Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'll be honest no I never got legal advice or went to the citizens advice. I’m a student so was worried at having to pay legal fees.  I spoke to my brother who is quite clued up but seems this one seems he seems to have missed.    I'm going to write a letter as you suggest and fingers crossed that gets this sorted. 
    • Welcome to the forum. Please will you tell your story by starting a new thread. This is important because it means that people won't get confused where we have two or more issues on the same thread. Also, the more new threads the better because that tends to be more attractive to the Google bots and it means that these issues go higher up in the Google ranking is when people search.   Your story will also tweet out on our Twitter feed Please start a new thread
    • I think it would be a mistake not to respond. Although the circumstances were pretty different, we are dealing with a case elsewhere on this forum where somebody decided not to respond to an email and they ended up in subsequent proceedings paying quite a heavy bill of costs. I thought it was unfair and rather Draconian decision of the judge – but it shows that it can happen. It's clear that you will have to accept the money is satisfaction of judgement. However if you want to play them a bit then I suggest  
    • I received the first signs of life from Shell Energy's "legal counsel" regarding the 1st claim and default judgement awarded against them.   I have attached a redacted copy of the letter where they indicate they look forward to receiveing a letter of confirmation.   I am confident I know why they have sent this request and more importantly how they intend to use any response.   I have prepared two options.   1. Ignore their letter (This is probably the best option).   2. Reply succinctly.     Shell Energy - Warrant of Control Response - Redacted.pdf
    • I found an old defence I used and tweaked a bit. Unfortunately I think I messed up in not asking for a statement in my cpr, while it wasnt referred to in the poc it does have the amount. There were no paragraphs and it looks like it was done on a phone or even an excel import??. I dont know if not requesting the cpr means I cant ask for proof of how they got the amount?   Is that enough about the lack of account details?, I mean my cabot ref is at the top of the page but 100% no aqua account number on here. That would surely come under having to prove    Please feel free to tweak etc. Wasnt sure how to word the s78 stuff as I didnt want to lie with it being not in default till weds.     Photo of poc is shown above to show how lacking it is in format in particular        Defence:   1.     The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   2.     It is accepted I have in the past had agreements with New Day LTD RE Aqua. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant.   3.     No account details are given in the particulars of claim linking the claim to the defendant.   4.     It is denied or I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the Claimant or New Day LTD RE Aqua.   5.     It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of the Agreement/Assignment/Default notice or Termination requested by CPR 31. 14, and will shortly be in default of my section 78 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; (b) show and evidence the breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974 on which the Termination referred to relies upon. (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   6. On the 17th of November I requested to The Claimants Solicitors, Mortimer Clarke by way of a CPR 31.14 copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. Mortimer Clarke have failed to fulfill my CPR 31:14 request.   7. On the 16th of November I made a section 78 legal request to the claimant for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement. The claimant has as of of 06/12/21 failed to comply.   8. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

National Staff Dismissal Register

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4955 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

National Staff Dismissal Register


Can they really do this? I mean, put you on a register for a 'suspected' offence of dishonesty that would stop you gaining employment in the future?


According to their webpage several retailers have already signed up:


"The NSDR is due to launch early next year with a membership which already includes Selfridges and Mothercare and Reed Managed Services"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post.


I would suggest that an individual can be arrested on 'suspicion' of theft yet no charges are ever brought.


However, that arrest will be on police files, as will your DNA, and can show up on disclosures in the future.


I guess this is how this company may operate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess your employer would have to put in your employment contract that they would share the data with the register


also i may be wrong but i'm sure you could send the register company a S10/s12 notification and tell them to desist from processing your data

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought tribunals took a dim view of employers restricting an individuals propspect of gaining future employment.


Furthermore, I would have thought they open themselves up to litigation so far as lowering a person's reputation is concerned. Could prove very expensive for them if they get it wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To put someone's name on a register of "suspected" dishonest workers would, in my opinion, leave themselves wide open to libel claims plus damages claims for loss of reputation, earnings, etc.

By suspecting employees, publicly, they would be inferring that they WERE dishonest.


A very dangerous path!

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.


Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.


LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.



Please donate,

Help us to help others.





Forum Rules.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big discussion going on here - perhaps the threads can be merged...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.


All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Rooster this opens up a can of worms for employers.


They should seriously think twice before using it, otherwise a whole new industry of sue the stupid employer is going to manifest itself before our very eyes


Also the data recorded has no privilege & is subject to the DPA so must be available for the subject to inspect upon submission of a SAR


What the police do is by statute & this ain't covered. Also access to the police data is restricted & only given through the CRB with the express consent of the subject

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


However, that arrest will be on police files, as will your DNA, and can show up on disclosures in the future.


Just for completeness, an arrest without charge will only show up on an enhanced disclosure. Only convictions show on a standard disclosure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for completeness, an arrest without charge will only show up on an enhanced disclosure. Only convictions show on a standard disclosure.


Not quite true.


A standard disclosure will also show cautions, reprimands and final warnings.


And it also depends on what the nature of the employment is, who the employer are and the employed position for that CBR check.


An arrest, without charge, is unlikely to appear if it involved suspected fly-tipping.


However, an arrest, without charge, for suspected child pornography will appear if somebody is applying for a post with regular contact with vulnerable children in a care home.


However, that arrest will be on police files, as will your DNA, and can show up on disclosures in the future.


Which is why I stated an arrest can appear.

(NB Can is not as absolute as will)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard CRB check

Standard CRB checks are primarily for posts that involve working with children or vulnerable adults. Standard checks may also be issued for people entering certain professions, such as members of the legal and accountancy professions. Standard checks contain the following;

  • Convictions, Cautions, Reprimands and Warnings held in England and Wales on the Police National Computer, the most of the relevant convictions in Scotland and Northern Ireland may also be included;

and if the position involves working with children or vulnerable adults, in the sectors or areas which are able to access them, and the relevant boxes have been marked on the application form, in Section Y (Y3 or Y4), to indicate this:

  • information from the Protection of Children Act List (PoCA);
  • Information from the Protection of Vulnerable Adults List (POVA); and
  • Information held by the DCSF under Section 142 of the Education Act 2002 of those considered unsuitable for, or banned from working with children.

Enhanced CRB Check

Enhanced checks are for posts involving a far greater degree of contact with children or vulnerable adults. In general, the type of work will involve regularly caring for, supervising, training or being in sole charge of such people. Examples include a Teacher, Scout or Guide leader. Enhanced checks are also issued for certain statutory purposes such as gaming and lottery licences.

Enhanced checks contain the same information as Standard checks but with the addition of any locally held police force information considered relevant to the job role, by Chief Police Officer(s).

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...