JSA Harassment (lol as if they would)

[crystallightwarrior]

Hello folks,

 

It's been a while since I've been on the CAG forums, so long that I have forgot my userid, and email I used to log in. So here I go again, a few years older and possibly a little wiser.

 

I'm having a few problems with one lady in particular at the JobCentre, I'll pick this story up from the last installment.

 

I went to sign on this past Thursday. We had spoken 6 weeks earlier where she checked the computer for suitable jobs (a task I am apparently not capable of). A couple of jobs came up including one a few towns away. I told her I would consider applying for it and left it at that. During this meeting she asked me if I had applied for the job and I told her no. She asked me why I did not apply for it and I told her because public transport would not get me there on time. I had instead applied for similar jobs in a town closer to me. She decided to go online and check for bus times. Informing me that as I did not apply for a job a form is going to be sent somewhere and my benefit could be stopped or cut. Anway, she logged on to traveline and alas the bus gets me there at 9:15 for a 9:15 start. The conversation moved on.

 

Anyway I got a phonecall the following morning at 8:30. No dpa, just is that Mr..... hi this is Ms. B from the call centre. I checked the bus and there is a bus that gets you there on time so I am going to put the form through and I need your justification. She caught me off guard, I had nothing to say, I had no idea a bus got there on time. We even checked traveline together and there was nothing... Vindictive, that's what she was being.

 

I haven't heard from them yet but I decided to check this phantom bus. Leaves my town at 6:40am gets in at 7:30am. For a 9am start? Is this reasonable? What am I going to do for an hour and a half? Everyday??? 2.5 hours from door to work?

 

Now I've wanted to put a complaint in about Ms B before, there have been a couple of issues between us...

 

Our first date didn't go down well. I am capable of working 8am-10pm monday to friday no problem. I am prepared to work weekends as long as they are rotad in (1 weekend on, 2 off - call centre job). What I can not do is work every single weekend. So as I am filling out a contract with the government, and their form is a weekly task, I had to say no to being able to work weekends. As long as it's a 1 in 3 fine, no problem at all, but not every weekend and the form was weekly. She asked me why I can not work weekends and I answered for religious purposes. She then questioned my religion. To which I told her I was an Azurite. Spiritualist kind of religion. She decided to google right there and there my religion, quickly scanned it. Told me it says nothing about not working weekends and that was it. It's not on the list of recognised religions so I would have to appeal.

 

Now the issues I have are: If my religion is not on the approved of list of religions, then she could have told me that without having to google it. If I told her I was muslim would she have googled the Koran? If I told her I was a Jehovah (satudays off) or devout Christian (sundays off) would she have googled the Bible? It was offensive to have my G-d given human right of religious freedom scanned like that. Fine it's too hippy for you, but if you can not make the decision of it being approved or not then who gives you the moral high ground to scan my beliefs in such a way? I had no choice but to say yes to the weekend work.

 

At our next meeting I was 7 minutes late. Really bad traffic, it's 20 miles to get there. She told me that I would have to come in the next day to tell her why I was late. Oh...not the next day please, I had plans for it. 28th of October. End of the 9th wave of the Mayan calendar. I wanted to meditate. Any other day... What got me was the lack of humanity. Can't you give me the benefit of the doubt once? Ok, instead of coming in tomorrow come in the next day? I'll come in at 8:30 if it helps. Nothing...straight denial. You have to come in tomorrow and tell me why you were late. Ok...I'll tell you now, I was late because of traffic. I'm standing right here infront of you 7 minutes into what I was lead to believe would be an hour long interview, and instead I have to come back tomorrow and tell you why I was late? Oh...you're going to refund me my bus fare. That's very kind....can't I just tell you now that I am late because I was stuck in traffic due to the 20 miles I have to travel to get here instead of coming back tomorrow on what is a spiritually sacred date to me and tell you why I am late? You are going to pay me £5 travel to do so? As usual no give, I had to go back the next day, sit in front of her, told her I was late due to traffic, watched her fill a form out for 3 minutes, signed it (under duress) and got a £5 travel money. It took longer to argue with her why I had to come back the next day than to fill the form out. Speechless.

 

So by this point her and I do not get along. I had to phone in sick for our next appointment and she had already scheduled my next meeting back before she even returned my self sickness note. I had to phone in and make another appointment, this time though I decided to stand my ground and ask for an appointment on my signing on day, which the nice lady on the phone agreed to. That was the meeting just gone.

