Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

Secret audits


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4717 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

I hope someone with employment knowledge can help me with some legislation.I work for a bus company who use passengers as "secret auditors", to check on the bus drivers to see if they greet the passengers, give them eye contact, give them their ticket and change in their hand, give them a smooth ride, and say goodbye ( or similar) on leaving the bus.The driver is then secretly scored accordingly and the audit is handed into the bus company for the Operation Manageresses perusal.If there are any areas of concern, then the driver is asked into the office to discuss any issues.However, I found out from a long standing employee today that the audits are illegal under the Data Protection Act 1998,as the audits should not be given to anyone else.Further more, it was alleged by the same driver that the European Human rights act applies as well if the secret auditing causes harm, or concern to the driver(s) concerned.Can anyone confirm if these laws do apply to these so called illegal audits? If so, can you give me the link to the necessary section in the relevant laws.Many thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again.

 

Is this something along the lines of mystery shoppers please? I didn't think that was illegal, although your case could be more complicated.

 

What does your union think? I believe you have one if I remember your previous posts.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But what do you care?

 

Because you always,

'greet the passengers, give them eye contact, give them their ticket and change in their hand, give them a smooth ride, and say goodbye ( or similar) on leaving the bus'.

 

Right?

 

It's a myth that bus drivers are a shower of utterly miserable people with zero people skills and no capacity for even basic customer service.

 

Isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The company needs to maintain Customer Service Standards. Your the public face of the company, how else can they check that you represent them in a favourable manner consistently. It is a good thing. It does keep people on their toes, it improves standards. If the management really wanted to go overboard,

once the report comes through and if it's good then maybe some M & S vouchers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would respectfully suggest that your long-standing colleague has been misinformed....

 

Looking firstly at the Data Protection Act, providing that you aware of the employer's use of anonymous auditing to assess performance and the purposes for which such data will be used, then there is no breach. You have agreed, through acceptance of your contract of employment and it's associated T&Cs for data recorded in this way to be passed between the company appointed to gather it, and the employer, for the specific purpose of performance appraisal.

 

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, gives protection from unwarranted intrusion into private and family life, home and correspondence, however this applies only to Government or a Public Authority, so the first point would be whether your employer (the bus company) is either of these? If not, then you cannot use the HRA as the basis of any complaint. Even where this is the case, and the employer is a Public Authority, then providing that the monitoring is not excessive or overly intrusive, and you are aware of it's use and the purpose for it, then there will be no breach.

 

You do of course have the right under the DPA to request sight of data held in relation to you in a relevant filing system (such as a personnel file) in the event of a complaint about information being incorrect or malicious, but from what you have said, there is no issue with the use of such monitoring in itself.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its only potentially a breach of Human rights, Article 8 your right to privacy, if your employer is a public body subject to meeting 3 things which Ii talk about below. Even if they are a public body they may be able to justify breaching your human right to privacy. To do this, they need to show that

(1) their act was lawful- what does your employment contract and possible policies and procedures say?

(2) that the secret audits serve one of the listed legitimate objectives listed under the law maybe public safety possibly in your case and,

(3) that they way they are going about with their secret audit is a necessary proportionate way of meeting whatever their aim was with having the secret audits in the first place.

 

It's not therefore clear that the secret audits are in fact illegal or as I would like to say unlawful, unless there is nothing in your contract work policies, handbook, or any other law that allows them to do this. If there is nothing the only possible argument you could say is that it is a breach of your employment contract, breach of an implied term of trust and confidence.

 

 

As for breach of data protection, it depends on how the information is gathered and whether or not the information contains personal data: there are complex legal test to decide if information is classed as personal data. You could find out more on the Information Commissioners website.

 

Hope that helps...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...