Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Meat smugglers using English vehicles to evade border checks - Farmers Weekly WWW.FWI.CO.UK Criminal gangs are buying English-registered coaches and vans to smuggle large amounts of illegal meat into the country, Farmers Weekly has learned.  
    • I've used payslip, passport, driving licence, still can't identify me, everything is upto date address etc, 1 attempt left then it blocks me H
    • Thanks for the replies and sorry, as it seems I haven't communicated my question clearly. I'm not after advice about how to deal with the situation I'm in. I'm on top of that and sent a SAR to Scottish Widows the day before I sent one to the FOS. My query was around the FOS interpretation of personal data and the extent of their obligations under GDPR, hence the original title They have said that "personal data is defined as any information relating to an [...] identifiable natural person (‘data subject’)" They then define an identifiable natural person as "one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as [...] an identification number. My view is that I have a complaint reference number, which identifies a complaint raised by me about the administration of my pension so it therefore indirectly identifies me If I'm right, then I believe that all the data related to my complaint is personal data about me, including the screen shot that purportedly establishes that I received my statements. I was hoping there might be someone with better knowledge of GDPR that can clarify whether I'm right or wrong before I react to the FOS's failure to disclose  
    • Please bear with me here i shall try and make this short but with all the detail, but i need help ASAP as there is limited time allowed for this process. I have been with my company 4 years and have advanced through the technical ranks to my current position,  we have an annual report which goes from 0-4 and for three years i have never scored lower than a 3. I was promoted to the role i am in now as an area quality assurance lead and the location was for the NE ( i live in the NW) eventually a similar role became available for another role in the NW. I asked my line manager if he minded me applying for it and he had no issues, i applied sat the multi stage interview and was given the role. My role is now classed as "at risk" of redundancy as we are moving from 4 regions to two which means they are also moving from 4 roles to two roles in my position. Two people are considered safe and myself and another at risk, my question is what is the criteria to separate safe from at risk . In the documentation received from my company it is below, i have zero issues and i know cv against cv mine wins, i was even selected by the company as a company mentor because of my experience in engineering and leadership. This is a closed group of maybe ten people and i am the only non senior executive included.    ·         Performance and Behaviour : I have zero behaviour issues, no issues with performance from my current line manager.  ·         Performance Improvement/ Disciplinary Records   : Zero disciplinary's and no performance issues, in fact my line manager on record has said I'm forthcoming ·         End Of Year Rating : Issues explained below Now my line manager was leaving the company and he did tell me "there was some politics involved with you getting that role, the city build manager and head of area build had promised it to their lead engineer (something they had no right to promise as it has to go though the process ) anyway from day 1 it became very clear that i would not be accepted for this reason within their community although i did just try to help them achieve quality and specification as that was my role. After a few weeks it became very apparent as to why the role had been promised to their man, i found issues where properties had been signed off as ready to accept subscribers when they were not ready (for bonus and stat reasons) and several quality issues i discovered which we could remedy and improve our productivity (unfortunately this would highlight that these issues had been there and not dealt with) My new head of area build (part of this trilogy of him, city build manager and lead engineer)  clearly did not want me there (for the reasons stated) but paid lip service, i had highlighted that i needed to walk off some structured with our canter of excellence counterparts ( as this was part of my role to link in with them for national issues) and he responded by saying i am not to walk them off, and that we have sufficient engineers to do that task (by saying this he could make sure that the engineers would take them round to structures that are A not the ones i have highlighted, and B would have very minor issues) This battle went back and forth over the months where i tried my best to build up the relationship with  them, my attitude was ok you have made some mistakes here, but we are all a team and even though you have hidden issues i can help you remedy them and hopefully we can do so and keep them off the radar,  but they just never did, So moving forward to October last year (2023) this is getting near to annual review time, now i had helped the company out massively by working a substantial amount of weekends and nights to fix issues, and i said i would take most of the time as TOIL ( as agreed with by my previous head of area build) this was 30 days. My current head of area build said i needed to put my leave in as it had been flagged as having a large amount. When i did input the leave (it would result in me taking all of December off) he was unhappy with me and was extremely curt in his responses as he could find nothing on the system for my TOIL , i explained the situation, my line manager would ask if i could work the hours, i would, and when i wanted leave he would authorise (we had an good working relationship, he was an excellent manager) he ended up going to HR to ask their advice and a teams call was set up with myself, head of area build and HR, it was confirmed by HR that it was a company error, when you want to input TOIL there should be a dropdown option in the leave menu and one of the options would be TOIL, this had not been setup on mine. So the company authorised the leave explaining that this should have been done and hadn't, i did say that this is the way it had always been and pretty much everyone on my team then operated this way, TOIL had never been discussed and none of had this option available. So i entered my leave from 4th December - 2nd January,  My line manager was an outside contractor and was leaving the company on the 15th December. On my return i found that we had a new head of area build, it would be a temporary position as they were not going to fill the position permanently and he would be covering his role (Scotland) and this role (NW). I contacted him to say that i had not received my end of year report yet and when would this happen as i had not sat with my line manager tor mine. A little over a week later my HoAB and i had a teams call, it was a introduction meeting and end of year report, he said that he had received feedback from the outgoing manager and he had given me a 2 (i have as explained before never scored lower than a 3) he asked hoe long i had been in the current role (just over a year) as this grade can mean you are new to the role and need a little supervision, haven't built up relationships with stakeholders etc. So he explained what my grade and bonus would be and if i had any feedback, i explained that this was unfair, i had proof that i had not met my targets (i say targets as there were never really any set, but going from emails and conversation we have had, and the job description) i had even created Powerpoint presentations which were very complex into how our network works from beginning to end  as there was distinct lack of knowledge here and i am a lead trainer / assessor (this btw he was extremely impressed with) He did say he had spoken to people in the centre of excellence which o believe was the head of operations, and he did look confused as to the disparity in feedback from them and the original manager that wrote my report. I contacted HR to raising my concerns that i had not sat with my line manager to go through my report,  had i had the chance to do so, i could have rebutted anything said as i had proof of my achievements even though he had set no defined targets, i could prove that i had been extremely active in identifying and remedying issues, HR did come back to me and these are their comments  1) "Your rating was submitted by your manager at the time xxx xxxxxx and he should have carried out an EOY review with you. The rating would not have been provided in this review but feedback should have been shared" [this never happened] 2)  Initial ratings where then discussed and reviewed during a calibration process (for your team) this will have included HOABs and RDs. During this session ratings can be challenged and changed. I can confirm that your rating was not changed as a result of this session and it remained at the rating that xxx submitted. 3) xxx did provide thorough feedback to xxx xxx in a handover so if not already done so it may be worth speaking with him to understand that feedback further.   4) In terms of reputation and the concern you share – ratings are not made public and are private to each individual. 5) And this first line obviously is incorrect " As far as i can see this would be the only separator they could have measured me on to separate safe from not safe, and if so the company did not follow its own procedure. My current line manager said " an error had occurred as you had not received the option to  sir with your manager for your review, and the company needs to make sure this error does not happen again) Well then they are admitting there was an issue and it needs remedying not sweeping under the carpet. All of this is documented. To remind the rating of a 2 is not a concerning grade. Please see descriptor below Generally, needs little supervision but does on occasion require direction/supervision. Does not always anticipate changes to the work environment and could adapt more quickly. May be seen as a strong performer in certain situations or by some audiences but may not perform at that level in all situations. May need some development or guidance to carry out some elements of role. May not consistently demonstrate the right behaviours. May have been on Performance Improvement during the year but has since shown strong improvement        
    • Also, what is the value of the dress and have you refunded the purchaser?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Cabot refuses to provide debt details returns PO


