Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Personal medical data confidentiality breached by employer

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3430 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

Hi there

I will try to keep this as brief as possible.

I was off sick from work and visited the company Doctor.

I was then emailed the report as was my employing manager. It stated the letter was private and confidential and at the bottom of the email it stated it was restricted.


This email has now been used in a potential disciplinary investigation against myself. I received the disciplinary papers with this email included, yet some of it had been redacted although not very well as you could still see certain parts of the email, however the nature of my illness had not been redacted at all.


I have also been told that the other person involved in the disciplinary has been given the exact same pack that I have which means that they have not only access to my medical papers but also my home address. I work for a well known large company.


I believe there is potential for two issues here. Any advice is gratefully received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are indeed two aspects to this, however both relate to the Data Protection Act


Health information is classed as sensitive personal data under the Act, and as such there is clear guidance on how this should be used. The employer must have your informed consent before processing the data - and should have explained the purpose for requesting the medical information and in what way the data was to be used. It would not be unreasonable that the information should be shared with appropriate people within the organisation - personnel for example, or other senior managers with whom you have day to day dealings and where the information is relevant and where the sharing is in line with the consent that you gave.


I do not believe that the sharing of your data as outlined in your OP falls within the scope of what is reasonable. Whilst it might be appropriate to consider the information in the context of a disciplinary hearing, it should not have been shared outside of appropriate management without your express consent. As for sharing your home address, that is irrelevant and should not have been shared.


You should be raising a grievance about the misuse of your confidential sensitive personal data, outlining that your agreement was not given for it to be shared amongst a wider audience, the purpose of obtaining the information had not been outlined to you and that your address has been included in addition to the medical information given to third parties.


I wouldn't threaten the ICO - yet - but this would also be a course of action open to you

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






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

Hi Sidewinder, thanks for your reply.


I only gave my employer permission to contact my doctor and nothing else. Interestingly, each time they want to contact my doctor, I have to give written permission for this. I agree that certain information needs to be shared with other managers from time to time however due to the sensitive nature of this particular email, it was not necessary for other manager's to know and certainly not my work colleagues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a disciplinary or an attendance hearing? (some companies call them the same thing)


Was the suspected behaviour which is the subject of the disciplinary made worse by your condition?


In terms of remedy - you can't put the lid back on pandra's box. best you can hope for is an apology and a promise it won't happen again.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites


Was the suspected behaviour which is the subject of the disciplinary made worse by your condition?


No Emmzzi, but I believe my employing manager is trying to insinuate that it was because I was sick for 4 weeks with the condition in the email and a lung infection. The email itself carries guidance at the bottom to say that it is not to be forwarded or re-printed or disciplinary procedures will be followed. And quite clearly it has been re-printed to be passed onto another manager who in turn has re-printed and passed that information to 2 other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd think about what you want to acheive with greivance; you cannot make people "unsee" things. A change in process so it doesn't happen to others perhaps?


Try not to get paranid, too.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharing your address is worse than sharing your medical record imo.

A couple of years ago one of our manager was moved to another location and given 12 months warning for emailing personal info including address of an employee to a list of people, many of whom didn't even know the employee and had nothing to do with him.

This manager considered himself lucky to keep his job for the seriousness of this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...