Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. .  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  Regards  Andy    
    • Hi   Just read your thread and looked at the Docs posted in your PDF.   1. from AST to rent a Car Parking space you need to have signed a Car Parking Agreement for a Space and for visitors you should have asked permission for another space in advance with a fee to pay. (i also assume renting a parking space would be at a cost)   2. You have no signed Car Parking Agreement nor visitor space agreement.   Did you not fully read that AST before you signed it and pick up what is stated about parking and ask them about this Car Parking Agreement and if you need one to park in the car park?   You could formally complain to them about what was verbally said to you but unless you have evidence of this it may be hard to prove.   You should also contact them and ask how you go about renting a Car Parking space/costs and about the Car Parking Agreement also what the process is for a visitor car parking space/costs.   You need to be aware that they could class you and your visitor as illegally parking in there car park without consent nor a signed car parking agreement which they could use as a Breach of your Tenancy Agreement so you need to be careful in how you are approaching this and where you are parking.   Just for info on checking Manchester Life website they have numerous buildings/apartments/car parks but you may be in a building where some of the apartments are leasehold and as part of there leasehold they may have purchased a car parking space in that building. (so how do you know you are not parking in a space that someone in the building has legally purchased?)
    • It converts a forthwith to monthly payment which is set to suit your finances...so if £5 a month so be it...rubber stamped by the court....if you try to negotiate direct ...which it sounds thats what your doing.....they can alter it whenever they feel like it and if you dont comply can execute the judgment...but not if you submit an N245 as advised.   But hey what do we know ? 
  • Our picks

stephrayner

GP refused to see me after I made a complaint 2 years againt him

Recommended Posts

2 years ago I made a complaint against a GP at my surgery....the reply I received was the GP could not recall the events (in the complaint) because the GP see so many patients a day and the complaint I sent was 12 months after the event.

 

Now to what happened recently....

 

1. I had a appoointment at 10am with the same GP I had made a complaint againt over 1 year ago...I booked myself at reception and waited, waited when it was 10.20 I asked at receptionion when would I been seent, as my appointment was at 10am. A receptionist told me 'There has been an emergency of some kind with a patient...so that has caused a delay and your appointment will now be moved to another GP' - I asked why the appointment was moved and was told 'sorry I cannot tell you' and you will be seen soon.

 

2. 10.30am and still not been seen so I asked another receptionist, she checked the computer system and told me the GP (name) has refused to see me because I made a complaint against him over 12 months ago and now my appointment was being moved to a different GP and I had to wait. I told the receptionist this was wrong and the GP had to be impartial as a GP and he was making this personal by not seeing me.

 

3. Eventually I was called and saw a different GP and explained to him what happened and the GP I had originally had an appointment with had refused to see me because of a complaint I raised against him over 12 months ago. The GP I was with was shocked and surprised and told me that GP should not have refused to see me

 

NOW I need your help to write a complaint, please can you help me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A complaint 12 Months after the event.....................

 

Complaints about GP's are taken very seriously. Its not surprising he wouldn't want to see you alone, maybe with a chaperone, but not alone.

 

So you intend to complain again................................

 

You had best be careful or the Practice will strike you off and then you might be stuck. Just see another GP at the same Practice and move on.

 

H


40 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What harm have you suffered?

What outcome do you want?.

 

All the original GP needs to say is that they were delayed anyway, (since it appears this was the case, since you were told this!) and they were concerned that due to your previous complaint, and the ongoing delay that day, that they thought it best you were seen by a colleague instead, not only to reduce your delay, but also to avoid an uneasy interaction that might have made it harder for you to receive good care.

 

If they hadn't had arranged for a colleague to see you, or you'd been denied being seen by them if they were dealing with emergency appointments and there was no-one else available for emergency appointments, then you'd have grounds to complain: on the basis that your care had been impacted.

 

If the GP is able to present it as "care not impacted, in fact it was done to ensure quickest & best available care": you'd have to show harm (and not just the delay, which may have been present no matter what, and may even have been reduced by you seeing someone else if the original GP was running late due to dealing with an emergency).

 

The receptionist mentioned an emergency, and it isn't surprising they won't give details of another patient. Do you have any grounds to suggest that not only has the original GP said "I won't see them" but that the receptionist has colluded by lying about there having been an emergency?

 

If there was an emergency: you are on to a non-starter.

 

If you are claiming there wasn't an emergency : not only are you going to have trouble proving it, but why would the receptionist risk their own career by colluding?.

 

 

 

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, stephrayner said:

 

NOW I need your help to write a complaint, please can you help me

 

What have you got to complain about?  You saw a GP didn't you?

 

Why on earth would you want to complain about not being seen by a GP you've previously unsuccessfully complained about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the previous comments. If I'd complained about a GP,  I would prefer to see someone else.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the list of emergencies that could ahve cropped up would be quite long, the GP may have made a house call to a dying person in a care home just as they shuffled off this mortal coil and they are them obliged by law to see out the rest of the necessaries. Now as said, no-one can give you any information that is someone else's personal data so the anodyne response you got would be normal.

If the GP had indeed refused to see you that is within their rights, no-one has to suffer abuse of any sort and unfounded allegations  may well fall into that area.

 

you are lucky that the practice still has you on their books. Where my wife works a druggie tried to attack her and kick in a door into the office and originally the police said no furhter action and the patient remained on the surgery books. The next time he came in he was ordered to find another GP as his wasnt going to entertain abuse of their staff regardless of the lack of police action. The GP had waited to tell the person face to face so it was clear that this was a final decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BazzaS said:

What harm have you suffered?

What outcome do you want?.

 

All the original GP needs to say is that they were delayed anyway, (since it appears this was the case, since you were told this!) and they were concerned that due to your previous complaint, and the ongoing delay that day, that they thought it best you were seen by a colleague instead, not only to reduce your delay, but also to avoid an uneasy interaction that might have made it harder for you to receive good care.

 

If they hadn't had arranged for a colleague to see you, or you'd been denied being seen by them if they were dealing with emergency appointments and there was no-one else available for emergency appointments, then you'd have grounds to complain: on the basis that your care had been impacted.

 

If the GP is able to present it as "care not impacted, in fact it was done to ensure quickest & best available care": you'd have to show harm (and not just the delay, which may have been present no matter what, and may even have been reduced by you seeing someone else if the original GP was running late due to dealing with an emergency).

 

The receptionist mentioned an emergency, and it isn't surprising they won't give details of another patient. Do you have any grounds to suggest that not only has the original GP said "I won't see them" but that the receptionist has colluded by lying about there having been an emergency?

 

If there was an emergency: you are on to a non-starter.

 

If you are claiming there wasn't an emergency : not only are you going to have trouble proving it, but why would the receptionist risk their own career by colluding?.

 

 

 

1 receptionist told me the previous patient that had gone to see the GP I had originally been booked to see had taken longer than expected so my appointment was delayed and would now be changed to see another GP.  BUT I saw that patient leave the surgery after he was called to see the GP within 10mins, which means this receptionist did not want to tell me the real reason - which was because I had made a justified complaint against the GP.

 

When this receptionist had gone, another receptionist took her place and after waiting over 40 mins, I went over to her and asked what the delay was, she checked the computer notes and said that GP did not want to see me because of the complaint I had raised months ago, which was justified.

 

This receptiionist told me from reading the notes on the computer system the reason the GP refused to see me was due to the justified complaint.

 

Then when I eventually was called into see the other GP (after waiting 1hr 15mins) who my appointment had been transferred to, I mentioned the issue to him and he was shocked at the attitude of the other GP.

 

The GP that refused to see me, has lots of negatives reviews online as well, so his behaviour is not out of the blue so to speak

 

I want an explanantion from the practice manager why the GP refused to see me, why I had to wait over 40 mins before being told there was a delay, why the surgery did not tell me before the GP did not want to see me, when the surgery themselves made the appointment for me to see him

 

I want a detailed reply as to the actions of this GP

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ericsbrother said:

the list of emergencies that could ahve cropped up would be quite long, the GP may have made a house call to a dying person in a care home just as they shuffled off this mortal coil and they are them obliged by law to see out the rest of the necessaries. Now as said, no-one can give you any information that is someone else's personal data so the anodyne response you got would be normal.

If the GP had indeed refused to see you that is within their rights, no-one has to suffer abuse of any sort and unfounded allegations  may well fall into that area.

 

you are lucky that the practice still has you on their books. Where my wife works a druggie tried to attack her and kick in a door into the office and originally the police said no furhter action and the patient remained on the surgery books. The next time he came in he was ordered to find another GP as his wasnt going to entertain abuse of their staff regardless of the lack of police action. The GP had waited to tell the person face to face so it was clear that this was a final decision.

