Jump to content
Twitter - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'

cynic09

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    257

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by cynic09

  1. cynic09
    Oh sorry, yes it was posted to my home address. Completely forgot that isn't immediately obvious once you redact personal details. I'm clearly spending too much time corresponding with the wrong people, its rubbing off
  2. cynic09
    I've read many of Lee's posts, he's far too literate to begin to approach this level of unprofessionalism. The more mischievous side of my nature hopes Vodaphone continue in this vein, the consequences should be hilarious. my more sensible head merely wants the matter concluded professionally
  3. cynic09
    One can only guess. I look forward to the result of complaint 3.....maybe I'll get a crayon drawing to put on my fridge
  4. cynic09
    One can only hope they think the sheriff who gets the case is also an idiot, Sheriffs tend to take offence at such conduct:wink:
  5. cynic09
    Sorry, I was admonishing no-one I'm sorry you feel that way. My intent was merely to illustrate my reasoning behind my posting, and does not actually comprise my entire cv which is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Should a coherent response actually appear from vodaphone and I feel the matter may be of some help to others, at that point I will be more than happy to post chapter and verse, complete with the relevant legal authorities. In the meantime, we have precisely one response from the organisation that apparently assumes I am an idiot, I have posted this primarily to amuse our more seasoned campaigners and hopefully to illustrate to our lesser experienced readers that these big bad corporations are to be stood up to and not feared. Again I apologise for causing you any offence
  6. cynic09
    The original complaint was addressed to the data controller, completely ignored, the second complaint was addressed to the company secretary, resulting in the letter posted. I have considerable experience in complaint handling and consumer law gained from 30 plus years in retail management so with all due respect I'm not yet at the point where I feel I need to seek advice on what is essentially a simple DPA issue. Vodaphone appear to have something of a reputation for disregarding the laws of the UK. I was quite astonished by the ineptitude of this response, as a fairly long time CAG member I thought it was worth sharing with others, it may even brighten the day of some less fortunate than myself
  7. cynic09
    one of several questions I have asked in my third letter.
  8. cynic09
    You'll never get a gig with Vodaphone using words that length! It almost made me pee in my own porridge, I'm sure the sheriff will be equally amused. Begs the question.....what do they send to represent them
  9. cynic09
    THE COMPANY SECRETARY VODAPHONE LIMITED VODAFONE HOUSE THE CONNECTION NEWBURY BERKSHIRE RG14 2FN The address that elicited the posted response, One more stamp then LBA I think. Hardly my problem if they choose to outsource their mail to a primary school on the other side of the planet
  10. cynic09
    The data controller VODAPHONE LIMITED VODAFONE HOUSE THE CONNECTION NEWBURY BERKSHIRE RG14 2FN Address from the complaint they ignored completely
  11. cynic09
    [ATTACH]56320[/ATTACH] Response received today to my second complaint regarding unlawful data processing. First complaint completely ignored! Vodaphone must like court claims
  12. cynic09
    There's a huge difference in Scots Law. One cannot merely be unable to bring an action in court as prescribed by the limitations act in England. In Scots law" the obligation shall be extinguished" Occurs to me that reporting a debt as in default when it is extinguished violates the requirement under the data protection act of data to be accurate. Haven't been able to find any case law to either support or dismiss this argument, perhaps wiser people than I may be aware of such
  13. cynic09
    What a country, a financial organisation commits Fraud on a massive scale, they are ordered to pay compensation. An individual commits fraud on a small scale and he goes to prison! Coulson gets tried and convicted of phone hacking.....GCHQ call phone hacking necessary for security. Individuals get hounded to the ends of the earth for a few hundred in outstanding tax, Vodaphone get off with millions. Classless society indeed
  14. cynic09
    Just an observation, but FOS deciding they are outwith their remit, doesn't rule out pursuing these bandits through the courts
  15. cynic09
    Tragic stories to be sure, but somewhat superficial approach by Ch5. Many on this very forum could tell similar if not worse tales of the obscenity that is the financial services industry
  16. cynic09
    I'm inclined to agree Emm
  17. cynic09
    Your line manager I'd assume does not fall under the classification of "anyone"!! I am yet to come across any occupation where an employee is given more authority than his line manager. Curious that you believe almost all your colleagues were given such training. I would sincerely hope you are not an air traffic controller, who incidentally cannot lock others out for very obvious safety reasons!
  18. cynic09
    Occurs to me that when we legislate in favour of minorities alone. That too is descrimination
  19. cynic09
