Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Don't worry for now. People will be along later with ideas of how to get around the problems. The system can be temperamental. HB
    • 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        
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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

Sick pay and return to work

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4986 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

I will try and explain as best I can - hope it makes sense.


I joined my present company in July 2009. I am a training consultant so basically teaching classes of people. During that year I got excellent feedback and attracted repeat business to the company.


In June 2010 my employer told me to go and do a course I wasn't qualified for. For four days I faced a class of very aggressive people. To cut a long story short it really knocked my confidence. I should never have been sent to do it. A few other things were going on in my life and as a result I became depressed and very anxious. I have had depression for 10 years but up until June had been managing it ok.


I have been off work now for five weeks. Per my contract of employment I get 10 weeks on full pay and then have to go on to SSP.


With my health the way it is I cant go back to doing exactly what I was doing before. My job involved travelling and being away from home for 2 - 3 nights each and every week. Thats not possible for me at the moment. I am taking medication and seeing a counsellor so am helping myself as much as possible.


I had a meeting with my manager on Monday who has basically said the choices are a) I leave or b) I go on to SSP and just stay off.


Is there anyone who can give me some advice please? Do I have any rights under the DDA? I feel at a loss and scared stiff that in 4 weeks time I will go from earning £2300 per month to £79 SSP per week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the site.

Not sure of the answer personally,but I am sure someone will be along who can answer soon.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there, what a tough time you're having. I think I said on your other thread that some employers have insurances to cover employees who are off sick. Does your employee handbook say anything about that?


I think I also mentioned checking out your credit cards and mortgage cover. When I was first ill, part of my credit card payment was taken care of and I had a policy alongside the mortgage that paid out for illness or redundancy.


Don't leave, I don't think that will help anything.


I hope we can think of some other angles for you.


HB x

Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Oakmoss


Did the employer know of your previous bouts of depression? What was the reason for insisting that you teach a class that you were not qualified to teach? Did you complain about the aggression at the time? if you did what did your employer do about that complaint?


The DDA is quite complex and sometimes is in conflict with other legislation, we need to be clear as to what the employer knew about you and you condition and then did some overt act that prejudiced you.


I think there are other options for you though and one is to return to work asking for adjustments to the work pattern, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Yes, employer knew I had depression.


They just told me I would be alright doing the course. The aggression was witnessed by another consultant who was there doing a routine check ride on me and also there was another consultant teaching a different group in the same place. No complaint was made to the client as they are one of the biggest my company has. Changes were made to the business but little done to help me apart from a half baked apology and a 'we all have bad courses' (believe me this was much much worse than simply a bad day). They sent me out with other consultants for a couple of weeks to sit in but apart from that nothing at all. Then I was expected to jump back in and get on with it. Thats when I broke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you have had a long period of illness MAY afford you some protection under the DDA but the DDA and the Codes of Practice written by the EHRC states that the impairment must also affect daily living........


The test of whether an impairment affects normal day-to-day activities is whether it affects one of the broad categories of capacity listed in Schedule 1 to the Act.

They are:

■ mobility

■ manual dexterity

■ physical co-ordination

■ continence

■ ability to lift, carry or otherwise move

everyday objects

■ speech, hearing or eyesight

■ memory or ability to concentrate, learn or

understand, or

■ perception of the risk of physical danger.


So, were any of these pertinent BEFORE the 4 day course? If not are any of them pertinent now?



Did you raise any objection to doing this course if so what did you say? I don't think I was asking if a complaint to the client was made but to YOUR employer? If so what was said to you? I am trying to establish if the employer knew of the problems and did nothing or little about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My depression certainly does affect daily living.


I told them before the course that I couldnt do it as I wasnt qualified. They just told me it would be alright.


Afterwards I put all my concerns in writing to my employer.


Their response was to put me out with my colleagues for a few weeks to regain my confidence and then to get on with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that we are becoming bogged down on treating this as one issue when there are actually two issues. If the OP is off sick, the are entitled to contractual sick pay, and when that runs out, to SSP. That's an absolute position - whether the OP has a disability or not isn't relevant. So once the contractual sick pay has run out then SSP becomes the operable payment.


Whether or not the employer has breached the DDA in expecting the OP to reach this class, and whether or not the have potentially breached health and safety duty of care, is a very different issue. I suspect not, and even if they have, I suspect there will not be sufficient evidence to demonstrate a personal injury, since even the OP has said that his current depression is only partly arising from this work based problem, and that there are other contributing factors in his/her personal life that are part of the picture.


What is clear is that the OP should not resign (standard advice - never resign!), since there is no financial benefit in doing so, and it is then down to the employer to make the next move - which may or may not be legally correct. In otherw ords, let the employer make the running, because things can't really get any worse if the OP is fairly dismissed on capability grounds; they may get better if the OP can return to work; and the worst case scenario is that the stay they same as they are.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think SarEl is absolutely right. You should listen carefully as she gives a legal opinion based on the facts that you have told us. On the limited information that we obtain on the forum it is very difficult to separate the reality of what the OP's actually state and what we as Cagger's suspect may be the case. Even SarEl 'suspects' things as you can see from her reply.


SarEl focuses of the contractual and SSP issues and also gives an opinion based thus far on what you have said as to whether any action under the DDA or a Personal Injury action would be successful. Those issues and the evidence to support them may or may not be there in fact but they are not there thus far in the information that we have been told by you. You need to elaborate much more giving detailed information / dates etc


You quite rightly are really scared about the future and the loss of income and seek advice. I think it may be helpful if you can identify what you want out of this ie how you feel about going back to work for this employer or whether you are just looking at the most efficient way to leave. I suppose I am saying is what is it that you think should be happening? I know it is difficult but you need to have a goal in mind and if that means resorting to a legal remedy you need to have the evidence. That evidence may yet be in the future actions of your employer and how they react to requests and information that you have yet to give too. These situations are often fluid and reactive.


I do wonder if you have been given enough support after this incident and whether submitting a grievance is a worthwhile option. This may aggravate the situation though. I wonder what SarEl and other Cagger's think on this?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...