Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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?
    • Simon Case was at the Covid inquiry yesterday. Finally. ‘Eat out to help out’ launched without telling official in charge, Covid inquiry hears | Covid inquiry | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Simon Case, who was responsible for Covid policy at time, calls Boris Johnson’s Downing Street the ‘worst governing ever seen’  
  • 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

creditor threat to use insolvency act


shabz25
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4982 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

Hi,

I have received a letter today for my creditor stating that if i did not pay the £861 they will use the insolvency act to recover the money. The debt is for electrical equipment paid for in installments. can you advise me if the credit act applies to this debt, should i have received a default notice etc. Can they use the insolvency act for this amount?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mention electrical equipment paid in installments...is there any kind of written agreement ? Also they can only use the insolvency act if the amount you owe is OVER £750, it might be a wise move to get the figure under the £750 mark...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

They can issue a statutary demand if the sum owned is more than £750. If you have not paid the sum, or apllied to have the demand set aside, within 21 days they could oetition for your bankrupcy.

If you can pay them the difference of £111 they cannnot issue a statutary demand in which case they cannot petition for your bankrupcy.

Bear in mind that it will cost them £1,000- £1,500 if they do try to bankrupt you and they will be at the end of the line when any assets are divided. HMRC come first, then any secured creditors such as a mortgage and possibly a secured bank overdraft. They could spend a lot to get 1p in the £.

I would try to pay the £111 if you can and then negotiate a payment plan for the balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no agreement, just to pay an interest free installment for 5 months. I offered to return the goos when i could not pay for them but the retailer refused. What if i bring the debt below £750 and they add interest to bring it back uip again. I cannot afford to pay a monthly installment plan because i haven't enough left to pay my creditors at the end of each month. My debts are over £140k so am having to prioritize at the moment. i will have to check but the original debt was about £600 so £200+ is made up of charges, i will have to check to make sure on this.

I could gather the £110 as a last resort to prevent them issuing a SD. What if i offer to pay the £110 but they refuse to accept it, where do i stand if this happens, do i just pay it to them anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning,

If the debt was £600 and the balance is made up of interest and penalty charges which have been applied unlawfully ( you say there is no contract) then your reason to set the SD aside would be that the debt was below the £750 threshold.

 

If you owe £140,000 and cannot meet your monthly obligations I would be inclined to write to the creditor outlining your financial position and offering a full and final settlement figure that you can afford.

 

I don't know your full financial position, you may be asset rich but cash poor, however, as I have stated above it will cost the creditor well into 4 figures to petition for your bankrupcy and by the look of it they will not see a great return on their outlay.

 

Only you know your true position and CAG generally suggests you avoid bankrupcy however with your kind of debt I am sure that you must be under great pressure. I would suggest that it is something you should look at look at for your own wellbeing.

 

Martin g

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, i want to avoid bankrupcy and save myself the sense of failure. I have no assets what so ever. I have not means to repay my debts in full. I have made some full and final payment offers to some creditors but never heard anything back from them. I can only assume the offer was too low for them. I have recently had another SD set aside successfully. I don't think it is in their interest to issue a statutory demand as they will not get anything at all, they are way down the list to get anything. Do you think it is worth writing to the DCA and telling them that making me bankrupt would not be in their interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankruptcy is still a dirty word, but nowhere as bad as it used to be. Although its still a bit of a bad stigma, most people who declare themselves, or indeed anyone who has been petitioned are usually relaesed from it within 12 months. this was introduced under The Enterprise Act 2002 I believe.

 

If you have a genuine consience and truly want to pay your debts, then why not go into an IVA. this will last for six years and once youve made the arrangement with the IVA Practitioner, youll only have to pay what you can afford. Its on your credit file for 6 years, but so is everything else, like defaults, CCJ's, the lot.

 

If as you say youve got no assets, then the liklihood that anyone will chace you with diligence is unlikely. No one in thier right mind will petition you considering what it costs them aganist what they are going to get out of you. If you got debts of 140k, you could pay 25% of that over 6 years. Thats just under 6k per annum.

 

As you have no assets, you are in a position of control. Just say to them, well look this is what Ive got, this is all you're getting - end of. If they dont like it well then tough, say petition me !! Dont tolerate crap from these bully boys, you have to take control of the reigns and make the rules.

 

SD's are abused in may ways, and to my knowledge the only creditors who will really go for Bankruptcy big time is Government depts like HMRC for example. They do it as a matter of principle, regardless of cost, just to eatch someone a lesson. Ive been told that by a friend of mine in HMRC Litigation.

 

The choice is yours to make, only you know the full extent of your problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon,

 

I obviuously don't know you, however I really think that the sensible thing for you to do is to go bankrupt. I appreciate that this may make you feel a failure but many businessmen and women who are successful today have been bankrupt in the past, or have declared a business insolvent.

In the States venture capitalists have no problem with ppeople who have been bankrupt on the basis that we learn from our mistakes.

I would suggest that you phone the National Debt Helpline who are, I beleive, sensible, non judgemental and who will give you unbiased advice.

 

Martin g

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...