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5886 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Cabot wrote to me on 25th March 2008 informing me that they had 'recently bought the account I held with Goldfish Bank', and requested payment. I naturally wrote back with the 'standard letter' and postal order requesting proof of under s77/78 of the CCA 1974.

 

I've just received a letter back where they inform me 'The Cabot Financial Group is not obliged to provide this information but we are pleased to help and have requested the documentation for you from the original lender'. The have also returned the postal order.

 

The seems against the CCA. Just wondering what I should do here? I naturally haven't admitted the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Apparently it's common for Cabot to return the P.O.

 

This is their standard response to a CCA request.

 

Wait and see what they come up with but remember that the clock is now ticking for them to comply with the time limits to supply.

 

That's 12+2 days and then a further 30 calendar days.

 

PV :-)

LOWELLS-Stat Demand Set Aside-No CCA & Statute Barred-£1800-Gone Away-April 2008

 

Scotcall on behalf of Cabot-£2200-no CCA returned to Cabot-file closed-March 2009

 

Cabot-Court Claim issued despite no CCA and Stat Barred-Claim discontinued-March 2009

__________________________________________

 

IF I HAVE BEEN HELPFUL PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Golfpro.

 

Just file under ignore, until they comply with your CCA request.

 

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one Poss,;)

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Thanks. Cabot's was quite a confusing reply:

 

1. They state they are not obliged to provide the information.

 

2. Have passed the buck back to the original lender (will that include a 'deed of assignment'?)

 

3. Then state 'WE anticipate we will be able to provide this information within 12 days'.

 

Just wondering. Should I 'insist' they accept the P.O. for this? By them not doing so, does it get them out of their responsibility re the CCA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

 

the £1 fee is not mandatory.

 

all you should do now is WAIT!

 

this is the hardest part of this process... you feel much better when you're being pro-active... waiting's really worrying... and boring :-)

 

Sit tight, try not to worry.

 

PV :-)

LOWELLS-Stat Demand Set Aside-No CCA & Statute Barred-£1800-Gone Away-April 2008

 

Scotcall on behalf of Cabot-£2200-no CCA returned to Cabot-file closed-March 2009

 

Cabot-Court Claim issued despite no CCA and Stat Barred-Claim discontinued-March 2009

__________________________________________

 

IF I HAVE BEEN HELPFUL PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon Scott!

 

Cheers Man!

