Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OC 's don't do court   dx  
    • you will also need a copy of the CCJ and the particulars of claim on the claimform as... you'll need the particulars of claim as we don't know the judgement sum nor if post judgemental interest was allowed. did you defend it? did you ignore it? did you not get it?  did you know nothing about it?   its very rare on welcome debt either taken to court by welcome (doubtful in 2013) or a DCA (more likely)  i will suggest the debt was already at £18k before the CCJ so nothing bar court charges were added   please advise  i love bashing welcome and DCA but we can't help until we know our actual target and who did what and when.                
    • Janet Yellen confirmed as first female US Treasury secretary in Senate vote View the full article
    • I am sorry not to have responded in time to your thread. I have an awful lot going on.   I am hoping that you still haven't sent off your WS  as I have just seen a copy of Southend Airport  ByeLaws 2020. which will help you no end.     https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/board-approved-london-southend-airport-byelaws-100220-d14ca659.pdf   If you go to Section 5  the headline reads 5. Prohibited acts on parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply:   In other words the roads on the airport are either governed by the Road Traffic Act or the airport Byelaws- neither of which are classed as relevant land. Therefore PoFA DOES NOT APPLY throughout the airport.   Take a copy for the Court and point out that the VCS WS is somewhat lacking in accuracy. It is inconceivable that VCS have not read the Byelaws since they are operating there.    So looking at their WS it reminds me that a good few years ago it was said about the WSs of  parking companies that they and their lawyers simply do not care about the truth and are content with regularly supplying false information to the courts, happy that they will not produce a witness to defend their porkie pies, and that nothing bad will therefore happen to them.   This practice should stop since were the authors to have to appear in Court and challenged, their perjury would not only be clear to see but it would put a stop to the practice. If they don't turn up in Court they get away with their lies and are able to repeat them ad nauseam. And this WS is full of lies and misdirections -not that you can say in Court they are lies but you can point out where there is contradictions shall we say and let the Judge decide.    The WS says in point 31 that they robustly deny that their sign is prohibitive.    You could point out that  District Justice Glenn  in Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), at the High Wycombe Court said    “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach.   The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway.   It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway.   All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”   And of course VCS cannot sue for trespass as they are not the landowners.  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Audio-recording your consultations with NHS doctors


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 593 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

“ If a patient asks to record a consultation – do not assume the worst and think the patient does not trust you or is trying to ‘catch you out’, that’s not necessarily the case. In fact, a patient recording the consultation might actually be to your advantage. There’s often so much discussed in a consultation that the patient might not take it all in, so a recording can help to ensure they don’t miss any important information.

ETC

 

http://www.clinmed.rcpjournal.org/content/17/2/188.full

 

It says nothing new – but good on the authors for saying it clearly, where and in the manner they have. (PS. Dear authors – just in case any of you should stray this way: I note that each of you acknowledges an ‘affiliation’ to or with Birmingham City Hospital. I’ve had a look at the website of the NHS Trust which operates it. No policy for patients to read about recording consultations. Give ‘em a jog?)

Thank you for that link. I will print out that page and add it to my articles to show a doctor who might become unduly worried about me recording my consultation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sorry – it's just that someone just message me and asked me to open this thread because they wanted to add some information.

Hello shallowthought9 and welcome to this thread. For what it is worth I think that in the light of the clearly disgraceful way your (former)  behaved it is very generous of you to contribute to a thr

Yesterday, the Times carried two medical articles on two different pages, without any linking comment.

 

1. The first was headlined ‘ Doctors who trained abroad ”far more likely to be incompetent”

 

Sources and some statistics were, of course, cited, and those included the GMC’s own records. Irish-trained, twice as likely, apparently. Bangladesh-trained, 13 times more likely, it is suggested.