 

At the end of the meeting, I asked her if she was a civil servant. She said yes. I then asked her if she had her oath. She said she did not know what I was talking about, she had a contract but no oath. I left it at that...bemused. I think that is why she decided to phone me at 830 am to be spiteful. It is my understanding that every civil servant should carry with them an oath at all times, without that oath they are guilty of impersonating a civil servant. Little law gems I believe.

 

I think I have grounds to complain for harassment and possibly religious harassment too. I am waiting for their next step and then I will unleash it all. I am thinking a DPA letter for copies of all of my records just to annoy them, followed by formal complaint to line managers informing the line managers that a copy of the letter has also been sent to my MP (travel), the PM, the constabulary (religious harassment), head of work and pensions, insert random powerful scary person, and that I reserve all of my rights, with hold none of them them and reserve the right to also pursue Ms. B in a civil court. That I reserve the right to attend all of my meetings with a witness and record the conversations. Without ill will of frivolity...

 

Ahhh rant over...Perspectives anyone?

[gordies]

"you will have good cause to refuse a job if it would entail more than 90 minutes each way in travelling time to and from work."

 

I think you could argue ( if the bus even exists ) that asking you to travel from 6:40am until 9am (start time) is unreasonable. You are being victimised and, if it was me, I would be going the whole hog with complaints. Who do these JSA staff think they are?

[FxFiqXSKXMFF]

JobCentre staff certainly would harass Claimants, even before they were given incentives to do so.

 

I'm not certain, but I believe DWP insists if you have been unemployed for more than 6 months, that your agree to a journey to get to work of no more than 90 minutes. For an 0900 start, leaving at 0640 seems to be significantly more than 90 minutes. Does the journey arriving at 0915 get you to where the work requires you to be at 0915?

 

I don't understand your comments about religion. Is there something you need to do during two weekends out of three?

 

As to being 7 minutes late, this is exceptional and you must take notes. Who is she, and exactly what did she say, signed and dated. A recording may be a useful addition. Much better is a recording and written note that she will not deal with your claim if you record any conversations (who's fault is it then that your accounts do not agree).

 

If the Secretary of State (or his representative) requires you to attend outside your normal attendance cycle, you should check that he is required to pay your travel expenses as completing the form may encourage her to have a go at someone else.

 

Not aware of civil servants having to take an oath. Really, you must check claims of that sort because you make yourself look a fool and a ready target for departmental harassment. The correct question is is she representing the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The secrurity staff are not.

 

The Police and central government departments do not like to involve themselves in each others affairs. You will need a much better reason to sue Miss B for negligence, otherwise you must sue the Secretary of State in your local county court.

 

I don't know how serious your religious affiliations are. Please remember that for every time a reasons like that wins, there are many many more that fail.

 

You can always attend with a witness, that's a fairly basic right: the person is there to quietly help you, but not take part in the conversation.

 

You would be better to make contemporaneus notes of your meetings and not answer telephone calls from the Department, presumably because you were in a public library searching for suitable employment vacancies at the time.

 

Please try not to be intimidated and remember that a significant minority of Job Centre staff are only doing their job under threat of being move somewhere unpleasant. Most tend to be unkind in one way or another, but some not approve of the instructions they are given, especially when they are either unlawful or dishonest.

 

If you insist on your records, they can flood you with full details of your National Insurance contributions. Don't mention legislation unless you are certain your understanding is correct. Forget the PM. Make sure you leave the MP until last.

 

Please do ask for further help. In answer to your question, I'd say that your prospects were minimal.

[crystallightwarrior]

Ah victimised...excellent choice of word. It will be included in my complaint.

 

Any reference on that quote at all? It's better when it comes from their mouth. Also, it is a 50 min bus ride, with a 90 min wait. It should still count as a combined time.

 

If that is the case then she is clearly incompetent, incapable of doing her job. I should push for her immediate suspension until re-trained.

 

Any thoughts on the religious grounds? It's a bit hippy trippy I know, but she still has no right to judge my beliefs based on a quick google search.

 

No dpa on the phone, I wonder if that can annoy them a little. But also the fact that I was put on the spot to defend myself. I should have been given some warning other than a "there is a bus" and that's it mentality. I'm entitled to a fair defence and be informed of what my crime is as well as the entire process. Failure in due process.

