I think therefore that he'd have to make it clear that he's not refusing to speak to him - only that he's protecting himself (and I did say "other than day-to-day work . Using your CCTV analogy, you aren't being prevented from entering a town centre, but by doing so, you agree to be recorded (and have a right to the footage). He's not refusing to talk to his manager in private, just that he will only do so if it's recorded. It's a fairly good parallel actually, and potentially a good angle to argue if it ever came to it?

If they do indeed manage to supply you with your CCA, now magically with your new "modified" signature a the bottom, then you'll have them by the short and curlies, and no mistake! (actually what you've done is a pretty clever tactic!)

Bump?

Here's another good one: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?193601#post2093590

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?131409

Weston, I don't have anything to add to this discussion other than simply to echo wha t others have said. Treat these bottom feeders as the **** they are (how's that for a mixed metaphor?!). If you do speak to them, make it plain to them that you know your rights. I used simply to say "I'm sorry but you're not entitled to that information, I know my rights, I WILL be paying you £xx per month by BACS". They can say what they want, demand as much as they like, and threaten all they want but just stay calm - if you really want to wind them up when they threaten you, there's one sure fire way of doing it... ...laugh. Try it, you'll feel so much better (run a search on the forum for the "cheekiness" thread -that should provide some relief)

Okay, understood - but he doesn't want to force his manager to being recorded, he wants to force him to treat him with some respect and common courtesy - and it would seem a very fair option to me - "if you want to talk to me about anything other than simple day-to-day work, I want to record the conversation> If you're not happy with that, I refuse to talk to you. I will be happy to provide an unedited copy of the conversatoin, in accordance with the DPA" - where does he stand with regards his rights taking that stance? (I don't think he'd really trust a 3rd party witness - basically they all know what goes on and nobody would want to rock the boat). You need to spend some time on the Debt collecton forum!

SarEl made it clear where the law stands on making secret recordings, however as I understand it it's up to the "other" person to continue on with a conversation if they know they're being recorded. I'm not sure they have any right to insist it be switched off?

Great discussion - keep 'em coming! I have one question: Where does a person stand re the right -not- to be recorded? Can my friend insist on it? Can his manager refuse it? Where would he stand, for argument's sake, in terms of wearing a dictaphone that can record 8 hours+ at a single stretch and simply warn everyone at work in advance that he's doing so?

Sorry, I don't understand? If an audible sound is made, it can be recorded.

I couldn't agree more - and I could post a lovely recording of him being told to switch it off - "I'm asking you nicely to turn that off..." etc. on the one occasion when he tried it. This was immediately after being told "We know you took it, so why don't you just admit it?" - he pulled out his phone and started recording so he'd have evidence. He was then denied access to the notes taken during the meeting. I've recently advised him to tell his manager that in any one-on-one meeting, he insist on recording it. The manager's choice is that or to have a witness present. This is because he was given a pointless roasting literally the day after he came back to work after the appeal. (there's no need to dwell on this, he hadn't done anything).

Thanks once again for the replies - could someone link to an explanation of why transcripts of secret recordings are admissable please? Point taken! It's a large stock room for a retail outlet. The stock arrives in large brown cardboard boxes, and these are unpacked and discarded and the individually packaged items of stock inside are organised onto the shelves to be picked individually. It'd be a bit daft -not- to unpack, and keep re-sealing the original boxes. Either you trust your worksforce or you don't. Very good point - thanks!

Bascially he was promoted into the warehouse where he was working at the time. The company also does deliveries and the drivers (the job he previously did) earn less and work longer hours. He refuses to work "in the same building" as the manger in question, so they suggested he goes back on the road. I don't think he did himself any favours here, and he should fight fire with fire with his manager.... I believe he has to sign something to agree to this demotion and I'm going to suggest he doesn't.