 

PV :-)

LOWELLS-Stat Demand Set Aside-No CCA & Statute Barred-£1800-Gone Away-April 2008

 

Scotcall on behalf of Cabot-£2200-no CCA returned to Cabot-file closed-March 2009

 

Cabot-Court Claim issued despite no CCA and Stat Barred-Claim discontinued-March 2009

__________________________________________

 

IF I HAVE BEEN HELPFUL PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

 

the £1 fee is not mandatory.

 

all you should do now is WAIT!

 

this is the hardest part of this process... you feel much better when you're being pro-active... waiting's really worrying... and boring :-)

 

Sit tight, try not to worry.

 

PV :-)

 

Agreed. I'll sit tight. Thanks to all for the advice.

 

GP

Link to post
Share on other sites

The £1 fee is mandatory if you want to force their hand.

 

By returning it without your protest they can claim that you accepted their position

 

In the meantime write back refuting their claims & mention that as far as you and the law are concerned the clock started running from the date of your original request

Link to post
Share on other sites

The £1 fee is mandatory if you want to force their hand.

 

By returning it without your protest they can claim that you accepted their position

 

In the meantime write back refuting their claims & mention that as far as you and the law are concerned the clock started running from the date of your original request

 

Having had a scan through previous Cabot threads earlier this morning this is my concern. That by accepting the PO return with out protest I am effectively (as suggested) accepting their position.

 

GP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Icannot see any reason to return the £1 to Cabot. I have had the same response from Cabot. Their letter admits they received the £1 by returning it to you. Therefore you have complied with the CCA 1974 and it is for them to do likewise. These tactics used by them are to confuse you into thinking you are wrong in insisting that they have to supply a valid copy of a CCA. The law is clear, they have to and they know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mojo In an ideal world yes but unless you haven't noticed we ain't in an ideal world & what THEY know isn't relevant it's what they think THEY can get away with that's important

 

If the OP does not respond as suggested they WILL use that as mitigation to defend their actions in court or elsewhere

 

Even if the court takes any notice the DCA WILL claim "we thought the consumer accepted our position Sir because we returned the payment, with an explanation & they said now't"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter what GP thinks. Even if he WAS persuaded by Cabot's chicanery, the fact remains... the law is the law.

 

The thing to remember is, for Cabot to be correct, they must join with the original creditor in any action. But they never will.

 

What will likely happen is, they will write, and their template is such that they virtually admit that they are obliged to adhere to the Act. Unless, of course, their template writer is reading, and gets busy with the template-o-matic sharpish. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cabots standard reply states that they have requested the original CCA from the original lender. They know they have to supply it.

 

I always send a Default letter after 12 days stating that they will be committing an offence if a CCA is not received in a further calendar months time. By doing this they know you are not accepting their blustering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seahorse the problem with your belief although correct is that if the DJ is persuaded by their 'chicanery' it might be too late to do anything about it. - unless you have evidence that you didn't accept their position

 

We can all pontificate about what's right & what's wrong , what's the law, all day long but in end it's about winning. It's about tactics not necessarily about what's right or wrong

 

I also think it would be particularly galling if they won their argument because of an ommision by the consumer

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a technicality really JC. If it got to the stage of Cabot initiating court proceedings, without an agreement, they cannot win. It's all a bit of a red herring, this Rights but not the Duties nonsense.

 

All JG needs to remember is, a lack of a properly executed agreement is a complete defence to any litigation. So even if they say they don't need to produce one now, they WOULD have to do so in order for a judge to enforce the debt. So if one actually does exist, they'll be VERY quick to produce it, don't you worry.

 

I would favour the "wait it out then complain", tactic. Once the 12 working days have passed, send default letter as mentioned earlier, then followed a further 30 days later by a reminder that they are now in criminal default. Once their own complaints procedures have expired, then complain to the FOS without further warning. That will cost Cabot £400. They can then argue with the FOS about the CCA not applying to them and see where it gets them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it is slightly different but the principle is the same. Hbos wrote to me saying that I had not suplied £10 for my charges to be produced and that they will not supply them with out it. My reply was:

 

26th March 2008

Lee Gilbert

Data Subject Access Request Team

Customer Relations

10 Carlton Street

Halifax

HX1 2AL

Your Ref: xxxxxx

Acc No. xxxxxx

Re: request for £10 payment

With reference to your letter dated 19th March 2008 in which you requested £10, Your bank has already cashed the cheque which was enclosed with the original letter dated 29th February 2008 and signed on behalf of your bank on the 3rd March 2008. The cheque was cashed by yourselves on the 6th March 2008.

The letter is in no way misleading and it is clear that £10 was to pay for the request.

If you have any other problems in meeting your obligations please do not hesitate to contact me by letter.

Yours faithfully

 

 

Amend and send, I agree with the census that you need to rerply to avoid missunderstandings and make sure they don't missunderstand what the £1 was for and that it's their obligation

 

Kel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seahorse Nothing technical about it I'm afriad.

 

As some here already know courts award judgement to DCA's & OC's all day long without ever seeing a properly executed agreement or much else for that matter

 

OP do as kel suggests

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...