment, despite not providing any proof as requested that they own this purported debt [them and Lovells via asking for Notice of Assignment] - threat, Breach coming. E] Threatening Bancruptcy - threat, Breach. F] Visit from a Field Agent - I am sure I made it plain to Lovell's that the only acceptable contact would be by letter, vis a vis Harressment letter which applies to these fool's who are employed by them - threat, Breach. Truly they have'nt got a clue ps I copy out the letter here so others can know what to look for and know what remedial action to take with these people. [Phone/Visits - Harresement letter; Request for proof of debt - see appropiate letters; details of account - SAR Request; Account in Dispute - Dispute Letter]. Laters

You're right.. She knows exactly what she is doing... She knows common sense when she sees it thinks it feels it... She knows how the law works... Not.

Hiya I did that with CrapOne back in 07. No escape for them down that route me thinks...

Hiya All, Update time. Just received a pair of letters... from Lovells not Red!!!! You'all can guess what I received ... the standard We are in reiceipt of credit agreement request... will attemp to supply in the 12 day period... will advise if long than 12 days... Not under any obligation under provision of section 77 and or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 against which your account agreement is governed, to supply you a deed of assignment as you have suggested.... we include a copy of our letter [threatogram, pay up or else...] advising that they purchased this account from CrapOne in August 08 [er did i not put in a SAR asking for ALL papers, does that not include deed of assigment I wonder? I think so, I know so... oh dear ... we have a Inf Act 08 breach... Oh that confirms they Lovells are in Breech as account in dispute since 07... you guessed it lets all say it together, Breech!!!]... blah blah blah...if you have any questions please call 0113 3086044 [i think not, having already endured the pleasure of their calling my work place before I stamped on them about their harresment]. Truly a set of people who cannot get a grip... of their own Ars&'s.. let alone do their job's properly. Ah... I forgot their job is to be clueless and brainless. Ah well, back to normal life as we await the next episode of : Bottom Feeders up own Ars% : "Can clueless and brainless Bottom feeders find own Ars%?" Tune in next week to find out!

Info on Lovells, just to let everyone know that I have been harrassed by these bottom feeders - up to and including them calling a particular number twice [bad bad mistake as that is a civil service number - strangely enuff still waiting for an explanation, but i'll deal with that security breech in time]. Lovells, got sick of my asking for documentation and explanations and sicced a new Firm on me by the name of: RED Debt Colection Agency PO Box 203 Leeds LS11 1BG I sent them the following: You have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself. I do not acknowledge any such debt & require any evidence of such. In particular, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Sections 77-79), I request a true copy of any credit agreement between myself & any client you are representing to be supplied to me within 12 working days as specified in the above Act. You are notified that you are legally obliged to supply these documents, whether you are the original creditor or not. I enclose a payment of £1.00 which represents the fee payable under the Consumer Credit Act. I also request a signed true copy of the Notice of Deed of Assignment of any above referenced agreement & your confirmation as to whether it was absolute or equitable. Furthermore I draw your attention to The Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance that states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question & that under the Guidance it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods & continuance of this action will leave me with no option other than to report this incidence to the OFT & Trading Standards Dept. I ADDED THE FOLLOWING: Furthermore, this account was put I dispute back in 2007, at which time I requested information under the Information Act 2008, which to this date have not been supplied despite prompting on several occasions. The industries own code of conduct [now set in law from April 2009] states no action may be taken until the dispute is settled. This clearly has not taken place. Any court action will be contested to the fullest, and you are required to supply your previous documentation and any further documentation by registered post to prove delivery as this is the first I have been contacted by yourselves. If you dispute this fact, please supply proof of delivery. I look forward to your reply. At the bottom of letter I added in Biro Writing: THAT LOVELLS STILL HAVEN'T SUPPLIED REQUESTED DOCUMENTATION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW. Yes, peeps Lovells/Red DCA are one and the same... Cheeky Buggers. It will be interesting to see what these bottom feeders comeup with next - and yes my card was before 2004 [no T&C's], no reply from Capital One since Late 2007 requesting account info via SAR. The Battle Continues, tune in next week for the next episode of bottom feeders diseapearing up own Ars% - if they can find their own Ars%, that is. Gazza01

Hi all Just a little update - especially for those seeking their statements, the bundle I got last September went back to 1988!! I will now go into a corner and kick myself for not going ALL the way through the bundle I got. Now I just have to decipher the codes on the microfiche data to see what the actual charges are from the transactions that went on back then. Then next week it off to register my claim and wait for the court case to run its course. Regards Gazza01