 

Best thing is I'm totally calm about it. Just annoyed that I have to start writing letters in legalese again. I'm gonna make sure she doesn't push anybody else about. I hate bullies!

[Nystagmite]

I'm surprised you had to give a reason why you don't want to / can't work weekends.

 

I've had similar issues with the bus - I was told I could always walk the mile or two in the dark to the bus stop. I think not.

[FxFiqXSKXMFF]

Nowadays, for JSA, one has to be available for work on every day, including weekends.

 

You can walk in the dark to the bus stop, with a torch (perhaps not if you're female), but the door-to-door journey must be within 90 minutes.

[sillygirl1]

I had similar at the start of my JSA claim, so I drew up my own form and when they kept me waiting for an appointment I made them sign it... only had to do it twice. I copied it into my local MP and Jobcentre Manager... one girl even quibbled with me that she was only running 17 minutes late, not 20.

 

Play them at their own form signing game and they will be rather miffed.

 

With the Jobcentre you can write to the local Jobcentre manager and ask for another adviser as you are incompatible with them.

[Nystagmite]

 

With the Jobcentre you can write to the local Jobcentre manager and ask for another adviser as you are incompatible with them.

 

Which I've done with no problem at all.

[crystallightwarrior]

Hi Fx, thank you so much for your reply. I noticed it was also your first post, thanks again...

 

Harassing government? Never

 

There are two buses that get me into this town, each taking 50 mins. One arriving at 7:20am another arriving at 9:15am. The job is for a 9am start and I'm assuming I would need a further 15 minutes to get from the bus stop to the job. The return leg is more humane, about 100 mins including waits. There are no other buses, hence the idea of including my MP but I will get to that...

 

First case of victimisation...I am being threatened with having my benefits cut for not applying for a job that takes me a total of 2:20 hrs to get there having instead applied for equivalent jobs in an area closer to home. I want a job, I need a job. I've been claiming for 3 months so far. The 8:30am phone call went down the lines of "there is a bus that gets you in before 9 so there..." If I want to be really anal about it, I have told them I have knee problems and that 1.5 hours on my feet is going to be attrocious.

 

I'm glad you find the 7 minutes an exceptional case...in my favour I am assuming. What gets me is that I had (hopefully still have) a letter from them that advises me that the appointment can take up to an hour. So 7 mins, 5 by my watch, wasn't too unrealistic to expect for the interview to go through with an hour scheduled. At a later meeting I asked her how long her appointment for me was scheduled for...50 mins. I kept quiet. I need to go through my paper work. I am terrible with it but I was so annoyed at having to sign this pointless form that I wrote under distress, made sure my signature went outside the box (freeman of the land style) and signed "first name" of the house of "surname". I hope I still have it, they should have a copy of it cause after I signed it she had to photocopy it for their records. It was so pointless, a simple humanity would have solved it. I have never been late, I travel 20 miles to get there let's get on with it. No, instead we argue for 10 minutes...surreal! Yet in the past I have sat there for 20 minutes waiting for them.

 

Also...once I was informed I was late and I would have to go through the failure to attend protocol is there a guideline that says within how many days they have to see me? Or am I at their beck and call? If this process can take 7 days then I could have asked for it to be rescheduled on a different date rather than the date imposed on me. It is some sort of formal hearing afterall. Is there any due process? Because if due process says that I have to be seen in x amount of days, then she was victimising me by not accepting my request that the next day was difficult for me.

 

The next day I got paid £5 travelling expenses as it was now outside my signing on cycle. A complete waste of money. I was there, we had another 40 minutes apparently available and nada... Power tripping or what? I know that not all of them are like this person, but if you are put in such an environment it can turn anyone. Wasted tax money. Ridiculous! I'm not gonna stand for this, I just want all my ammunition pointing in the right direction before I fire them all. So I should inform the secretary of State that tax payers money is going to waste. Justifying his inclusion. The MP for my area also due to travel problems. Justified. I feel that I am being bullied about, so maybe the police should be notified. I'm not sure I should at this point, even just writing I reserve the right to pursue this with the police. However, the point of writing that I reserve the right to pursue a civil claim against Ms. B is part of that ammunition. What I am doing is separating the person from the faceless corporate office and going after both. I won't too much hassle to deal with courts, but if I find victimisation behind this then I am going to be seeking damages and I am going to do so from both parties. Days before christmas and a threat of benefit stop...causing me distress. I should seek medical help/backup. I've got my money back from my credit cards, I've warmed up for the game.

