IT's not about the debate of points made. It's to do with answering your query: I believe your original query had been answered. The freedom of information act allows you to see data held about YOU. The Data protection act prevents the details you want, about SOMEONE ELSE being released to you.

I may not post often but I do read a lot, and have come across Scottish Legislation within the site. I'm also aware of some legislation and Regulatory bodies which apply only to Scotland, which I have posted in replies (although stating they apply to Scotland alone) and took your statement to mean that the entirity of the site does not deal with Scottish Law, with the useage of the term "Exclusively". That is why I posted what I did, because of how I read and understood your statement, other newer members who may be perfectly capable of answering a query which requires a knowlegde of Scottish Law may be put off posting a reply as they may think as I did that you were infering that this forum is not the place for Scottish Law. As soon as I read your post, I began searching for a Scottish version of this forum - I could not find one, but could find a subforum in the Bank Action Group. Therefore I made a post within this thread to throw up the question, as I had believed the site dealt with Scotland as well as England and Wales. (And yes I am in Scotland. And no, we don't all have red hair, are named "Hamish" or "Heather" and wear tam o shanters and kilts at all times and have to climb up on a high hill to go to work ) I do not doubt the experience of your replies at all, I just queried a statement you made.

And my point is the two are non comparable for the reasons stated. eBay members are VOLUNTERING this information, the private option is there if they choose to use it and it is part of the terms and conditions entered into upon registering. It also solely relates to activities on the site, you couldn't contact eBay and ask for the contents of "ebay messages" sent between traders unless you were the police, FIS or party to the transaction in question. You can see feedback left only, if the member allows you to view it by making their feedback public. So if you want to make eBay a comparison, you can see similar applies here. People are privy to information based on the NEED or the RIGHT to know. It is not a "view" of flying doc, it is a piece of legislation called the Data Protection Act. A law which stands to protect the privacy of people, If this sort of information was made available to Joe Public it would be a breach of the law. A person, no matter what his professional capacity is as entitled to his privacy as the next person. His employers cannot go handing out reasons for his leaving to any Tom Dick or Harry who requests it. You are not entitled to know on what grounds a person left employment unless you are one of the people stated in my previous post.

If and when you do receive a reply from them and post it up, make sure you remove your personal details such as name, address, reference number etc. They MAY well respond stating that they do not have to supply you with a copy of the CCA which seems to be a standard response. You would then send an account in dispute letter, because they DO have to supply you with this. They also sometimes send a copy of the terms and conditions, but nothing signed by you. A valid CCA has to have your signature on it or it is not enforceable. That's why you NEVER sign letters you send them, as some DCA's are known for photoshopping signatures onto documents to make them appear legit. In the meantime, have a look at this thread. It will soon relax you and make you realise what little powers DCA's hold: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/131409-cheekiness-towards-dca.html

They are a terrible crowd to deal with. I voluntarily gave them my details so they could arrest my wages. They failed to do so, despite me calling them numerous to chase it up (Council Tax Debt could not even be proven to be mine, as my name was not on the tenancy and I gave them the tenants whereabouts, name national insurance number etc but they didn't chase him at all), they decided instead to empty my bank account (Details of which I had NOT given them). I got the money back but not an apology. I then began paying by direct debit. They then sent me a further letter last year demanding payment in full or they would take me to court. I rang them and told them I had been paying every month on time, direct debit so what the heck was this letter about? I was then asked to forward statments proving the payments. I said "no, take me to court, then I can laugh when it's thrown out, it's up to you to keep records on your part, I've kept all my records." The guy on the phone got VERY threatening and told me he'd find my bank account again and again empty it. Told him to go ahead and I'd take THEM to court. Eventually I got a phone call to say they had managed to find the payments I had made.

Forgive me for saying so, but I was under the impression that this was a UK forum. And unless someone has been messing about with geography, Scotland is still part of the UK. Scottish law is different in parts to English and Welsh law but there are members here (many members) who reside in Scotland and/or have experience with Scottish law, and may be able to advise accordingly. In addition I was also under the impression that any advise expressed within this site is to be taken as opinion only, not as law.

Feedback on eBay? That is a terrible comparison. Feedback on eBay relates to a transaction between two parties to enable future customers to gauge whether or not they should enter into a transaction themselves. It also has the option of remaining private. Doctor Shipman, again a completely different kettle of fish. Information held about an individuals treatment can be made available to that individual. Private information about a person's employment cannot be divulged to a third party unless it concerns them, and if it did concern you then you would have been advised of such, as in invited to a hearing. Unless you are the person's employer, are part of an internal investigatory team, part of a tribunal team, or prosecution service or the individual, you have no right or need to know on what grounds a person left their post. The freedom of information act allows you to see information held about YOU, not others. There is another act. The Data Protection Act. An employees record and personnel file is between employee and employer, it is not public property.