Hi all, Nice one, I'll be using this in Jan 08' as Barcleys is giving me the run-around about who holds the accont details. Gazza01

Hi, Tifo just saw your post - I was joking!!! How wrong can I be? I think I will cut down on my jokes as they have a bad habit of turning out to be true... Now we move onto the comedy aspect of my previous post... The Reply: Dear Mr Gazza01 Thank you for your email. It was unclear who your email was intended for and it has been passed to me, as I work in the communications department at the Financial Ombudsman Service. I hope the following information is useful to you: By writing about 'how well the ombudsman model has stood the test of time' Walter Merricks was referring to the fact that the nature of the service and our core aims and values have not changed from the time that the first financial ombudsman scheme, The Insurance Ombudsman Bureau, was set up in 1982. We are still a free service for consumers, we are impartial and resolve disputes by considering what is 'fair and reasonable' in the individual circumstances of a case. As you point out, obviously some things do change: new areas of complaint come up, while others subside; the law and what constitutes good industry practice evolves; our service has grown and we are always looking at ways to further enhance the service we provide. Finally, to reassure you on a couple of the points you raised in your email: - we carry out regular customer satisfaction surveys - and our funding structure was consulted on with a number of consumer organisations. It was thought that the financial services should pay for the organisation - rather than passing the costs on to the consumer or the tax payer. Additionally, financial businesses have to pay our case-fee, regardless of the outcome of a case. I hope this is helpful to you. Kind regards End Reply. My own thoughts are that this is a prize example of C%$p, or if it had been on paper, toilet paper. 1st para summary: Who can you send it too if there is no named complaints address? As for it being useful... 2nd Para summary: core aims & value is to screw over the custom,mer on the sides of the bank more like... Who cares when it was set up, has it changed to meet the changing market? Nope it hasn't. Impartial? where? When did this sudden event take place? 'fair and reasonable' should account for a persons treatment & their circumstances which I have seen no sign of. para 3 summary: I notice the reply does not list/layout/explain how the service they provide has changed. Strange that. I'll make no comment on the last sentance. para 4 summary: Notice no detailing of the surveys of who carried them out & how independent they were and whether people were happy about the actual questions they put to the bank. Funding question is also unclear as does not list who was consulted so who is being talked about? I wonder coud it be the banks by some chance? Well on a dull day it brought a smile..... sorry I have to correct that last sentance, it brought an ironic smile to my face as I am sure it will to yours. Enjoy Laters

smutley I think it'll go something like this mate... Due to the overarching business concerns we are now experiencing from the unforunate events vis a vis Northern Rock, where we gave a full and excellent service, we are realligning our service model to more closely match the market as we see it heading towards, with the reduction of the banking sector by 1 bank due to Northern Rock going Bust or being taken over, we feel this is the time to re-adjust our staffing numbers to reflect what we see will be a reduction in future of complaints about the banking sector as we are doing such a fine job....

Hi I will be using the contents of a thread using the CCA1974 act to request my T&C's, I will then ask them to justify & detail how said "fees" are calculated as my reading of this is that a change in wording from "Charges" to "fees" is a change from the original agreement, and as this change is a change of the contract I am well within my rights to either reject said change or ask them to detailed explanation of how said fees are constructed. [MODERATOR COMMENT WOULD BE USEFUL] Things look like they are finally coming together on how to use the law to force them to reveal things they would prefer to keep in the dark - I'll also see about using this same argument when I take Twaddle-dumb [Nationwide] to court to force supply of T&C's and statments they have failed to supply bewond 6 years [i am looking forward to sending them a statement of truth on this matter once its at the courts and asking for signing no matter what happens... unfortunatly this will have to wait till I start my new job - touch wood in a couple of week - But I can wait] Thank you, is all very useful stuff. Gazza01

Hi all, interesting article at: First Direct kills interest on current accounts - Investing | More commentary - MSN Money UK I particulary note the paragraph 3rd from bottom. Laters Gazza01