 

As for the religious issue. The issue arises that it was offensive that I would have to sit there and justify my religious beliefs to someone who a priori did not have the authority to 'approve' my religion. The whole exercise of googling my religion, scanning the website, and questioning me how I chose to worship my G-d and follow my religion is a breach of my human rights. Article 8 I believe, freedom of religion. Let's remove the hippy/trippy religion I'm not gonna bash anyone. If I told her I was muslim would she have scanned the Koran, or if I were hindu/budhist would she have googled that? No...she over stepped the mark. She put me in a position where I had to defend my faith, when she knew it wasn't 'acceptable'. She had no right to play judge, jury and executioner with my religious beliefs. She scanned the site and said "it doesn't say anywhere there that you can not work weekends" well for argument's sake it does not say I have to work mon-fri either.

 

As for the oath, I am aware that the security staff do not have an oath, I asked her if she was classed as a civil servant, she said yes, then I asked her about her oath. I didn't pursue the matter further, I was making enquiries. She should have some sort of oath of office, saying that you uphold the Queen and blah blah blah making her guilty of treason through her actions. I know a long shot...

 

Basically it's my turn to bite back. How many endless others are treated this way? Just because I am claiming benefits does not mean I lose my dignity and human rights. Nah not me.

 

So...I think I'm gonna dpa them for all info. Screen dumps etc, pre-emptive strike. Just to waste their time and give them a wake up call. Next I am going to request under freedom of information act their charters in dealing with customers, cause I think somewhere in there it shows that she could have given me the 28th of October off if she wanted to. I'm gonna rattle them with the human rights act cause it was wrong of her how she dealt with it. I think I can find enough victimisation there to give her the scare of a lifetime. I am going to ask that she is suspended from her job and retrained.

[crystallightwarrior]

lol...thanks for all the replies. I like the idea of asking for a new advisor, but I also like the idea of phoning in sick due to depression and adding it to the damages tab.

[Nystagmite]

What does it say on your agreement about travelling time?

[crystallightwarrior]

Haha...I have most of the paperwork at hand. For someone so disorganised as myself finding relevant documents so soon is a good omen.

 

First letter that I have is asking me to attend an interview on the 27th of October, I quote from the letter "this interview could last up to an hour". Well there you go then, 7 minutes in a 60 minute appointment is not so bad.

 

Next letter stamped 27th October 2011. You were asked to attend this office in connection with your jobseeker's allowance. Our records show that you attented on the correct day but not at the time requested. Next appointment tomorrow, sincerely, and then she wrote on it RECEIVED BY HAND, and asked me to sign it. I have the letter here, I quote "Signded under duress as 28/10/11 not recognised as religious date. "First name" of the house of "Surname". She then photocopied the letter.

 

Oops...I have done more bus searching. There is on leaving at 7:06 and getting there at 8:31 via a change. 82 minutes travel time. 20 minutes to get to the bus stop and another 10-15 minutes to get to wherever the job is. Is this still unreasonable? I guess it comes down to what it says on my job agreement, damn im gonna have to dig it out from somewhere. Hope I've still got the moral high ground.

[FxFiqXSKXMFF]

You can refuse work because the travelling time between your home and the place of work is more than 90 minutes, regulation 72 (6) (b), The Job Seeker's Allowance regulations, statutory instrument 1996 number 206.

 

ECHR Article 9 is freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

[crystallightwarrior]

You can refuse work because the travelling time between your home and the place of work is more than 90 minutes, regulation 72 (6) (b), The Job Seeker's Allowance regulations, statutory instrument 1996 number 206.

 

ECHR Article 9 is freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

 

Kudos! That saves me so much reading. Legalese is easy when you know how. During the interview we sat together and checked the travel-line. No buses. We continue the interview, everything fine she signs the forms to say everything is A ok and then...following day 830 am call. There is a bus...no indication of what buses are available, surely if I am being charged with a crime you should present me with all the information so that I can defend myself. Breach of human rights, a proper charge should have been put forward. Just that there is a bus so what is your defense? Huh...I don't know. If she had shown and due diligence she would have noticed the 82 minute travel time, and reached the conclusion that I would have to live by a bus stop and work by a bus stop for me to fit in the 90 minute guideline. Mmm...I'm sure she is negligent of informing of my rights.