There is no reason they should have stopped your IB. This is not a means tested benefit, and is payable on based on your circumstances, not your income. Are you sure they have stopped it due to the payment of Bereavement Benefit? Sometimes when a person passes away, all benefit claims are stopped and the surviving partner reassessed on their own merits but this is for the purposes of joint benefit claims. Unless both your wife and yourself were on IB and it was a joint claim, or it was a claim based on your wife's circumstances, then there is no reason to stop it. Your Council Tax Benefit would need to be reassessed, if it was based on the circumstances and finanaces of both you and your wife. Also, have you claimed a Funeral Payment from the Social Fund? If not, you can claim within three months from the date of the funeral if you meet the qualifying criteria. If you need help with this, feel free to ask.

Recording a person without their consent is not illegal, unless you are recording both video and audio together, and are making the recording available to a third party. When my ex partner assaulted our daughter, I was cited to court to act as the main prosecution witness for the Crown. Ex's sister began phoning me and making threats and trying to extract from me what I planned to say in court. I spoke to the police about my options, and asked about the legality of recording her. They viewed what she was doing as "intimidation and interfering with a witness" (spearheaded by her brother), but told me without proof of what she had said, they couldn't act and if I needed to use a dictaphone to record my conversations with her, by all means to do so. Although I'd be making them available to a third party, the third party were the police and the tape recordings were to prove a case of harrassment. It's a different situation as this was in my own home not my place of employment, and made available to the police, not my employers but it's harrassment and bullying all the same. I think perhaps there may be something such as using recording equipment on business premises without the consent of management, as it is on their premises, not your own private premises and on their time if you see what I mean but to be honest I really don't know. Hopefully someone will be along shortly who can better advise you.

And as per usual, the news reports don't contain all the information. One of the things being considered at the moment is an overdraft facility on benefit, and another is immediate access to finances whilst a new claim for benefit is in process, (such as Income Support, Employment and Support Allowance etc) rather than having to wait until a decision is made and resorting to a Crisis Loan. The entirity of Social Fund is NOT being outsourced, never was - only certain elements of it in order to assist the consumer. They cannot outsource the entirity of a public sector organisation as then it becomes entirely private sector which would mean they would do away with Social Fund altogether. They're not about to do that when they have spent X amount centralising Social Fund and setting up Specialist Benefit Delivery Centres. The government only has so much money in the pot at the end of the day and it is clear that it is not enough to help those in need, so they are looking at other ways in which they can offer help to those who need it. This is only one of the proposals being considered, no decisions have as yet been made.

Good for you, the reason nothing gets done is so few people complain. If more people stood up and complained, things would have to change.

I'm not the OP Martin lol. But hope the OP does keep us posted, it's nice to hear a good outcome.

That doesn't surprise me, that they are encouraged to do it. I am a single parent working full time and have no family around to help so I try to fit my annual leave around my childminder's holidays, however it's not always possible if my company are at their full quota for annual leave. My childminder doesn't charge for her holidays regardless of whether I take holidays at the same time, I'm lucky that way as many charge half fee if the holidays coincide. The NCMA (national child minding Association, or SCMA in Scotland) also encourage childminders to charge full fee for their holidays. I have heard some are charging double per hour fees for public holidays if worked too. Childminders here are very expensive. £3.75 per hour - £5.00 per hour is the average range. Some offer family discounts, some don't. Another thing that bugs me is childminders charging for a full day to mind a school age child. The reason given is "I am responsible for them while they are in school" - no they are not, the parent is. If a child has an accident in school requiring a doctor's appointment or a hospital visit, the childminder won't acompany them (and to be honest, most parents would want to accompany their child in such circumstance), and if a child is sent home unwell, again a childminder won't take them and phone the parent to collect the child. Another reason sometimes given is they cannot fill the place for the remainder of the day - of course they can. If the school day is 9am to 3pm, that's a good six hours - not all parents work full time, I know a few who are desperate for childminders who will take a child part time. If they really cannot fill the place and the childminder is agreeable to take a school age child full time days during school holidays, then fair enough - charge a retainer fee during term time to keep the place for the child, but not a "per hour" fee. Again, I'm lucky, childminder does not charge for school hours but takes daughter during school holidays at the hourly rate without charging a retainer. Saying that I don't get a family discount and have another daughter in full time day care with her, so she makes up the fall in fees there. When my younger begins to attend school I would be happy to pay a retainer for school holidays, or alternatively send them to a holiday playscheme, which usually run the same hours as a school day would do.