And I have just sent to them: Good Morning Sir/Madam I have a question regarding a post on your website: issue 64 - September/October 2007 and the first paragraph, which is in regards to the following 1st paragraph Quote: "I have often remarked on how well the ombudsman model has stood the test of time – largely unchanged since 1981 when the Insurance Ombudsman was first established as a voluntary scheme. a] "how well" - This is according to who? What independent survey was taken to back up this claim? When did this take place? Done by Who? Where is the data to support this claim? I have never seen a indendent survey asking the straight question were you happy about the way that the FoS questioned the Banks about their behaviour? b] "largely unchanged" - society/business models and especially laws have changed in that time but the rules which govern how the FoS have not - is that not something that should be worrying the considering the fact that the services offered by the banks which the FoS is supposed to reguilate have has also changed? c] The fact that the service is funded by the same people that it is investigating opens up all sorts of questions about impartiality I don't need to go into especially considering the current waiver the FoS have given the banks in the OFT peanalty charge case, which no doubt would raise another set of questions concerning FoS role as the Ombudsmun considering a large number of people are no doubt suffering as a direct resiult of the Actions of the Banks. I look forward to your reply Yours scincerly It will be interesting to see what they reply with Gazza01

Wow, did anyone notice in the above article that it actually lists what the official monthly interest rate was in the past and what it will be after november? This would be of interest I suspect to anyone trying to claim back Contractual Interest on their particular claim. Laters

Hi all Update time. As I was told I got another bundle from twaddle-dumb. As 'I' expected, it is Breech time!!! The twaddle-dumb, have only gone and copied the same statements from 98 to 07 to me. Also as I expected, no TOCs or signed Statement of Truth [it is a document you send when taking someone to court but what the hell, you never know unless you try!], which the manager kindly pointed out to me in his long winded reply letter which basically said nothing of substance. Oh, and no straight answer about data retention with regards to my account. Unfortunately, if I have anything to do with it, he will be seeing said Statement of Truth, unfortunately for him and it will be on a court matter. Now its just have to sort out how to take twaddle-dumb to court for non-compliance, register a breech with the information commissonar, and raise the cash for said court application. Have a test to get ready for so signing off for now. Gazza01

Tifo stop that! it's not a charge mate, they [the W*&ks & BS's] are providing us a valuable and expensive service... can you say bend over here I come again? And better yet, we all pay for the privilage, doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside... with rage.

Hello again Just a quick update on a interesting conversation I just had which I feel will provide amusement for everyone. One knows that BarclayCard boasts about its customer service, so how about this, received a letter from them, but the contact number is for the Call Centre in India!!! Tell the operator that I wish to be transfered to the UK and the person named on the letter and guess what? I get transfered to another person, female this time in India!! Explain what had happened and that I needed to speak to the person based here in the UK and lo-and-behold I get through to the office. The person concerned is out on A/L this week and spoke to a for a change, a helpful sounding person in the correspondence section, pointed out that: a] will not accept internal procedures but strictly following timescales as laid out in Freedom of Information Act act b] fact that quoted number on letter is for a call centre in India [she's going to point out to management that that is a quick way of winding people up but I suspect nothing will change on that front] c] no contract sent as clearly asked for d] microfiched statment which was enclosed which negates argument unable to supply them e] from phrasing of letter will not/is unable to supply requested information - i.e. no wording to say further requested information would be sent, which means they are in breech f] have until 27th to comply & clock is ticking. Oh and don't bother inputting your account number if your account is closed like mine, as that is why I was put through to India I suspect. Off in an hour to send my reply by registered post to this bunch of wollies. Laters

Hello all Have read through this thread with a great deal of interest, I was the Freedom of Information Act expert in my section when I was a civil servent when the Freedom of Information Act act was coming in and I asked the question that as all email/phone/mobile calls are now required to be kept for 7 years for security/police reasons, do they fall under the Freedom of Information Act act? is it possible to request a copy of said conversation? I was told yes as long as the time/date of the recording was known, an example of that was being seen on CCTV, it is perfectly possible to use the Freedom of Information Act to get a video copy of yourself being caught by said CCTV as long as you know the location and time. Anyone know if I am correct/wrong? This would open up plus/minus possiblities I suspect. No need to inform anyone you are recording because the phone system is doing it for you. Gazza01

Hi, I won't be fobbed off mate - what have I got to loose? Nothing. I'm unemployed [though that thankfully might be coming to an end], & have no money. Plus, I must admit I am enjoying this, It's been a while since I have had to demonstrate that messing with someone who doesn't care about the outcome one way or the other, and is not afraid of authority when they start treading on his toes - there is a reason why senior directors in the civil service feared me, as they learnt to their cost! - is a person to be feared. Laters

jjandbump, check the main general board, ignore what the banks say & read what bankfodder has to say on this matter - my understanding of what I read is that AS the credit card companies have already agreed & in the past implemented the changes on charges as applied to credit cards i.e. only charge £12 you are free to claim back anything over that amount. Would a Moderator please clarify this if I am wrong? Regards