Firstly, and for everyone, thanks very much for the replies. His Manager, and his manager's manager (both based at the same branch, and the limit of the hierachy there) are equally aware of his problem and no attempt has been made to address the situation - if anything (following the theft accusation), it has got worse. On previous meetings where he has asked to record the meeting, it has been denied. He was told he wasn't allowed a copy of the minutes to both an "investigation", and the first disciplinary. He -did- get them after the appeal (heard by a different person), and found discrepancies - eg where a crucial "not" had been removed from his statement, that kind of thing. What I feel I haven't stressed enough is the pathetic nature of the "accusations" for which he has been disciplined. I'll try and explain. He's a stock man and one of his jobs is to unload the pallette coming in from the main national warehouse each day, tick the varios boxes off, unpack them and stack the varios items on the shelves in the right place. One day he foound a box with no label, so he opened it to find out what was in it. It had was a large quantity of one item (regular shelf stock) and an odd item made by the same manufacturer. This was not unusual because manufacturers often include freebies when buying in quantity - they call it a "kit". If you order, say, 100 bolts, you might get a free spanner - that kind of thing. However, because the box had no label, and there were a load of other boxes ready for stacking, he put it to one side and went through the rest of the boxes, stocking shelves as required. When he returned to the mystery box, he discovered the label he hadn't seen before, realised what it was and marked it off. The nature of the business was that the box had to go back to the main warehouse that evening, and his colleague re-sealed the box at 4pm and it went back. It was then discovered tha the freebie "spanner" was missing. I'm using "spanner" as a generic item, the actual item was worth about £30. Let's be clear on a few things: Most boxes are opened and unpacked to be put on the shelves in the warehouse. Open boxes are far from unusual. The only mistake was missing the label in the first place. He has never been given any formal warehouse procedures, and what he did was exactly in line with his training (verified by the guy who trained him, and who accompanied him to the disciplinary hearings - he now works at another branch). So... the disciplinary amounts to: 1) not marking off the "freebie" as excess stock (ie sent in error.) 2) Not sealing up the box after opening it 3) Putting the box in an undesignated area He formally replied, in writing 1) There was no excess as it was part of a kit 2) This is a nonsensical issue, there are thousands of open boxes of stock in the warehouse. 3) There are no "designated areas" other than those the storemen have assigned to themselves (he's one of two). The box was placed in an area they still use to this day for items too big to stack, or simply somewhere to set thing s"to one side". It's a working area. Hopefully you'll see that the "disciplinary" has no basis other than they can't nail him for the stolen spanner in the first place (I'd like to reiterate that he genuinely is innocent of the theft). My interpretation of this whole thing is that he's been made a scapegoat because someone "on high" flagged the missing spanner and insisted someone get punished for it. With no evidence, his manager went after who he considered the easiest target. In answer to the question of discrimination - I write this with the full knowledge that my friend will read this! He is perhaps open to that sort of behaviour, although it wouldn't be racially motivated and he's hardly Forrest Gump. I personally suspect he's never been diagnosed with dyslexia or similar. He's somewhat challenged in the height department too but I think simply that he's an easy target - he's too nice to have fought back when it would have made a difference. SOOOOOOO: I have already suggested that he insist on recording any private "conversations" with his manager(s), with their knowledge. On the one occasion he tried, they told him to turn it off. Does he have a right to insist on it? I agree the tribunal route is a non-event for the time beign and a grievance is the next logical step - thanks for the input.

I'm posting this on behalf of a friend who I've been helping deal with a pretty horrid situation where he works. I've been helping mainly in writing letters - he'd be the first to admit his written english isn't great! Anyway, I'll try and keep this brief and explain things in a nutshell: Firstly transferred to this branch after a trouble-free year elsewhere doing the same job for the same company. Been treated poorly by direct superior, been sworn at regularly, blamed for everything (even when blatantly not his fault, eg computer system crashing) , and always the first to be singled out. A very easy going chap, he's put up with this with a "water off a duck's back" attitude, but recently things took a more serious turn. A few months ago, an item of stock went missing from a box that he opened in the course of his job as warehouse man. He was openly (but only verbally) blamed for the theft - he was NOT responsible. After prompting them to prove it, he was disiplined for "not following warehouse procedures". Though me, he forced them to detail what the infractions were, and to postpone the hearing till he'd had time to prepare his defence. They then completely ignored what he said and upheld the complaint, and subsequently at appeal too. They've obstructed his ability to see the minutes of the first meeting (with his direct manager) and he then discovered specific points had been reversed in the notes. It's all stupidly petty and the feeling is that his immediate superiors are trying to save face after wrongly accusing him of the original theft. His manager is now being a total **** and appears to be enjoying a power trip. My friend has been demoted, earning less for longer hours simply to get way from this guy - this is partly his choice, but the alternative is to walk away from the job (which I talked him out of). He's now looking at filing a formal grievance against his manager, however that's likely to go nowhere. So the alternative is a tribunal. My question is really what to expect from the tribunal and what should his "claim" be? - ideally he'd like to be made a worthwhile offer to leave. He's taken time off for stress, spent hours dealing with the CAB and ACAS (and me!)..IMO the comapny did not stick to ACAS' code of practice (we called them over some of it and they did follow them after prompting). The actual disciplinary is small - but we really feel it's setting things in motion to get rid of him for the next minor infraction - and we're talking "not taping up a box while in the warehouse" as being one of the original accusations, so you get the idea... Any comments welcome.