 

2. The second article was entitled ‘Medical schools turn down 770 straight-A applicants’. It went on to explain that there is ‘a shortage of doctors in the NHS’, and:

 

“The government says it must restrict places because it takes £230,000 to fully train each doctor. Last year the NHS was forced to hire thousands of foreign doctors to fill jobs.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

I, too, have frequently read articles that foreign doctors are more likely to be dragged in front of the GMC for medical errors.

 

 

I believe the government announced last year that it will be training more doctors and that there is a suggestion that they will be compelled to work for the NHS for a minimum of 5 years. We'll see how that pans out.

 

 

However, the other side to foreign doctors (and nurses) magnetically attracted to working in the UK is that their own countries, who perhaps have spent equal amounts in training them, lose their much needed skill, especially from the poorer countries.

 

 

Oh, and Ford, I think it very unlikely that people who voted for Brexit believed that the money saved would go to the NHS. That's just political flimflam. The strategy is that if they repeat something often enough it becomes true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
‘usually it is to help them remember and cooperate with important advice or share it accurately with family members’
that is a good and fair point.

as posted before, a doc prints out the appointment for such reference. a recording wld make no adverse difference?

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That quote is indeed very useful. It summarises what others have already researched and reported, but it belongs in what I think of as the 'laminate list'. As MyTturn suggests: durable pieces of succint authority to produce in the face of those ignorant of law and practice in their own field.

 

............................................................................

 

And talking of ignorance:

 

"The medic 'took his patient hostage', refusing to take the needle out of his arm until he deleted the video"

 

Thanks to the viewer who has just sent me the story with this strapline, from November last year. Altogether extraordinary:-

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2182292/shocking-moment-a-st-peters-hospital-nhs-medic-attacked-patient-he-was-treating-in-ae/#comments

 

 

Edited by honeybee13
Enlgarging font size
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

DON'T FORGET ......

 

Manoeuvre I: Have a backup recorder to record any discussion which results in the main recorder being turned off.

 

Manoeuvre II: Use your backup recorder to record any discussions which arise when replaying a conversation to someone else from your main recorder.

 

Both situations can be interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Hypothetical question.

 

My mom is having a Continuing Care Assesment to see if she is eligible for funded care. The people attending are the Community Psychiatric Nurse, Me (who has power of attorney), my wife and 2 people from the care home.

 

My question is can I record the conversation without their knowledge?

I believe that the CPN and Care home workers are playing down my mothers condition so she does not trigger the funding process.

 

Can I then email them afterwards to let them know I recorded the conversation and willing to give them a copy for their records

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Zentrix. I am glad to say the answer to your first question is ‘yes’. You will not be breaking any law if you are doing this for purely personal purposes (such as looking after your mother).

 

Indeed, I can acknowledge that I have, more than once, been in circumstances pretty much identical to those you describe and have always (privately) audio-recorded all such meetings.

 

As regards your second question – concerning afterwards telling the parties involved that you have recorded them without their knowing and offering copies of the recording – well, that’s a tactical point rather than a legal one. My inclination has always been not to let on unless and until absolutely necessary. Just because you are legally entitled to do what you propose doesn’t mean to say that those with whom you are dealing know the law, or would respect it even if they did. The Nursing and Midwifery Council, for instance, have recently produced a ‘policy’ about recording by patients of their treatment which is, in some material respects, ’illegal’. They could raise spurious objections and e.g. try excluding you from future meetings, in a fashion which would obviously hinder your ability to act on your mother’s behalf.

 

In this respect, caution is required, in my opinion. Best of luck.

 

Legal note: this now quite old and certainly voluminous thread has had occasion to cite the relevant exemption from the Data Protection Act 1998 (section 36) many times. This statute has now been superseded by the Data Protection Act 2018 where the equivalent provision can be found at section 21 (3). Restrictions on ‘data processing’ of ‘personal data’ do not apply where it is carried out

 

“…by an individual in the course of a purely personal or household activity.”

