Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

data protection issues - want to sue council and nhs individuals privately


Sherbert2
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4616 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

My son who was 17 last year (18 now) has suffered from paranoia on and off for 3 years. He has had three spells in hospital. Gladly, he is now making significant progress and there is light at the end of a very long tunnel, due mostly to the love and support of my wife and myself and our pursuit of alternative treatments not available on the NHS. However, living with a son suffering this illness I would not wish on anyone. The changes in his character to self-destruct and behave violently towards ourselves and our home coupled with no support whatsoever from the authorities, took some handling.

 

Data Protection issues. The social services were involved without our knowledge or my son's knowledge and there were moves to have him accommodated with my estranged sister whom I or my family have had no contact with for more than 4 years. My sister had no knowledge that my son even had an illness, let alone that he was in hospital. Yet she was contacted and agreed to accommodate him over Xmas even though my son's discharge was not even on the agenda and home-leave over Xmas period had not been discussed with the hospital ward staff.

 

My son was at home over Xmas and was eventually discharged in March this year. He now lives in community accommodation which is helping him to grow.

 

Data Protection. The Council and Health Authority are ducking, diving, lying and omitting what went off. They know they have breached patient confidentality big time. As the courts are apparently hell-bent on protecting the authority against the common person, I think we may have more success finding out where the particular individuals at the centre of this scandal live and invoicing them directly on a personal level for damages, then taking them through the small claims courts for non-payment if they don't cough up. Anyone out there with knowledge of this course of action? It may be a first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i suggest you contact social services again and tell them they have not supplied the information you are entitled to . Tell them if they do not send you this information you intend to contact the ICO and report them for violations of the data protection act. if they still refuse-which i doubt- contact the ICO and they will deal with it. have you looked at the ICO website?-its very informative. then when you have the full information about what went on you can then decide on the appropriate court action

Edited by frankieg
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input. I am in touch with the ICO. I was in touch with them 3 years ago regarding getting my son's medical records when he was first taken ill and it took them 18 months to respond! I have got my MP involved now and if I decide to get the ICO involved seriously, I'll ask him to do it. Surely, they will not take so long to answer him. We have had a bit more info this morning from social services. We are squeezing bits out of them gradually and they are still playing dirty in not setting out in correct order who contact whom (and still omitting content of communications). But gradually, they are implicating themselves more and more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Goodness, especially with him being only 17 at time. You need to ask for what reason did they not consider you the parents as their first contact?

 

Sounds bang out of order.

 

He's 17 and unless otherwise proven by an assessment under the mental capacity act will be assumed to have capacity.

 

This sounds like the usual problem that arises when a young person doesn't want to share all the information heor she has shared with Healthcare or Social services staff with his/her parents

 

if the young person, deemed competent, had expressed a wish to exlore the possibility of staying with / living with another family member at some point it would be negligent not to take to take that wish into account.

 

Children and Young People are not the 'property' of their parents that went out with the 'rule of thumb' ...

 

Parents do not necessarily have the right access their children's medical records, especially if the child was a Young person 16-18 at the time - or if the child was younger and deemed competent .... Fraser Guidelines and the Gillick case must have passed you by ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

im going through almost the same issues where ive had my sons gp practise send slanderous allergations about me to another medical body where my son goes it was just supose to be a referal and the practice contacted the social services also and we contacted them and they didnt know why they was rung and tried to contact the person for 2 weeks to find out why but got no reply and had to drop the case all this was a attack on me to stop me finding out what the childrens and last gp had done to my son has he has health issues which he got no help then the last straw is when my gp called me in after i had blood test for cancer i was sent a letter to see him when i got there with worry he said a woman was asking for my childrens names i get on with my gp so started to tell him then relise who was this woman who wanted these details has my gp isnt any of my kids gp so i asked who is this woman i said from pct he said yes i was disgusted by this extreme tactic they went through once again so i said to my gp its an insult to me and my kids and im sure its agaisnt the data protection act he knew then has i told him once before of what was going on and how we was getting treated i said he shouldnt get involved has crimes have been commited by various health bodies and he said he wont but when i seen him again a week later he said he told this woman from the pct i wasnt happy has they was looking for someone and was i that person what can i do to actually sue someone so the rest shall stop attacking me and my kids has someone said the solicitors seem not want to take these abuser on thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with honeybee with regard to perhaps making a new thread, a new thread in which your story is laid out in paragraphs and sentences.

 

It would also be useful to mention the age of your children -as if they are under 16 / 18 then the information sharing is probably for safeguarding purposes rather than some tinfoil hatted conspiracy or covering up an alleged 'crime'

 

It would also be of relevance to note the nature of the alleged slanderous accusations

 

it would also be useful for you lay out why you consider the data protection act has been breached

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...