Oh don't worry, sillygirl (hey, that's not meant to sound condescending!), While I am a bit of a one for losing stuff, but I've got full colour scans on the compute now so can reproduce a photocopy at any time

My account went into default originally with HSBC in February 2005, but I will be watching it like a hawk from now on! Currently it has a red blob next to it on Experian which can mean "the lender has closed the account" apparently. Interestingly. they state "A defaulted account is removed from your report after six years whether or not you have paid the debt in full. If you have paid some of the debt off, the balance should show how much you still owe." This is interesting, because it suggests the account, even if still active, is removed from your file altogether after 6 years, which may explain why my Lowell debt (much smaller) doesn't appear at all, even though I'm still paying it. HOPEFULLY this means that even though there's an outstanding debt, and the last activity was tracked as July this year, it'll still disappear off my record next February. (unless some unscrupulous so and so re-adds it as a new debt as I've seen others talk about on CAG). Anyone care to comment?

Well, I never thought this would happen! I'm under no illusions and they may simply sell the debt on, but any future attempts to collect by anyone else will be met with a copy of our exchange, and an invitation to go forth and multiply. I wish it were this easy for everyone on here! That's £6800 written off for the sake of two letters. I'm still in mild shock! I can feel a donation for the CAG coming on.... fenton are done.pdf

You might like to read this thread - even if you don't want to take the same approach, it should help you feel better: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?257619 (As a side note, I only ever give the DCAs my mobile number, and as a recent BlackBerry newbie, I was delighted to discover the "BuzzOff" app which, for £2.95 has a "pickup and hangup" feature for call screening, which can also be set up on witheld numbers)

Okay, for those who don't know, UMA is a service that allows a small number of mobiles with the feature to use the WiFi connection at home to make and receive calls (talking over the web to servers at Orange). It's a fantastic service for those who can make it work in areas where there is no mobile coverage. I've just dropped an email to Orange on their executive orifice email address (dunno if it's still active), but I wanted to share it here in case anyone else wanders onto this thread with the same problem: Put simply UMA is connected but unuseable at peak times Hi There, I'm writing because of being sent around in circles between the teams supporting both mobile and broadband because we have a problem that straddles both. My partner and I both have orange mobiles. The numbers are: xxxxx xxxxxx (me ) xxxxx xxxxxx ('er indoors) We have a serious issue with the broadband attached to 'er account. We live in an area with no mobile coverage and were being killed with the phone bills from BT. So we decided to lump everything together, take out new Orange contracts on BlackBerry 9700's with UMA capability, and for 'er to sign over the phone line and broadband account to Orange in 'er name. The land line number is xxxxx xxxxxx A point to note is that the phones arrived almost immediately and we successfully connected them over the BT broadband for several weeks. This included blissfully clear UMA connections and the ability to use our mobiles at home. As soon as the Orange broadband took over, this all changed. The speeds are apparently down on the BT capacity, though not disasterous, but UMA is unuseable in the early evenings and most of the weekend. It's connected and active but impossible to sustain a conversation on it, defeating the point of having it in the first place. It's very much as though it's dreadful mobile coverage (audio drop-outs, sounding like a dalek), except that the call never actually drops. Crucially the UMA connection requires a very modest data rate, but it MUST be constant, there is no "buffer". I'd like to repeat that it worked fine until we changed over to the Orange broadband (physically the same BT line). Because this is an issue with our BlackBerry's use of the WiFi connection, it's hell to find anyone to take ownership of the problem. The mobile people want to blame the broadband side (I think they're right) and the broadband team keep wanting to blame the mobile. On one phone call, I was transferred between both sides twice before hanging up in frustration while being asked (for a second time) to explain that yes, my phone is successfully connected to the WiFi and the connection is indeed working, otherwise how could I be using it to talk to you right now...? (via UMA during the day when it does work) Your broadband technical people have no idea what UMA is. I have run wireless speed checks, I've checked for channel interference, I've manually reassigned channels. I even went on-line to find an old Livebox on ebay so I could rule out the router. There're only 3 other wireless networks in range. SNR is healthy. The BlackBerry reports a 48Mbit speed (6Mb) I haven't seen the wired speed go above 8Mb despite the fact that it's supposed to be a 20Mb line. I'm going to draw on my rusty experience as a network engineer for Cable & Wireless and suggest that the Orange connection is being passed via a local multiplexer (mux), such that fast speeds can be maintained but only in bursts, not as a continuous stream. Thus data can still be transferred pretty rapidly, but a requirement for a constant data rate (even a low one) falls on its face when the mux is busy at peak times. Please can you do something to help sort this out? Stunned Monkey

