Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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’  
    • I think for the moment you will have to wait for the return of the dress to you And then take some decent photographs which will show the damage very clearly. You will have to provide these to parcel to go but also you will need them as evidence for the court if that's the way this matter goes . Let us know when you get the dress and you have the photographs. It would be helpful to see the photographs here. In the meantime I suggest that you start reading as many of the stories on the subforum as you can manage in 2 or 3 days and that means quite a lot. In particular read the pinned posts at the top of the subforum which will explain the principles involved which you will probably have to use if you bring the matter to court. When you have done the reading, when you have received the dress and when you have the photographs then come back here and we can go to the next step      
    • Solid blocks of text are very difficult for people to follow and especially when they are using small screens such as telephones. This discourages people from giving you the kind of help that you need. Please will you make sure that your posts are properly spaced and punctuated in future.  I have done this one for you on this occasion
  • 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

Returned Cheque Fees - Advice Needed


Keyser Soze
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6454 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've been through all of my statements and I noticed that one month I was charged £20 for a bounced cheque.

 

Is this claimable or should I just stick to claiming back the overlimit and late payment charges?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

KS

Capital One - S.A.R (Subject Access Request) letter sent 09/08/06

Statements Rec'd 21/09/06 - £974 in charges!

Request For Refund of Charges sent 21/09/06

Offer of £374 made by Cap One 29/09/06 - Rejected

LBA sent 05/10/06 - Same offer made by Cap One

Summons Issued 17/11/06

 

Halifax - S.A.R. - (Subject Access Request) letter sent Recorded Delivery 04/09/06 - Resent 02/10/06 because Royal Mail lost it!

Statements Rec'd 09/11/06 - £2,647 in charges!

Request For Refund of Charges sent 10/11/06

Offer of £562 made by Halifax 20/11/06 - Rejected

LBA sent 22/11/06

Summons Issued 01/12/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair a bounced cheque does cost more to process than a late payment charge.

 

But as with all these charges, it's a charge for breaching your terms and condidtions, so the same rules apply.

 

Did it cost the bank £20 to bounce your cheque? No of course it didn't, so it's a penalty charge, and you should include it in your claim.

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.

 

I'll include it in my claim.

Capital One - S.A.R (Subject Access Request) letter sent 09/08/06

Statements Rec'd 21/09/06 - £974 in charges!

Request For Refund of Charges sent 21/09/06

Offer of £374 made by Cap One 29/09/06 - Rejected

LBA sent 05/10/06 - Same offer made by Cap One

Summons Issued 17/11/06

 

Halifax - S.A.R. - (Subject Access Request) letter sent Recorded Delivery 04/09/06 - Resent 02/10/06 because Royal Mail lost it!

Statements Rec'd 09/11/06 - £2,647 in charges!

Request For Refund of Charges sent 10/11/06

Offer of £562 made by Halifax 20/11/06 - Rejected

LBA sent 22/11/06

Summons Issued 01/12/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW

 

theres a banking protocol based on an act of parliament i believe and deals with the way cheques are cleared.

 

Traditionally i believe all cheques went through this process which in part relies on the bank sending/taking cheques to a clearing centre and exchanging them with other banks.

 

The cost would obviousley be signficnat if this was done with each cheque. when i say sisgnficnat i mean compared with an electronic transfer of funds which costs portions of a penny.

 

Anyway I understand now that only cheques above a threshold value are treated in this way, i.e. those above £5K.

 

So if you get challenged on the cheque clearance fees being proprtionate then you need to enquire whether the cheque in question was actually cleared manually or electronically. If manually what was the process involved, etc.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Glenn, I'll make a note of it.

Capital One - S.A.R (Subject Access Request) letter sent 09/08/06

Statements Rec'd 21/09/06 - £974 in charges!

Request For Refund of Charges sent 21/09/06

Offer of £374 made by Cap One 29/09/06 - Rejected

LBA sent 05/10/06 - Same offer made by Cap One

Summons Issued 17/11/06

 

Halifax - S.A.R. - (Subject Access Request) letter sent Recorded Delivery 04/09/06 - Resent 02/10/06 because Royal Mail lost it!

Statements Rec'd 09/11/06 - £2,647 in charges!

Request For Refund of Charges sent 10/11/06

Offer of £562 made by Halifax 20/11/06 - Rejected

LBA sent 22/11/06

Summons Issued 01/12/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyway I understand now that only cheques above a threshold value are treated in this way, i.e. those above £5K.

 

 

Glenn

 

This is exactly what Northern Rock told me the other week when I was querying a cheque. If this is the case accross the board then I fail to see how they justify the charge as it's effectively no different to saying "no" to a DD. If any costs are incurred then they must fall to the bank who is presenting it to the account holding bank as they are the ones who have to physically deal with the piece of paper.

 

P.

Northern Rock; S.A.R sent 11/8/06 - Delivered. Recieved details of 6 yrs charges on 8th. Wrote back asking whether or not they hold information going back further than that.

MBNA; S.A.R sent 11/8/06 - Delivered 14/8/06

Barclays; S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request sent 11/8/06 - Del 14/8/06

Diners Club; S.A.R sent 11/8/06 - Delivered 14/8/06. Recieved form to fill and return with fee on 17/8/06. Sent form back, delivered 4/9/06.

Intelligent Finance; Prelim letter emailed 16/08/06, claiming £318. Email recieved from "Anne-Marie" 17/8/06 saying my email has been passed to Customer Relations dept. Fob-off letter received 23/8/06, letter sent in return same day - Delivered 24/8/6 Recieved letter offer 25% settelement - refused - LBA sent. MCOL on 10th revcieved notification that they intend to defend on 13th. 06/9/2006 WON!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are lucky that you were only charged £20.

I have just come across an old booklet [1977] on bank charges from my bank and

they were charging £25 then for returning cheques, direct debits and standing

orders. A blanket price, regardless of the different costs involved- hardly fair or

reasonable.

And of course, whatever costs are involved in dealing with these returns are

FULLY RECLAIMABLE against their taxable profits. Once again, their charges are neither fair nor reasonable.

 

As an aside to Glenn, I was surprised to note your comment that only cheques above £5k are now centrally cleared.

How do all the other cheques get back to their branches, and when? Who checks

that the smaller cheques are valid-ie words and figures are correct; the cheque has been signed; no stop on the cheque etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As an aside to Glenn, I was surprised to note your comment that only cheques above £5k are now centrally cleared.

How do all the other cheques get back to their branches, and when? Who checks

that the smaller cheques are valid-ie words and figures are correct; the cheque has been signed; no stop on the cheque etc?

 

My understanding is they dont or not at least in the clearing sense, they may be sent back en masse im not sure. The above 5k things was something i read on here im sure. But it does make sense why would a bank actually go through the process if itsw got a car number on the back, its been checked by the counter staff, etc all for a relativley small sum?

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the man in the tv ad says "it doesn't work like that".

What used to happen was that each branch sent up all the cheques [apart from the ones drawn on their own branch] to central clearing. There the cheques were sorted into their respective banks and then exchanged.

 

So Barclays would sort all its cheques from Lloyds bank and swap them with all the Barclays cheques that Lloyds had taken.

 

Then Barclays would sort the cheques out into branch order and send the cheques

to their individual branches. At the branch, each cheque should be scrutinised to

see that it is in order before it is paid.

 

I understand that only cheques of £5000 and over are now properly scrutinised.

A dangerous practice. But does explain why many banks do not accept they have

made a mistake when paying post dated cheques. I suppose that they feel fairly

safe in carrying out this practice [of not checking all cheques] because they no

longer return the paid cheques to their customers along with the statement each month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...