Fabulous! - That will cover it. I could not find it anywhere!

Yes a childminder can charge what they like, which is why I stated it was unacceptable IMHO - my opinion only. I find it unacceptable to expect payment for a service he/she is refusing to provide, and that she had no moral right. Moral, not legal. The moral part being that if she is refusing to provide a service as she decides she is taking time off, it is not morally justifiable for her to charge for it, as paid holidays are a privelage an employee can expect from an employer. However they can only charge this if the parent signs a contract agreeing to it. If a parent refuses, they have two options: 1. - Accept fees as per the current contract signed by both parties 2. - Terminate the place of the child. Fees can be charged at a rate the childminder chooses - but only if the parent signs a contract agreeing to it. To insist on fees that have no signatory agreement would have no standing in law if the childminder chose to go down the legal route. A contract does not expire unless it has an expiry date on it, or is superseeded by a new contract. IMHO, although childminders can be the salt of the earth, there are also a few who like to use the self employed perks but also think nothing of taking a piece of employee perks too. Employee rights are not there for the self employed to take advantage of, and it's this that I object to. The other thing I should add FAO the OP is OFSTEAD does not govern if you live in Scotland, it is the Scottish Care Commision.

I'm sure Martin you mean well, but that is not the DWP customer charter either, it is a customer charter for the Benefits Service of one Local Authority, dealing solely with housing benefit and council tax benefit, which may not be the authority dealing with the OP's area. I've been having a dig...... there does not appear to be one for the whole of DWP, each are of business within DWP must have its own charter I'm thinking. DWP covers such a wide range of organisations - Pension Service, CSA, Social Fund and the Benefits Agency to name a few. I assume that each charter is basically similar in underwritings but perhaps with different areas relating to the business they are relevant to.... not certain - just a thought.

The link Be4 gave is for debt management only, not for Benefit payments. Debt Management deal solely with the recovery of overpayments and social fund loans. Local Jobcentres rarely deal with the processing of benefit nowadays, as it has all been centralised. They perform interviews and act as a point of contact etc but the processing and decision making are performed by Benefit Delivery Centres, not Jobcentres. The way your daughter has been spoken to, and the manner is which her case has been "handled" is completely unacceptable, and you have a right to complain about that regardless of what the charter states. Civil Servants have to maintain certain standards of behaviour which clearly has not been exercised. Getting your MP involved is a great idea, which usually gets things moving. Regarding the right to your daughter having information held on computer, she has the right to see any information held about her. Your daughter needs to submit a Subject Access Request for this, in the same manner that you would send to any business which holds information on you. You would also need to have your daughter sign a mandate giving permission for information to be disclosed to her MP, if this is what she wishes. Best of luck.

The first one is an acceptable change, but only if the childminder is prepared to work the public holiday if required. The second and third points are completely unacceptable, IMHO. If the childminder is not providing the service, then she has no right morally to expect payment for a service she is not providing. However, a contract once signed is binding and a childminder can put anything he or she chooses to on the contract. Crunch is whether or not you choose to agree to it by signing it. Until you actually sign it, she cannot enforce anything within it. If however you sign it, you cannot argue later. Personally I'd speak to her and explain that I am not happy to pay for any day she is unwilling or unable to work. If the service is not available, there is no justification for her charging you for it, this is the privelage of an employed individual and you are not her employers. It is not justifiable for her to charge for a service she has chosen to make unavailable, especially when you have to pay someone else. If she won't budge on it, I'd look for another childminder. You may well find if she realises she's going to lose out on a full time contract, she may review her proposals and accept to continue as she has been. Personally I'd never pay for a service which was not available, though I may compromise to a half fee but ONLY if my holidays coincided with hers, not if I had to arrange a holiday around her though.

Yes it's absolutely correct, to a point. The rule is an employee is required to inform their employer of their pregnancy at least by the 15th week before the expectant week of confinement, providing at the very least 28 days notice of wishing to take Maternity Leave. This can only be overlooked if the employee did not know she was pregnant. Although the sensible thing to do is to tell an employer when you're pregnant, to enable new risk assessments, it is up to the individual to choose when to tell the employer prior to the 15th week before the EWC. I had major problems at my old workplace with risk assessments when I was pregnant with second child. They refused to perform a new risk assessment when I asked for one in writing informing them of my pregnancy at 6 weeks gestation and I was continually allocated patients who were more prone to violent outbursts because no-one else could cope with them. In the end something did happen which could have been avoided had they performed a risk assessment in accordance with Health and Safety legislation. I found this part out whilst I was researching my rights and the law in order to bring a grievance against my employer. You can certainly ask an employee if they are pregnant, but they do not have to tell an employer the moment that they know and no case can be brought against an employee for failing to disclose it, unless of course the employee has requested maternity leave outwith the prescribed notice periods, or has failed to inform an employer by the 15th week before the expected week of confinement, without good cause.

