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

Newbie - Settling out of Court


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4889 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

PT

 

I just googled Egg Mold County Court and there it was - the top entry - elementary really :wink:- as others who try will soon understand.

 

I see the full judgement was published on 10 Sept and is downloadable.

 

Will we able to see KLG's case in public domain in a few weeks too?

 

Thanks again

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

i am currently looking at getting the judgment transcribed, but i am unsure how long that will take

 

there are plenty of cases we are winning though, the thing is of course i cannot attach them to messages on this site, so i take that to mean that my help is not wanted by those who run the forum

 

accordingly i have provided some of the wins elsewhere, where they are welcomed and accepted ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

PT

 

OK - thanks for the pointers. It's a bit frustrating how much detective work we've got to do to unearth helpful info nowadays.:???:

 

If we're going to have to act like Sherlock Holmes then we definitely do need to have good Watsons to help us! :wink:

 

BD

 

PS - Do you know if the Brandon v Amex case is being appealed?

 

PPS - Are you able to say whether the Egg Mold case is going to be appealed?

Edited by Bigdebtor
Link to post
Share on other sites

PT

 

Thanks for the info. Whilst I am an admirer of Columbo I don't care for most American lawmen and would ensure I didn't make such a mistake. I much prefer the methods and ability of British detectives and their learned assistants.

 

I have just read the whole 49 paragraphs of the transcript of Brandon (got it through Google and available on another site) and am dumbfounded at what I regard as pretty twisted logic by the Judge - clearly on the Establishment side - you borrowed the money so you must pay it back you horrible little person!

 

However he then ignores the OFT (establishment?) guidance on charges over £12 being generally unfair and accepted Amex could charge £25 just because they said they could do so in their T&C's!

 

He also thought it inconceivable that Amex would make any errors in their Agreements after 36 years' experinece of the CCA 1974 - then regarded the clear errors in their DN as unimportant and excusable!

 

I also saw nothing about a dodgy DN prohibiting any termination of an agreement or allowing a 2nd DN to be issued because the termination was deemed "unterminated" as the TN was invalid - if so it seems to be OK to ignore unvalid DN's - but if it suits the OC to use them to make the TN invalid then that's quite OK.

 

I was about to comment on this in more detail on Pinky69's thread - but see it has been closed by the powers that be. :???:

 

Can anyone point me to an active thread where this vital discussion is (or might be) now discussed on this site?

 

BD

 

Sorry to hi jack KLG' s thread - but don't know where else to post such thoughts currently.

Edited by Bigdebtor
typos (too worked up/excited!)
Link to post
Share on other sites

what they dont show you, is the judgment of HHJ Rutherford also sitting as a Judge of the High Court.

 

Judge Rutherford took a different view than Denyer QC and also, Rutherford is a Civil Judge and Denyer is a Crown Judge

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BD any chance of getting to see that Brandon transcript please?

 

Not sure how I would get you a copy - but if you google Brandon v Amex it will be available on the first two items - from other sites, but can be copied into your own Adobe files easily - you don't need to be members of these sites.

 

Let me know if this doesn't work for you.

 

BD

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

what they dont show you, is the judgment of HHJ Rutherford also sitting as a Judge of the High Court.

 

Judge Rutherford took a different view than Denyer QC and also, Rutherford is a Civil Judge and Denyer is a Crown Judge

 

PT

 

Can you tell us what to google to get these views or judgements too? Which flavour:-) of judge is "higher"?

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks PT, that's very interesting!

 

BD, I believe that a civil judge is familiar with civil matters such as CCA disputes whereas a crown judge deals with criminal matters. I'll welcome correction if I've got that wrong :-)

 

If that's correct it makes sense that a crown judge ended up with such a twisted view of the CCA provisions and why the civil judge held another (more informed view) that his learned friend was 'off his box'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the judgments are available ,

 

But beating cabot is not hard, if you have the right tools and resources at your disposal.

 

We keep plugging away but thats now two cases in as many weeks that have been won, and a few more now in the pipeline

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have that all the time, pt! Sometimes the system tries to double post, sometimes it no-posts, sometimes it just falls over. Alerts to subscribed threads for new posts sometimes come in batches a few hours late. Sometimes get alerts when there’s nothing new. Still teething, perhaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have that all the time, pt! Sometimes the system tries to double post, sometimes it no-posts, sometimes it just falls over. Alerts to subscribed threads for new posts sometimes come in batches a few hours late. Sometimes get alerts when there’s nothing new. Still teething, perhaps.

 

I get the same DB and if I was the paranoid type I might be worried. But I'm not :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

DCAs, CRAs, banks etc. are all out to get us anywhichway 8-)

 

 

Very true BB, and I think that is what they have been doing before the Dinosaurs ruled the earth, only problem is that I bet they never thought that we would find a way of getting them back!!!!!!!!!

 

BECAUSE TWO CAN PLAY AT THAT GAME!!!!!!!!!!

 

Just will take us a little longer that's all :madgrin:!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
:violin:

Hi all - is there any more information on the above won case by PT?

On what basis was the case won, improperly executed agreement, illegible agreement, lacking T&C ect - any info would be very helpful.

tia

its hard to say due to confidentiality issues, but there was non compliance with s78, there was a material deficiency in the terms and conditions produced, both the original ones and current ones

 

the current ones post dated the assignment, which was not possible

 

that is all i can really say

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...