BBC i-Player (especially in HD) is a superb way of chewing through the megabytes. Ask me how I know....

I echo the comments above - great post! I'm not seekimg to argue with you at all, but I do think that this whole situation has come about because of the creditors being careless, not "us" for slapping them in the face with their own rules. That us lot are kicking up such a fuss is simply representative of the amount of money personally at stake, and this has led to the realisation that the DAP is regularly breached. No matter which way you look at it, the only way they can excuse it is to say "well it doesn't apply in this case because we can prove you did at some point give permission.... " well actually, no, there's at least one agreement doing the rounds on here that did NOT have that as part of it, and the only way to know for sure is to get a copy of your original agreement.... I guess my main beef with this is threefold 1) The DPA is a solid foundation that should not be undermined as it's a cornerstone of our freedom in this country. There should be NO special cases, NO examples where it can be argued. It should be an absolute. 2) The multi-billion pound credit industry is being held to account by us tiny small fry over what to us are large sums of money, and to them is barely pocket change simply because they've been careless and haven't stuck to the rules written govern how they operate. They're trying to weasel their way around them as a result, undermining the DPA in the process. 3) The whole system of recording data with the CRAs is too automated, too open to abuse where someone with a GENUINE problem finds that getting redress is like trying to punch fog.

well put!

It must be hell to be on that side of the fence, where your name has been linked to someone else's debt. I have to say though - I can't see any better way of policing this than simply to "keep the receipt". I bet they're all putting more effort into their records now! This whole situation would never have arisen if they had done their jobs properly. I suspect we've inherited a bubble of time where records weren't properly kept and the banks have learnt their lesson by now.

With advanced apologies for jumping in here, being just a simple newbie, this thread is of great interest and I'm deciding to fight my case on exactly this issue: Debt but no agreement, admitted in writing, default already on file from 2005. I'm finding both diddydicky and lexis200's posts very interesting - lexis200 because it's exactly my thinking, and DD for providing the counter-argument so concisely. Let me suggest an analogy. It has no basis in law whatsoever, but it sometimes helps to look at things from another angle: If my TV went wrong tomorrow, I wouldn't be able to get it repaired or replaced for free because I haven't the faintest idea where the receipt is. This is my problem (should it break), and no amount of proving where and when I bought it will make the slightest bit of difference in a court of law because the law states I need to show my receipt. This law was written very deliberately to protect both consumers and retailers. While one could take the moral high ground that I should pay off my debt even though they can't enforce it, I worry about the individuals who have defaults registered against their names on debts they know nothing about or should not be responsible for. Their redress is exactly the same as mine - there's no agreement. The law was written to protect them. The data protection act should protect their rights, and those rights are being eroded by the trust relationship between CRA and DCA and the awful hoops people have to jump through to redress the situation. That the various credit companies/banks etc spent sevceral years failing to safely store the very documents that protected their interests was/is just asking for a whole load of people to stand up and say "where's your receipt?" - and I've got £6800 to gain by seeing it through - that's quite an incentive. On the subject of moral high ground: If I owed money to a company that would be harmed by its loss, I'd feel far more inclined to act ethically. For my part though, I never would have gone this far if they didn't insist on pestering me mercilessly and unethically to the very limits of legality. What with everything else the banks have got up to in the past couple of years, I won't be losing any sleep! "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar".