me v jaguar

[shifty50dog]

yes but he owns jaguar,i want his uk based head office if theres one available

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

TATA LIMITED

18 GROSVENOR PLACE

LONDON

SW1X 7HS

Try the above address I'm not sure if this is the one you need, TATA Cars Ltd have their head office in Coventry.

 

Andy

[shifty50dog]

hi wheres the office in coventry and thanks for your help.

 

 

regards pete,

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Hi Pete,

Here are the details I have

 

TATA CARS LIMITED

VICTORIA HOUSE,

44-45 QUEENS ROAD

COVENTRY

WARWICKSHIRE

CV1 3EH

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

[shifty50dog]

Cheers Andy,

[shifty50dog]

Hi

Need help regarding possible breach of my human rights by former employers its a long story i do not want to go into the full details.

Here goes medical document copied by supervision and passed around to hr staff and medical staff data from this copy put into the medical data base without my knowledge or consent and now they refuse my demand to destroy this stolen medical data where can i go and would you agree this is a breach of my human rights.

[shifty50dog]

yyyyyy

Edited January 6, 2010 by shifty50dog
delete/edit

[elpulpo]

Best not to be specific who you work for, shifty. It's not relevant, and ya don't know who's reading.

[teaboy2]

what was their reason for wanting such documents from you? bear in mind they are entitled to keep medical records for employment and health and safety purposes, and i dont see how they have broken your human rights by doing so. Also as an employee of theirs, they have to process your data accordingly, hence why they refused to destroy the medical records which they will also need for employment and health and safety purposes.

 

Only way you would have a case would be if they made your medical records public for the world to see.

[teaboy2]

By the way you would have given conset to the employer to process your data when you accpeted employment fromt them. It is an implied term in everyones employment contract that they consent to the employer processing their data. If it wasnt then everyone would be unemployed, all employers would be out of business becuase they wouldnt beable to process their employees details in order to pay them, and if they cant pay employees then the employees wont work for them. So yes you did consent to them storing your data and processing your date accordingly which in this case is for employment purposes and health and safety reasons as it insures that they and the first aiders will have access to your medical records incase of any medical emergency involving yourself, which they can then also pass on to the emergecny service as well as use to adminster the correct first aid and medical procedures that you may need if such event were to happen.

 

For example some one that has diabetes may collapse at work due to lack of insulin and without such medical records the first aiders will not beable to give the correct first aid or medical procedure to save the persons life due to not knowing that person had diabetes and needs insulin due to the lack of medical records.

[honeybee13]

I just wonder if the position is different with an ex-employer?

 

And has the information been kept confidential?

 

Shifty, you don't have to tell us about it in any detail at all, but do you have a medical condition they would have needed to record, as teaboy said?

[ErikaPNP]

Unless your employer is a public authority, the Human Rights Act does not apply.

[monkeychicken]

What you need to look at is the Data Protection Act - plenty of advice of Information comissioners office www.ico.gov.uk Good section on medical records and guide for businesses, employers etc., as well as Q&A section.

 

Theyre also the ones you need to make a complaint to if you feel they used/ managed your data incorrectly.

[monkeychicken]

Unless your employer is a public authority, the Human Rights Act does not apply.

Erika are you sure about this?

 

I understand LJ Eady has been granting super-injunctions preventing publication of salacious information about the rich and famous in the press based on the HRA right to private and family life - or so the Daily Mail (and private eye) says. We dont know because we are not allowed to know details or even the existence of these super-injunctions.

[ErikaPNP]

Erika are you sure about this?

 

I understand LJ Eady has been granting super-injunctions preventing publication of salacious information about the rich and famous in the press based on the HRA right to private and family life - or so the Daily Mail (and private eye) says. We dont know because we are not allowed to know details or even the existence of these super-injunctions.

 

Positive. Action can be raised in relation to human rights which are incorporated into Employment law, but not the human rights act itself.

 

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a manner which is incompatible with a convention right. Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998. There is no mention in the Human Rights Act of it being unlawful for any other individual or private business acting in a manner which is incompatible with a convention right.

 

There is a lot of uncertainty in regard to what constitues a "public authority", specifically because a lot of government departments contract out work now. A "public authority" is defined as an authority which is exercising public function.

 

For clarification, two examples:

 

A private security firm would be exercising public functions in relation to the management of a contracted-out prison but would be acting privately when, guarding commercial premises, such as a supermarket.

 

Doctors in general practice would be public authorities in relation to their National Health Service functions, but not in relation to their private patients.

 

Links: Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)

 

Human rights in the workplace : Directgov - Employment

 

EHRC - Questions about human rights

[elpulpo]

Positive. Action can be raised in relation to human rights which are incorporated into Employment law, but not the human rights act itself.

 

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a manner which is incompatible with a convention right. Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998. There is no mention in the Human Rights Act of it being unlawful for any other individual or private business acting in a manner which is incompatible with a convention right.

 

There is a lot of uncertainty in regard to what constitues a "public authority", specifically because a lot of government departments contract out work now. A "public authority" is defined as an authority which is exercising public function.

 

For clarification, two examples:

 

A private security firm would be exercising public functions in relation to the management of a contracted-out prison but would be acting privately when, guarding commercial premises, such as a supermarket.

 

Doctors in general practice would be public authorities in relation to their National Health Service functions, but not in relation to their private patients.

 

Links: Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)

 

Human rights in the workplace : Directgov - Employment

 

EHRC - Questions about human rights

yeh

[monkeychicken]

I know that and have studied HRA a little bit. But what I cant understand is how human rights act is involved in these super-injunctions banning reporting the shenanigans of a premiership manager for example- or is it just Daily Mail propaganda

[ErikaPNP]

Journalistics is provided for in section 12 of the Act, which a presider would have to pay particular attention to in such a case of granting an injunction against the press:

 

The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to— (a) the extent to which—

(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or

(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;

(b) any relevant privacy code.

 

When considering Privacy and the press, article 8 is considered, and usually balanced against article 10.

 

When considering a case, the presider (in exercising a public function) must interperet current legislation as far as possible in a manner which is compatible with the convention rights. They cannot over ride legislation, thus if it is not possible to interperet an Act of Parliment in order to make it compatible with the convention, they presider would issue a "declaration of incompatibility".

 

An injuction could be placed upon the press publicising certain information/pictures in the same manner that it would be placed to protect you or I. For example, it is perfectly reasonable for the press to click away in a public street, and happen to catch me in their photograh, but if the local (or national) rag were to position a ladder at my bedroom window and take pictures of me in the buff, I could have 'em. Harassment, breach of the peace, tort of trespass, whatever - it would have to be intereperated as far as possible, in a manner compatible with the convention, and these laws are compatible with article 8. Taking pictures of me when I am in the privacy of my own bedroom, doing private things is not a matter for public interest, it isn't something that would contrive another law as there is no law which says it is ok to intude on another person's privacy in this manner, thus it would not be compatible with article 10 but would be with article 8. (I doubt that the pictures would be published though, seeing me in the buff is the stuff nightmares are made of!).

[shifty50dog]

Hi all.

Like a fool i let the supervisor read the medical document hes known to be a bully and threatened me with a written warning because i had been of work but i made it clear not to show or divulge this to anyone i panicked cos the union were crapp,He made a copy hi- lited all sections of the 8 pages in different colours about me medical and private and then passed this copy to the superintendant and hr employee at my disciplinary meeting and i had no idea they were reading this copy in my prescence and it was pure accident on a visit to the works surgery 2 months later the nurse also wrote on this document and then passed it to the works gp who took data from it and put it on the data base.I found out this supervisor also abused another employees medical data all those involved all closed ranks made statements they and the company refused to let me read or have copies i only got them when i left.10 years i worked for this company i got nothing they even reduced my pension utter **** these people HR and SENIOR MANAGEMENT TO THE TOP LEVEL CHIEF EXECUTIVE MANAGING DIRECTOR.Hr manager even threatened me through the union that if i didnt drop my complaint they would the company come after me.My daughters are now in contact with a national news paper who want the story

[teaboy2]

Right so basically they are abusing your medical records by adding false medical data?

 

Can i ask as to why you were disiplined as i cant see why they should need your medical records in such hearings.

 

Also if you have stopped working for them, then they should no longer be processing your data. have you sent then a section 10 request under the data protection act, which is a formal legal request that they stop processing your data? if not i suggest you do right now by using this letter as a template and editing to suit your circumstances http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/583-letter-to-request-the-halt-on-the-processing-of-your-data (note the template taken from the debt template libary but all you need to do is change the reference to debt related files and records to perosnal, employment and medical etc)

 

But you have copies of the documents detailing the false entires am i right? if so then yes you would have a case but it would not be for breach of human rights act buit more for breach of data protection act and for damages caused as a result of the false data (possibly for even constructive dismissal, as id assume their actions to be a serious breach of your emplyment contract as processing of data is an implied term in a contract). i would also contact the information commisioners office and speack to them, they will probably want copies of the documents you have and maybe copies of your real medical records from your gp to compare the too, to see what has been falsely added etc. Then they would investigate the company's and the individual person's responsible for the false information. Also if the company doctor recorded any false information independently then he/she should also be reported to the medical commission or what ever its called.

 

If you can fill us in with as much details as you can as to what happened, wed probably be able to help you better.

Edited January 5, 2010 by teaboy2

[monkeychicken]

Journalistics is provided for in section 12 of the Act, which a presider would have to pay particular attention to in such a case of granting an injunction against the press:

 

 

 

When considering Privacy and the press, article 8 is considered, and usually balanced against article 10.

 

When considering a case, the presider (in exercising a public function) must interperet current legislation as far as possible in a manner which is compatible with the convention rights. They cannot over ride legislation, thus if it is not possible to interperet an Act of Parliment in order to make it compatible with the convention, they presider would issue a "declaration of incompatibility".