 

(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/21/enacted )

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

Sorry – it's just that someone just message me and asked me to open this thread because they wanted to add some information.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem at all. I stopped 'leading' this topic some while ago for more than one reason but including the fact that in contrast to when I started it back in 2010 - when I was really scratching around to contribute relevant personal knowledge\legal research and to find any related internet comments at all - there is now extensive internet commentary on the subject all over the place;  some of it is still inaccurate, but ,nevertheless, it is now an entirely acknowledged fact that many patients would like audio-recordings of their appointments to take home - and it is well- established in this country ( and in many parts of the USA) that such activity ( including 'undeclared' recording e.g. if a patients fears an ignorant\adverse reaction from a clinician) is entirely legal. Which is where I wanted to get to all those years ago.

 

If someone would like to introduce further facts or a particular line of discussion I would be only too happy if they re-awakened this thread, but please may I say don't rely on me for any swift response or extended reply. After all, several the other previous (and loyal) contributors probably now know pretty as much about  these matters as I do, and may be happy to pick up points posted. I will, I trust, at least get around to saying 'hi' to any new contributor eventually, as I think I have always managed to, in the past.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have held off contributing for many years. For reasons which will become obvious.

I am a doctor and several years ago a patient, who I cannot name for confidentiality reasons, covertly recorded a consultation.

Six months later he posted a YouTube video with highly edited extracts of this recording, accompanied by copyrighted pictures of me taken from websites, along with my full name and where I worked. The title of his submission was defamatory, as there was no evidence in the video that I was as the title stated. YouTube agreed and he had to change the title. I can give no more detail as that would breach his confidentiality, even though he put it in the public domain.

The facts were distorted, but I was advised my my legal advisors that I could take no other action.

All the allegations were untrue.

This was a betrayal of trust between a professional and his patient and he furthermore made a sufficient number of racist remarks during the consultation that I felt I could not continue to treat him. I offered to refer him to my senior colleague for further management.

I have not seen him since, but his videos are still indexed by Google.

This is the downside of recording.

I will always agree to a recording (audio or even video)  even though I am not photogenic, as I have over the last 35years striven to be open and honest with nothing to hide. 

But this episode revealed the downside, and I am, all this time later, still angry and feel betrayed. I was, after all, just trying to help him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello shallowthought9 and welcome to this thread. For what it is worth I think that in the light of the clearly disgraceful way your (former)  behaved it is very generous of you to contribute to a thread such as this still affirming:-

 

I will always agree to a recording (audio or even video)  even though I am not “photogenic, as I have over the last 35years striven to be open and honest with nothing to hide.

 

I am glad you got shot of the racist and congratulations on at least getting youtube to remove some of the commentary. I can’t comment much on your lawyer’s advice about ‘no further action’ because:

 

 a) I don’t know the full story and haven’t seen the video – and the last thing you would want to do online, personally and professionally, is to attract any further attention to a distorted account; and

 

 b) I am way out of date on the law of defamation (and never much did much work in that area in that specialist area in the first place.)

 

Having said which I will hazard a guess which may be completely erroneous. To publish a distorted account on line like this can most certainly be defamatory. But I understand new law in 2013 ( which I have not studied in any detail at all) introduced a ‘serious harm’ ‘barrier’ i.e in addition to establishing defamation as under the old law the plaintiff in some circumstances might have to prove that such defamation constitutes ‘serious harm’ to the defamed.

 

This could be totally wrong, but other patients be warned: very serious and expensive legal proceedings can be commenced on the basis of defamatory publication online, and whether to proceed or not can sometimes depend on a very fine balancing of considerations. It maybe that shallowthought’s former patient escaped by a mere ‘whisker’ of legal assessment.

 

Any other patient deciding to behave like this might well not be so lucky. And it does ‘serious harm’ to the aims of responsible patients who want recordings for very good and perfectly legal purposes for professionals to encounter behaviour like this.

 

Best wishes too shallowthought9, and thank you for your contribution.

 

Edited by nolegion
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...