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 
        • 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

Freedom of Information Act?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6437 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

My landlords (a housing agency that has taken over from the local authority) want to do a tenancy audit to ensure that I am the tenant and not sub-letting. They refuse to let me send them ID documents or take them round in person and want to interview me in my home, which I'm, not too happy about. They have not said they want to inspect the condition of the property, which they are entitled to do under the tenancy agreement, but they do demand access to interview me inside the flat. This seems to imply they want to snoop about and check whether I actually live there, like, what? Looking through my laundry? They say they can evict me if they cannot gain access.


Am I entitled to ask for a copy of their audit checklist in advance of any interview? Does the Freedom of Information Act cover this? If not, is there any law I can use to get a copy before I let them in so I can see what boxes they want to tick?






Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I dont think the act would cover that... but i will stand corrected!


However, have you asked them on what basis they are conducting this on? As far as Im concerned, if my landlord did this to me, I would say this was a breech of my rights to have quiet enjoyment of the property.


I would say this is a breech of the tenancy agreement on their half. And that they should provide you proof that you are indeed subletting. If they do not have this proof, then they should leave you to quiet enjoyment of the property. I think this may come under the freedom of information act, request all details they hold on you, then you may know why they are conducting this enquiry.


Relooking at your post - is this a housing association? I dont know if a different set of rules apply to this, but I would say you have no less rights than someone in a privately rented setting.


I do however remember reading in a local paper, that the housing estate (ex council taken over by social landlord) I have recently moved away from was subjected to police going around checking who was in the properties, and making sure they were the right people in the properties. I also remember thinking, surely this must be incorrect, as no one would have a right to do this to people, and what about those like me, who were out all day, would the police batter down the door? It seemed like Big Brother to me, and I would have had a LOT to say about the matter. As it is, im just grateful im out of there now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they say my address was randomly selected for a tenancy audit and that they are allowed access at all reasonable times "for other management purposes", as well as in emergencies and to inspect for damage. I'm inclined to tell them to off it and prove in court that I am not the tenant, but if they can evict me for not letting them in, they won't have to prove that I'm not the tenant. I just don't think this is reasonable, although it seems it happens on other estates.


I have to prove who I am, my date of birth and provide recent bills, statements etc to show I am living there and that I am not someone else who is subletting from... er... me. And some git with a clipboard will be asking me questions and trying to ascertain if the place is occupied by me.


Yes, it's a type of housing association that is managing the estate for the council and paying for some re-building, refurbishing and new builds. In order to make a profit, of course. I've been there over 17 years, my rent is always paid monthly in advance and I've never heard of this before.







Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are being misled about material issues. A tenancy audit does not require entry to your property unless the audit includes other matters. If they want to confirm the ID it can be done at the door.


They cant evict for not letting them in. Even if entry was permitted in the agreement their remedy would be a court order/ injunction and not necessarily eviction.


The only way they could try to evict is if they claim that the tenancy was induced by misrepresentation or fraud. Having said that, your refusal to allow entry is not evidence of that. If they want to allege such grounds...its up to them to prove the case....if all they have is a refusal to allow entry...it would be a very weak case.....


They dont need to enter the property to make sure there is no subletting either...this maybe one case where there could be a HR issue...

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to your question about the Freedom of Information Act, the Act allows access to Government or Official information which is defined particularly in the Act - it most certainly does NOT apply to personal, corporate or commercial information. It would not therefore cover any request for information from your Landlord (whether a person or an organisation), unless they are actually a Housing Association which form part of the local authority.


Rather than quoting the Act at them, why not just write and ask them nicely first? It may be they'll be quite happy to send a copy of their audit checklist - and any threat of eviction is simply whistling in the wind; they can only evict you for matters of gross misconduct on your part regarding your tenancy, and denying them access is not that. They might be the rightful owners of the property, but a Tenancy Agreement makes it YOUR HOME, and they must submit to any reasonable conditions you have for entering it on official business.


If they wish to interview you, suggest to them that they do so in their offices, and explain that you'd like to have a formal representative with you. If they wish to inspect and audit the property then they are entitled to do so at a time convenient to you and with your presence. If you think they have any REASON for their apparent suspicion, now would be a good time to negate that reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if they are a straight-forward Housing Association or an Arm's length body. They are managing the estate on behalf of the local borough authority.


I agree with most people's comments, at least it seems common sense to me in a free democracy, but my tenancy agreement says that I must allow them access "...at all reasonable times.... "for other management purposes". They are saying that the audit is part of estate management and if I don't let them in I am in breach of contract, which gives them grounds for eviction. So far, my main concern is that they were setting appointments and expecting me to take a day's annual leave from work and sit around waiting for them to turn up, which I am not prepared to do. I've been so busy I haven''t had time, anyway.


I already asked them to send me a check list of questions they wanted answering, offered to ask my GP to verify I've been registered at the local health centre on the estate and at my address for 17 years, send them copies of rent statements, electric and phone bills etc, but they won't have it. They want photo ID as well.


I already suggested that I could probably find time to call in at the local office one day, but I can't make definite appointments due to work committments, and they insist the interview has to take place in my home.


Sucks, doesn't it?



Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if they are a straight-forward Housing Association or an Arm's length body. They are managing the estate on behalf of the local borough authority.





If they're managing the property in the way you describe then I'm pretty certain that they will fall under the FOI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I have just found out that they are an ALMO which is wholly owned by the local Borough Authority and have taken over managing the publically-owned housing stock on the borough's behalf. They are managed by some sort of "board" of five residents, five member's of the organisation and five "independent people".


In order to get details of their policies, standard operating procedures, audit procedure etc, I assume I use the Freedom of Information Act, rather than the Data Protection Act? The next question is how do I go about this? I am not claiming back bank charges or anything like that, I just want information on the information they want from me, plus some other information.


I know from doing audits at work that many questions on an audit form are addressed to the person doing the audit, not the person being audited. So they won't ask me those questions at all. The auditor will make a value judgement and answer those questions for himself. I just want to know what those questions are, in advance. They have so far not sent me anything. They are threatening to evict me for breach of contract, although I have pointed out in writing that I am not preventing them doing their audit, nor am I denying them access to the property. They simply have failed to call round when I am at home and I am not in a position to take a day's holiday to meet an appointment of their choosing.


Cheers, grateful for any help.



Link to post
Share on other sites

And as a guardian of misuse of dates of birth - I'm almost positive this information does not need to be disclosed, other than 'Over 21' to confirm the tenant legally entered into the contract. As I tell others, my wife and mother know my date of birth, and unless you're going to send me a card each year, it's really none of your business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...