 

(the Religion and Belief Regulations)

defines harassment in the following way:

“(1) a person (“A”) subjects another person (“B”) to harassment where, on

grounds of religion or belief, A engages in

unwanted conduct which has the purpose or

effect of -

(a) violating B’s dignity; or

(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for

B.

(2) Conduct shall be regarded as having the

effect specified in paragraph (1)(a) or (b)

only if, having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the perception of

B, it should reasonably be considered as having that effect.”

 

Now once I notified her of my religion she should have been able to see if my religion is government approved. To do so she should go to the government site and check what is approved, not single handedly google it, quickly scan it. Question me about my religious practices and so on. If she is not in a position to authorise religious approval, then she should not be googling and degrading my beliefs. Has she got a degree in theology so that she entertain a conversation? No..so then she is being disrespectful and harassing me. I had to defend my beliefs to someone, I felt violated once I realised that she had no intention of entertaining my beliefs and took in my eyes an opportunity to belittle my beliefs. Victimised that's how I felt.

 

So...when it comes down to the lateness for the interview. I notified her that 28/10/11 was a spiritual date, of all the dates she had to pick that one. It's like she is doing it on purpose. Shouldn't she have at least given me the benefit of the doubt and make an appointment for the monday or tuesday or wednesday following as long as it was still within the 5 days I have to notify them of my lateness?

[antone]

During the interview we sat together and checked the travel-line. No buses. We continue the interview, everything fine she signs the forms to say everything is A ok and then...following day 830 am call. There is a bus...no indication of what buses are available, surely if I am being charged with a crime you should present me with all the information so that I can defend myself. Breach of human rights, a proper charge should have been put forward. Just that there is a bus so what is your defense? Huh...I don't know. If she had shown and due diligence she would have noticed the 82 minute travel time, and reached the conclusion that I would have to live by a bus stop and work by a bus stop for me to fit in the 90 minute guideline. Mmm...I'm sure she is negligent of informing of my rights.

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

You are not being charged with a crime. However, the behaviour of this JCP staffer seems...capricious, and I'd be annoyed if such a thing happened to me. She's not guilty of "not informing you of your rights", though, because that isn't really her job. She shouldn't lie or mislead you, but it's up to you to know what your rights are.

 

What she has done is made an arbitrary and bad-faith referral to the Labour Market DMs (by the sounds of things) with a view to stopping your benefits, and that seems to me to violate common sense.

 

Regarding the travel: sure, you both sat down at a desk and looked for a bus that would suit - and couldn't find one. That such a bus sort of, kind of, actually does exist is neither here nor there - she doesn't get to accuse you of trying to evade your responsibilities when you acted in good faith at the interview.

 

The religion thing is trickier. It is reasonable, of course, to accommodate religious belief and practice, and I agree with your view that, had you said your Muslim or Christian religion did not allow you to work at certain times, you probably would have been fine. What is worrying to some is the idea that every jobseeker will suddenly find religious objections to just about everything if those objections are never challenged. As your religion is unusual, I'd suggest being prepared to justify those objections is a wise course of action.

 

I understand you intend to complain, and that's exactly what I'd do. Possibly I'd get my MP involved. And while you're free to file suit against Ms B, the DWP, the Secretary of State and the White Fish Authority, frankly, I'd not bother. If you want to tilt at windmills, there are bigger and more insidious lost causes you could spend your time on.

[crystallightwarrior]

Thanks for the input Antone. Yes it is a very annoying situation. Capricious, what an excellent word!

 

Ok, I'm not getting charged with a crime, I am being over-dramatic, but I am being threatened of having my food and heating taken away from me through someone's power trip basically. She may be as capricious as she wants, but I have to deal with the consequences. According to her by not applying for this job I broke my contract with them. So i am being 'charged' with breach of contract. During the interview I explained my good faith (key word, thanks), when she looked for a bus for me she reached the same conclusion as me because I had also searched for the bus. Nothing...I live rurally, going that way is impracticable for me without a car.

 

Regarding the travel: sure, you both sat down at a desk and looked for a bus that would suit - and couldn't find one. That such a bus sort of, kind of, actually does exist is neither here nor there - she doesn't get to accuse you of trying to evade your responsibilities when you acted in good faith at the interview.