    Actually you have provided evidence of very little other than your own frame of mind, which is argumentative and obsessive to say the least. I find it hard to believe the sole issue at your hearing was whether you swore or not, particularly since you, yourself, mention verbal abuse in another post. Your manager may well be the biggest tool in the box, that does not give you the right to lock him out of premises he manages. You are obsessing over an issue that has been dealt with and is finished with, you then attempt to use this previous issue and your feelings in the matter to justify your latest misdemeanor. Hopefully for you, the investigation into these events will provide evidence of you having a better reason for your conduct than those you have stated. From your own statements and comments on here I'm afraid I only see an employee who harbours a grudge against his line manager, who is deliberately obstructive, and argumentative, who has difficulty accepting instruction and who's conduct is unpredictable at best. The best thing I could honestly say in your defence is that there may be underlying medical reasons for your conduct, and that you should probably not be in a position where you are responsible for the safety of others.
  20. cynic09
    A different perspective on suspension is, would you really like an investigation to take a couple of weeks, miss out half the evidence in your favour because it was rushed, and lose your job at the end of it? Its never wise to read too much into paid suspensions, employers don't like the cost and tend to err on the short side more frequently than on the long. If you are guilty of nothing then enjoy the bonus holiday!.
  21. cynic09
    It's hard for you to to accept the pretty unanimous advice you are being given when your mindset is hell bent on fighting a wrong that exists almost entirely in your own perception of the events. You cannot persist in antagonizing your superiors and expect to remain employed. They pay you to do your job at the end of the day, not to chose who they should appoint to manage you or to decide how you wish to be managed. You have left a lot unsaid regarding your original disciplinary and also the following grievance. Essentially you expect people on here to agree with your opinions 100% based on a possible 10% of the facts, and get irate when you are advised otherwise. A hell of a lot of people offer lots of good advice on many subjects on this site. Its entirely up to you if you wish to take it. Nobody has advised "surrender" as you put it. The issue has been dealt with, it is FINISHED. You should now get on with your job. You have failed to do so apparently, hence you now face a second disciplinary hearing essentially because you didn't like the outcome of the previous one. This alone should tell you the advice you are being given is correct. Disciplinary processes exist to address inappropriate conduct and poor performance in the work place, once concluded one takes on board what was learned and moves on. One does not nurse a grudge or engage in a vendetta. I have personally managed lone workers charged with the safety of the public in the past. Were I to be locked out of one of the premises I was responsible for by an employee who then offered your explanation. I would have little hesitation in dismissing them on multiple grounds. Support on self destructive courses of action is not something you are likely to get on here
  22. cynic09
    Your actually more likely to be dismissed for gross misconduct for continuing a vendetta against your line manager after the matter at issue has been dealt with by senior management. You cannot be certain that your line manager was not reprimanded, any such action taken after your grievance should be confidential between your line manager and his superior. To comment that he repeated his allegations at the mediation hearing is hardly evidence of his continued conduct. Was that not the purpose of the hearing, to discuss your issues openly to achieve a resolution? You appear to attack the opinions of anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view, if your comments on here are a reflection of your conduct at work, I'm surprised, quite frankly, that you haven't already been disciplined. In any industry there are people you will get along with and many more that you won't. Employees who decide their feelings are too hurt to turn up for work and then attempt to blame the whole thing on a difference of opinion with their superior tend not to remain in employment very long.
  23. cynic09
    Equally if an employee harbors grudges against colleagues or superiors and conducts a vendetta against some perceived wrong, those circumstances too can be actionable in law. Your employer has a duty of care to all employees, including your line manager. From your posts all actions an employer can reasonably be expected to take have been taken, mostly in your favour. Time to either move on or move out I'd suggest. As a side point, union officials have widely varying degrees of knowledge regarding employment law, not all of them are particularly good authorities.
  24. cynic09
    I'm inclined to agree, sounds more a requirement for medical services than legal from the tone of the reply. Certainly not the type of clearheaded thinking one might expect from a person entrusted with the safety of others
  25. cynic09
    Unlikely that a any third party would compensate lost earnings in that, IMO. Appears the employer has followed acceptable procedures, favoring the OP on at least two occasions. Not getting along with ones line manager is pretty commonplace in our green and pleasant land. There may well be medical issues to be addressed regarding stress management, but that's more a matter for a doctor than an employer I'd imagine

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road
London NW11 7PE

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...