Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No SAR yet but they have confirmed via email that they have everything and will supply it by this month end.    When you say the FOS considered it a personal loan due to personal guarantee who is the FOS? Financial Ombudsman?  But then that doesn’t make sense as they haven’t been involved yet.    Santander in their final response to my original complaint did not agree to it. They turned my complaint down and specified that the selling dealership had agreed to treat it as personal for settlement purposes.    I guess they could not agree to it as then they would be guilty of miss selling but they gave me what I wanted by saying I would not get treated as a business customer in regards to finance charges.    Awful bank to deal with. Will never touch them again. 
    • Background I am in dispute with Clerical Medical over, amongst other things, statements that I haven't received. They didn't resolve my complaint in time so invited me to complain to the FOS, which I did The FOS investigator in his findings has written that  Clerical Medical have provided all missing statements apart from two. One of these is for the policy year 2021 - 2022, which they say is unavailable due to a system migration. I have twice asked the FOS investigator for a copy of his screen shot to try and resolve this discrepancy but they have ignored me so today I submitted a subject access request. I said I was primarily interested in the screen shot but I also asked for everything they held against the complaint reference number. The response I got from firstly the Data Protection Operations Senior Coordinator, then secondly the investigator was that  The investigator expanded on this and said I'll wait the 40 days and see what they come back with then make a decision on next steps at that point, but I want to make sure I've got my facts in the right order before I start arguing with them. They seem to be saying that my SAR doesn't cover the screen shot because it isn't personal data but I disagree. I have a reference number that identifies my complaint and therefore indirectly identifies me. I think that means everything that is held against that reference number, including the screen shot, is my personal data and is in scope of my SAR (subject to exemptions). Who is right?
    • You sure it's a Section 48 notice? Section 48 notice is just telling you who your landlord is. Have they sold and they're just telling you who your new landlord is or is it an actual eviction notice? Might be best scanning it up just in case here.
    • Well it will be given the priority attention given the hearing is close its bad form that the court did not inform you that sanctions had been applied and the claim struck out. Lets hope they inform you this time if the hearing is to proceed.  Their application involves a remote hearing and no you would not be expected to participate.
  • 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

Security Disclosed My Confidentiality


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6344 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

:lol: I work at a factory as a cleaner, Everyone who works there needs to swipe a pass to get on & off site, The pass is issued by security staff and all your details which includes a photo (that is taken by security) is filed on computer and can only be accessed by security.

 

The problem is a contractor who does`nt work for security had enlarged & printed my photo then placed it on top of a christmas tree for everyone to see, I took it straight to my manager.

 

Can anyone tell me if security have broken the law, If so what can I do about it

Link to post
Share on other sites

One man or woman's meat another's poison. Nevertheless if the subject is upset it's a very serious matter & apart from all the other things mentioned also harassment in the work place. The employer has a duty to stop it & to deal with those responsible.

 

They have after all left the company open to a claim which (I'm assuming it's a female) could include sexual harassment

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I was wondering - my employer divulged details of how long i've been off work and that i was on long term sickness to a third party - this is illegal isnt it?!

 

I have an internal grievance about to start but feel they are just going to say "We wont do it again"

 

That isnt a good enough response for me - what would be the next course of action.. i thought probably an employment tribunal?

 

Am i entitled to compensation for the distress and further upset this has caused including worsening my illness?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNTIL MY CASES ARE RESOLVED/WON IM GOING TO KEEP MY SIGNATURE BLANK AS IM AWARE THE BANKS TEND TO TRAWL ON SOME OF THESE FORUMS AND AS MY CASE IS A LITTLE COMPLEX IT WOULD BE EASILY SPOTTED

 

DONT WORRY - THE INFO SHALL RETURN ONCE THE CASE IS RESOLVED/WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I was wondering - my employer divulged details of how long i've been off work and that i was on long term sickness to a third party - this is illegal isnt it?!

 

I have an internal grievance about to start but feel they are just going to say "We wont do it again"

 

That isnt a good enough response for me - what would be the next course of action.. i thought probably an employment tribunal?

 

Am i entitled to compensation for the distress and further upset this has caused including worsening my illness?

 

It rather depends on who your employer gave the information to and for what purpose. Are you a member of a trade union?

 

Also, the ultimate place for a grievance to end up is an Employment Tribunal. However, there are many stages to go through before this beginning with the company's grievance procedure (and the appeals process, if necessary) being exhausted first.

 

My employer recently contracted out the sikness/absence reporting and return to work functions by employees to a third party company. As this company was registered under the Data Protection Act they were given some basic details about all employees (name, date of birth, workplace, line manager etc.). However, they were not given any details about employee's sickness/absence history.

 

As an aside to this it was rather amusing that the third party company's claims to be able to reduce sickness/absence proved somewhat...er...'erroneous' to say the least!! They no longer hold the contract and the functions they undertook are now back in-house!!

Jimbo 44 - always happy to help, but always willing to learn from being corrected too!!! Whilst any advice given may be based upon personal experience, please always be sure you seek guidance from a professional in the particular field.

 

Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark, but a large group of professionals built the Titanic.

 

A 'click' on the scales is always appreciated if I have helped. Many Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

There's a big difference about sharing personal info and using a photograph; why don't people get a life, inform the people concerned they aren't or are not happy about a certain episode and warn them that if it happens again, they will take it further.

 

FFS, all people seem to want to do is find ways of [edit] each other. Try doing an apprenticeship or being in the forces then you'll know what humiliation is.

 

Most office cleaners get completely ignored which is what i'd be more concerned about, I agree with the other poster, i'd be flattered that someone was thinking about me enough to put my photo on a Christmas tree. laugh it off for edited sake.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is different and what offends one person may be something that another person can laugh off.

 

Woody if what happened to you was offensive and has caused you distress then you have grounds to complain. Maybe it depends on the spirit/nature of how it was done. you haven't given too much info on that.....and you don't need to if you don't want to.

 

If you feel offended or picked on or that you have a grieveance then you are quite within your rights to compalin or pursue that.

 

Good luck woody in whatever you decide to pursue (or not)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a big difference about sharing personal info and using a photograph;

 

How do you know they don't have her personal details? To get the photo and print it they would have to have gone in her file...

 

FFS, all people seem to want to do is find ways of [edit] each other. Try doing an apprenticeship or being in the forces then you'll know what humiliation is.

 

No one should have to suffer humiliation anywhere especially the workplace

 

Most office cleaners get completely ignored which is what i'd be more concerned about, I agree with the other poster, i'd be flattered that someone was thinking about me enough to put my photo on a Christmas tree. laugh it off for edited sake.

 

I am sure that most office cleaners aren't ingorned and lead very fulfilling lives! Not sure what comment means really! lol!

 

:)

Ex CAG helper ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps not, but I was bullied at school and at work and yet I'm still here and happy. Bullies find fresh meat, lose interest or get a shock when challenged, so whilt it may never be an ideal world, it will never disappear so living in the real world you have to take responsibility for minimising the risk should it occur.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

Johno- post 5 seemed to sum up woodpecker's feelings of embarrassment caused by the issue in post 1 from my reading. If you see the second sentence in post 5. JMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I please remind people of the forum rules:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

 

I have already reminded people on the thread that if they have no positive advice to offer the starter of the thread, they should not be posting on the thread and already removed arguments to allow the thread to remain for the benefit of the user seeking advice.

 

Any further arguments will be deleted. As will earlier irrelevant posts and personal attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Johno- post 5 seemed to sum up woodpecker's feelings of embarrassment caused by the issue in post 1 from my reading. If you see the second sentence in post 5. JMHO

 

 

You make a good point but look at the context.

 

Clearly he is more concerned that his data may have been readily accessible by unauthorised persons, we do not know that it has for a company store photographs in a variety of ways, an intranet for example. He makes reference to the information commissioner as opposed to making a complaint of harassment for bullying. By implying that a joke has gone too far means that woodpecker accepts that it was a joke rather than bullying, but it has gone too far if his personal file has been violated.

 

JonCris's initial response is to tell woodpecker that the company concerned has violated his rights without first establishing whether that is the case. Joncris then proceeds to tell woodpecker to make a Police complaint, again without establishing the facts.

 

Woodpecker has already by his/her own admission accepted that the intitial purpose was that of a joke.

 

As a result, I merely pointed that people are too quick to go running to the lawyers when in fact a more amicable solution can be sought first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

I think woodpecker has clearly stated that only security has access but that an unauthorised person has blown up a photo and put it on public view which is then the cause of huge embarrassment on post 5 as it was not removed. I would be interested in how woodpecker got on because clearly it wasn't just one day that the picture was up.

I think the joke bit is a phrase for example, something like, he's a joker can change with intonation from funny to annoyance.

A joke is something that both people laugh at but my reading of it implied something more serious. I am not sure if woodpecker has been back but it would be good to hear what actions were taken and the result of those actions. Maybe we will never know.

From post 1 woodpecker's rights have been violated by a third party as the information given suggested only one team at work had authority or rather access to the photos. I think the important words joncris used was cirumstances could be seen as this or that. His further post on 3 seems fairly balanced in assessment.

It is a pity Woodpecker is not here to clarify as I said before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think woodpecker has clearly stated that only security has access but that an unauthorised person has blown up a photo and put it on public view which is then the cause of huge embarrassment on post 5 as it was not removed. I would be interested in how woodpecker got on because clearly it wasn't just one day that the picture was up.

I think the joke bit is a phrase for example, something like, he's a joker can change with intonation from funny to annoyance.

A joke is something that both people laugh at but my reading of it implied something more serious. I am not sure if woodpecker has been back but it would be good to hear what actions were taken and the result of those actions. Maybe we will never know.

From post 1 woodpecker's rights have been violated by a third party as the information given

It is a pity Woodpecker is not here to clarify as I said before.

suggested only one team at work had authority or rather access to the photos. I think the important words joncris used was cirumstances could be seen as this or that. His further post on 3 seems fairly balanced in assessment.

 

You don't know that and to be fair, neither would woodpecker. A cleaner would not always have access to a workstation. Companies routinely put staff members pictures on an intranet which can be viewed by those with access to a workstation. The question would be whether a photograph is considered personal information! An intranet is accessible by anyone with authorised access and in any company, that could be 80% of the workforce, therefore I should say in this case not.

 

Let's be honest about this, assuming the above to be correct, what would happen to woodpecker if he/she had/has made a complaint and in this case, a serious complaint, about a particular member of staff (ie security), or the company itself, only then to find that the photograph concerned was widely available? You state that the "joke" statement is a phrase" however it is one of significance for it sheds light on the motives behind woodpeckers initial post which in my view is quite clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

I would love woodpecker to be here so they could clarify the ifs and buts but I guess we will never know. I am taking info that woodpecker has posted so I have to imply rather than know definitively as I do not know what type of job they do, what the computer access is, etc, etc. I guess we both are interpreting the posts differently.

Have a good weekend mate, hopefully we will hear from woodpecker again and find out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

johno I don't KNOW the facts anymore than you do.

We can only go with what we are told by the member & based on what they said & their employers failure to act (they see it as a joke which the OP clearly doesn't) I instead of critizising them I advised what legal recourse was open to them

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love woodpecker to be here so they could clarify the ifs and buts but I guess we will never know. I am taking info that woodpecker has posted so I have to imply rather than know definitively as I do not know what type of job they do, what the computer access is, etc, etc. I guess we both are interpreting the posts differently.

Have a good weekend mate, hopefully we will hear from woodpecker again and find out.

 

 

You too have a good weekend mate

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question really is - did the manager, once informed that the op wasn't happy with this, remove the photo? If so I don't see it as being taken too far if its a first offence. Its the kind of thing that happens all the time without people taking offense and if once offense was realised it was stopped then tbh that should be it - maybe an appology. As for data protection as people have mentioned the picture could be freely available on a staff intranet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question would be whether a photograph is considered personal information! An intranet is accessible by anyone with authorised access and in any company, that could be 80% of the workforce, therefore I should say in this case not.

 

 

It matters not a jot how widely it is processed - it is still, legally speaking, personal data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6344 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...