23 hours ago, BazzaS said:

What harm have you suffered?

What outcome do you want?.

 

All the original GP needs to say is that they were delayed anyway, (since it appears this was the case, since you were told this!) and they were concerned that due to your previous complaint, and the ongoing delay that day, that they thought it best you were seen by a colleague instead, not only to reduce your delay, but also to avoid an uneasy interaction that might have made it harder for you to receive good care.

 

If they hadn't had arranged for a colleague to see you, or you'd been denied being seen by them if they were dealing with emergency appointments and there was no-one else available for emergency appointments, then you'd have grounds to complain: on the basis that your care had been impacted.

 

If the GP is able to present it as "care not impacted, in fact it was done to ensure quickest & best available care": you'd have to show harm (and not just the delay, which may have been present no matter what, and may even have been reduced by you seeing someone else if the original GP was running late due to dealing with an emergency).

 

The receptionist mentioned an emergency, and it isn't surprising they won't give details of another patient. Do you have any grounds to suggest that not only has the original GP said "I won't see them" but that the receptionist has colluded by lying about there having been an emergency?

 

If there was an emergency: you are on to a non-starter.

 

If you are claiming there wasn't an emergency : not only are you going to have trouble proving it, but why would the receptionist risk their own career by colluding?.

 

 

 

1 receptionist told me the previous patient that had gone to see the GP I had originally been booked to see had taken longer than expected so my appointment was delayed and would now be changed to see another GP.  BUT I saw that patient leave the surgery after he was called to see the GP within 10mins, which means this receptionist did not want to tell me the real reason - which was because I had made a justified complaint against the GP.

 

When this receptionist had gone, another receptionist took her place and after waiting over 40 mins, I went over to her and asked what the delay was, she checked the computer notes and said that GP did not want to see me because of the complaint I had raised months ago, which was justified.

 

This receptiionist told me from reading the notes on the computer system the reason the GP refused to see me was due to the justified complaint

 

They was never an emergency because the 2nd receptionist told me from checking the computer the real reason for the delay was because the GP refused to see me. My complaint was justified and GP's are supposed to be neautral regardless of a justified complaint made against them.

 

Does this mean if anyone on the NHS makes a justified complaint against a GP, they will all be refused from seeing that GP again for an appointment at their surgery!!!!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all hearsay.

If you complain they'll deny everything. 

You better move on and make sure you book your future appointments with gp of your choice, you can do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, stephrayner said:

 

 

I want a detailed reply as to the actions of this GP

 

 

 

You can want what you like but you're not entitled to anything.

 

Why do you want to see a GP you've previously made an unsuccessful complaint about?  Can you please explain that?

 

If you are so certain your unsuccessful complaint was "justified", why did you not carry it further with the CCG and/or GMC?

 

And why wait for 12 months to make a complaint?  What?

 

Is there something more behind all this?

 

EDIT:  If I were the GP I can perfectly understand them not wanting you as a patient if you've previously complained about them.  Think about it.

Edited by Manxman in exile
Addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, just seen this and thought I’d stick a oar in.

 

If your (old) GP feels that the therapeutic relationship is damaged to the extent that they’re unable to treat you then they’re perfectly within their rights to have a colleague see you. It would appear, in spades, that this is likely the case given the strength of your reaction to a relatively minor occurrence. If that wasn’t / isn’t the case and there was indeed an emergency then the GP concerned did you a favour by not making you wait any longer. 

 

There’s a common misconception that once a patient has left the consultation room that the GP is free to start work on the next patient. If indeed it was an emergency the GP could have well instructed the person to travel directly to a local hospital whilst they call ahead to arrange urgent investigations or treatment which takes time. And please be assured, 40/50 minutes on the telephone to a hospital trying to track down the consultant or ST1 responsible for a particular speciality isn’t uncommon.

 

By all means ask the PM for an explanation, it’s likely to be very simple. A clear breakdown of therapeutic relationship.  


My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you say the complaint was justified. Does this mean the complaint was formally upheld or does justified merely fit into "I think that it was deserved and an going to ignore what the official response says"

 

BTW the receptionist wont be able to see a reason on the ICE as you describe, that will require the doctor to send a messagepal or task across and TBH they wouldnt read that out to you. They might paraphrase but the doctor is usually their employer so not in their pay grade to comment on their boss's decisions when it is something contentious.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...