Thank you Rory I shall pass that on to her.

Hi I am looking for advice for a friend who doesn't have internet access. She had a landline and a contract mobile 10 years ago. Her then boyfriend ran up hundreds on both phones by caling *ahem* "Chat lines". Rather stupidly when my friend discovered this, she refused to pay the bills or arraneg a payment plan for both phones, stating that calls were made in her absence whilst she was at work on nightshift, which apparently is true. She thought that there was some sort of clause where if she could prove she was not near the phone at the time (in the case of the landline) - ie time sheets from work etc, she wouldn't have to pay. The landline company told her they would chase her for the debt but never did. 10 years later and she is still frightened that they will one day catch up with her. She now actually has a landline with the same company she has the debt with, she's never mentioned the debt to them and they've never mentioned it either so I can only assume they have no idea their customer owes them money from years ago. My question is: Would this be statute barred in the same manner like loans would be, as six years have passed? I don't want to give her hope that it's statute barred if its not, so thought I'd ask you Caggers if you can advise me for her. Her new hubby apparently got into debt years ago and is now debt free and she is worried he'll find out about it. Great start to a marriage!

There is an account ni dispute letter that you can send but I'm not sure which legislation you need to refer to when writing it. I'll try to find someone who knows about these things to come on this thread and put up a template for you.

Do you mean the warm front grant? If that's what you mean, you don't automatically qualify if you are in reciept of just any benefit. There are other criteria which has to be satisfied. Firstly, you can only get it if you own your home or rent privately. I see you own your home so that's the first part of the criteria fulfilled. If JSA is the only benefit you or your partner receive, you must also be either aged over 60, have a child living in the household that is aged under 16 or be expecting a baby. If you are not aged over 60, have a child living with you that is aged under 16 or expecting a baby, you will not qualify on Jobseekers Allowance alone. You would need to be recieving a benefit that INCLUDES a disability premium or be receiving Child Tax Credit with an income of less than £15460.00 per annum. There is an option for £300 rebate for those not on benefits but this only applies if you are aged over 60. You can find information on it here: Warm Front Energy Efficiency Grants There is also an option to apply online. Best wishes.

You might also want to remind them that the Moorcroft Rep had no right to disclose to your partner that you had any debt, nor discuss it with him. That's a breach of data protection.

A claimant has a certain time limit in which to return an offer letter before the offer is withdrawn. (Not certain on the time limit). How do you know they lost the offer letter? Did they admit to receiving it? If they did admit to losing it and you have that in writing, you're laughing. If you sent the offer letter back via another office and have proof of this, you're laughing. If not, if you sent it in normal post and they are saying they haven't RECEIVED it back from your girlfriend, it may well have been lost in the post - it happens far too often unfortunately. If you sent it recorded delivery, you will have a tracking number which you can use to check if it has been delivered and who signed for it. If it has not been delivered your complaint needs to be raised with Royal Mail. If you raise a complaint with them and the letter was not sent by trackable means (ie recorded delivery) they will send a form to the Social Fund to complete with your details and asking if Social Fund received the letter. Social Fund will complete the form and return it to Royal Mail. The Social Fund offer of a Crisis Loan (which is what it would have been as declined community care grants can be considered for a crisis loan) that they made to you whether or not they received the form back from you should still show on their system as every application and decision is recorded on computer unless it is a clerical claim. The reason for refusing the second Crisis Loan will most probably be because it is considered a repeat application - an application made for the same items to cover the same period of time within 3 months of the last application - these "repeat applications" within 3 months are always refused. What you can do is ask for a review of the latest loan by writing to the office which made the decision. The only problem is a review can take weeks to be considered especially at this time of year. The review is the only way to go as any additional applications made for crisis loan/community care grant as a repeat application will be refused. OR if your girlfriend has been receiving income support for 26 weeks or more, she MAY qualify for a budgeting loan. (this would not be considered a "repeat application" as budgeting loans follow a criteria different to crisis loans and community care grants). Hope this information helps a bit