Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. The 40 day limit does not start until the fee has been received by the data controller. You may not have paid the appropriate fee if they determine that a higher fee is payable.
  2. It is utter nonsense to suggest that this is a police matter. Yes, they are far more interested in online harassment than they were, but this is where direct threats of physical violence is concerned. Whoever knows (or cares) that the receptionist in blythe has left a negative review is just plain nonsense. Where on earth is the cause of action to warrant speaking to solicitors. What you are saying is that you should free to anonymously slag off a service provider, they have no right of response, don't identify you by any means ordinarily available to the general public. I have no idea what trip advisors terms are. Even if they are breached, surely the sanction is to take down the offending post - that's it.
  3. I'm afraid I don't share the outrage and don't think the restaurant have done anything wrong. "We are sorry a plumber from Leeds didn't enjoy their meal". Honestly. To claim compensation under the DPA you must show you have suffered damage or "distress" alongside damage or breach of the "special purposes" which this is not. You freely gave limited information about yourself which was ancillary to and not a function of the transaction, no expectation of confidence. I would put the prospects of success of any claim under s13 as zero.
  4. I recently had to cancel an interview at short notice. The candidate had already left home and I rearranged. I paid for her train ticket for the wasted journey, not because I was legally obliged to but I considered it to be the "right" think to do. I think talk of small claims action is daft though.
  5. Did you actually employ the administrators? Was there a contract of employment or contract for services? s11 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 creates a rebuttable presumption (which would need a clear agreement) that copyright ownership over a work created by an employee is first vested in their employer. If these were purely voluntary roles though, that is unlikely to assist.
  6. I don't believe a criminal court can impose a restraining order until it is dealing with an offence, a conviction is not necessary. You might be able to get a civil injunction but that is an expensive process.
  7. No, whilst both joint account holders are responsible for any debt to the account provider, that does not make them equally liable for a judgment debt. You could try to enforce via a third party debt order if you know the money to cover it is in the bank. That would oblige the bank to pay you direct.
  8. No, sorry, it sounds like you have just had a long series of Assured Shorthold Tenancies, each of which gives you no more rights than the proceedings ones.
  9. I suspect what they meant was how much you felt comfortable about paying back on a monthly basis rather than how much in total. Their legal team are right other than in VERY limited circumstances. Are they saying you have been overpaid since the TUPE transfer? If so, how much were you paid in your last month with the local authority and how much in the first month wit the new employer?
  10. But we are not talking about access to a computer account, so what the ICO had to say about that is irrelevant. We are not talking about access to any information, we are talking about a job search skill.
  11. Afraid that is wrong as a matter of law, the Article itself defines those circumstances in which Article 8 rights may be interfered with: "such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The law is in place to permit mandatory requirements of claimants and it is necessary for the economic well-being of the country that as many people as possible should be in employment. (The purposes for which Article 8 may be interfered with are NOT limited to the prevention and detection of crime. That would be the argument I would run anyhow, were I to be acting for the DWP. I am simply trying to say that it is "against Human Rights" is not enough.
  12. It was the lead story on (BBC) Radio 5 Live this morning - and was going to be the subject of their hour long phone in - hardly treating it as unewsworthy?
  • Create New...