 

I'm not sure I understand the "she doesn't get to accuse you of trying to evade your responsibilities when you acted in good faith at the interview" part. Are you saying that if such a bus existed then she should have told me during the interview and that it is unfair to bring up new evidence once my good faith had been established?

 

A threat to stop my livelihood has been made, and that threat exists around the existence of a bus. If I am to be able to defend myself from such an accusation shouldn't I at least know what bus she is talking about? They have a duty of care towards a customer, to be treated fairly and that includes having all the information presented to me in a matter that I can clearly understand. If the existence of this bus is the reason why I need to go through this process then you have a duty of care to at least tell me when and where this bus is so that I can at least represent myself in a fair manner.

 

So she has made a poor arbitrary decision based on bad faith. A tort has been committed. Now is such a tort based on incompetence or victimisation? Well actually both. She is deeming herself incompetent in how she if following process. She is also using process to victimise me. I've stood up for myself and she does not like it. There is history as such I am being lead towards victimisation.

 

I understand the religion is a trickier subject. I understand that my religion is unusual and I am more than prepared to embrace any objections, I have probably already asked myself the same questions they will ask. Regardless, I have a right to be treated fairly about my beliefs. When presented with my religious beliefs I believe the advisor had the right to some extent to enquire to the validity of my beliefs rather than just being some random idea. Having ascertained that there is a religion of such a denomination she should have stopped then and told me that it was not on the government's approved list, because that is where her authorisation level ended. To start asking me personal questions about my belief system is then offensive. I have to defend myself from someone and that is not pleasant, especially if that person does not have the veto button. She is abusing her position and infringing my human rights. I felt ridiculed, to an extent humiliated. All I ask is for equal treatment.

 

This is somehow related to the late appointment of the 27th October. The 28th was a date I wanted to observe. Again she questioned why it held spiritual significance, The 9th wave of the Mayan Calendar started with the japanese earthquake and following tsunamis, I wanted to experience the 28th, it's end date. I think that at that point she had a moral duty to respect my spiritual beliefs and scheduled the appointment for the next day, or the day after. Again, no veto button. She told me that if I failed to attend the meeting my benefits would be stopped, meaning I was given the choice of following a spiritual practice or losing my livelihood. I had no choice, with so little notice I can not appeal. She could have been nice and given me the benefit of the doubt...I think this is where I stopped playing nice.

 

She should have dealt with me then. I was only 7 minutes late into an hour long appointment. We could easily have made it up. I have kept over and above my task list. I have kept notes, still no work. When I did have my makeup appointment with her it was over in 10 minutes. In making me come back the next day she wasted government money and failed in her duties as a civil servant. Incompetent or vicitmisation? Again, I think victimisation. It's like she enjoyed being nasty to people, made her feel superior and did not appreciate someone quoting back human rights at them. She should have given me the benefit of the doubt, and asked me to follow protocol to try and having my religion validated.

 

I've spoken to one advisor in there that more or less told me that no one liked her. Even the staff dislike her. I question the futility of making me come back another day when we can do it now, to the taxpayers expense and you hound me down? I'm going to include the MP, he is there to serve me. You can not have civil servants treating people like this, we bordering on third reich status. Early morning call...you are guilty! Just before xmas as well, thanks. Really, from the bottom of my heart thank you. I've got the right to decline this bus and still you sh*t on me.

 

So yes. I am going to get as much information as I can together and I am going to put forward a case for incompetence and victimisation. She needs retrained. Having suffered a tort from her behaviour I also reserve the right to pursue this claim in a civil court. I've taken credit cards to court, I guess I know how to serve someone a letter. I'm simply reserving the right. For starters DPA act, I want a copy of everything thank you. Particularly dates on notes and letter's sent out. Screen dumps, how she can justify the missed appointment time lost. In an office that is pushed for deadlines having to waste their limited resources to photocopy pages and screen dumps will give me minor satisfaction. Those picking up the workload will know who to thank. I'm going to throw in the telephone harassment act, from now on all communication has to be by letter. I also want a copy of the telephone calls. If they are not recorded then how can you entrust anything? Yeah, for a £10 postal order I can make myself a royal pain in the arse. Oh...maybe cctv copies as well, timedated.

 

I may not pursue a claim against her, but I still reserve the right to. If my complaint to the DPA proves victimisation then the civil courts are open to me My right

 

Hopefully I can fire enough legalese at them, include MPs and what not, and make it as scary as I can. In the end they will have to retrain her If she is power tripping then remove her power.