 

An injuction could be placed upon the press publicising certain information/pictures in the same manner that it would be placed to protect you or I. For example, it is perfectly reasonable for the press to click away in a public street, and happen to catch me in their photograh, but if the local (or national) rag were to position a ladder at my bedroom window and take pictures of me in the buff, I could have 'em. Harassment, breach of the peace, tort of trespass, whatever - it would have to be intereperated as far as possible, in a manner compatible with the convention, and these laws are compatible with article 8. Taking pictures of me when I am in the privacy of my own bedroom, doing private things is not a matter for public interest, it isn't something that would contrive another law as there is no law which says it is ok to intude on another person's privacy in this manner, thus it would not be compatible with article 10 but would be with article 8. (I doubt that the pictures would be published though, seeing me in the buff is the stuff nightmares are made of!).

 

Thank you v much for that clarification - I hadnt looked at S12 properly.

 

Also who told you about my nocturnal habits with ladders?

[shifty50dog]

I let the supervisor read the document thats clear.

But he had no rite to make a copy and pass it around he also dnied making a copy and said it was the original.When i found out the nurse was involved i phoned she asked me to see her in private in her office she tried to pretend the document copy did nor exist after me putting pressure on her she admitted it was a copy but would not divulge any further information in her statement she lied also shes not fit to practise i made a complaint to the nmc about the company wrote to them saying it had been delt with by them so the nmc were not bothered.

 

After dragging my complaint out for 8 months i had to endure the supervisor and superintendant being left in the same block with constant grinning they knew they had got away with it i left this company got the statements all of the statements were taken by another supervisor there best friend utter white wash i had my medical restrictions abused by the supervisor and superintendant on seperate occassions nothing was done about it two work colleagues saw this abuse but they were intimidated by the supervisor so they were to scared to tell the truth he then got is floater every gaffers friend to lie that he helped me on a job this company stinks and are rotten to the core

[teaboy2]

Shifty50dog, i really want to help you with this but i really need for you to not allow your frustations get the better of you when you post about it, as its very difficult to ascertain the facts that i and others would need to help you from your posts. So, could you please set out clear step by step account of the facts about whats happened. Basically if you can do that by answering the questions below then that would be a grea help.

 

Also yes the employer needs your consent to see your records but the fact you took in your records, no doubt upon their request, then that itself is deemed as consent, but it does not give them the right to add too or alter them or disclose them in anyway or form accept for health and safety reasons. even the nurse can only speack to the compay regarding the actual current medical condition in which they requested to see your records along with any underlining medical issues connected with it.

 

First off its clear from one of your previous posts that they have abused your medical records, but we need to be clear weather it was just a copy of your records they took, which they are entitled to have for health and safety reason or weather they did both so please answer the following questions clearly by just sticking to the facts.

 

1 - What was their reason for requesting your medical records?

 

2 - we know they are entitled to store your medical records on file for employment and health and safety reason, but did they pyhsically alter the records by added false medical information?

 

3 - The nurse would be entitled to see your medical records for occupational health reason in order for her to advise both yourself and the company correctly regarding your ability to the job or any measures needed to protect your health. So did the nurse actually make a false record on your medical records?

 

4 - Who and how many people did the supervisor and superindendant reveal details of your medical records too?

 

5 - As a result of them revealing your records to people did you suffer from any harrassment, bulling (no matter how small it was), discrimination, victimization (singled out as a result of a medical condition becoming known to others) or any other form of detriment?

 

6 - Do you have a copy of the records with the chages they made (if any), or any evidence at all to support what you claiming and any of the answers you have provided to these questions?

 

And finally 7 - what actions have you taken so far to request they send you copies of all files and documents they have on you, and what actions have you taken in requesting they stop processing your data?

 

Also on the point of them still processing your data, what make you believe they are still as a company processing your date?

 

If you can answer the question with short but factual to the point replies then it will be a lot easy for me and others to understand the actual facts surrounding your case and the circumstances within your case. I dont mean any offence but so far your posts come across as being more like a rant, so its very hard for me and probably others to actual understand what has happened and in order to help its very important that we can understand the facts in order to give the right advice. Although i do understand that your angry and fraustrated, and you have every right to be, but allowing you anger and fraustration to get the better of you while posting here doesnt do anything to help you. So please when you post take your time and be clear with the facts of what is or had happened.

[shifty50dog]

1/they did not request my medical records.

2/i allowed him to read that document.

3/he made the copy without my knowledge or consent.

4/he defaced evey page by colouring things in that document about me.

5/in is statement he said that was the original and put it in my file in is office.

6/he passed that copy to the superintendant.

7/the hr employee also read this copy and then she went god knows where with it.

8/then the nurse was given it she wrote on the copy in biro but did not alter any data just added.

9/then she passed it to the gp.

10/i made my complaint to the company.

11/the company refused to let me read there statements or have copies only after i resigned did i get the statements all taken like i said by another supervisor and friend of them all.

12/i made a complaint to the ico they stated that because i allowed him to read thats consent

i argued that he made the copy they responded by saying its your word against is.

13/fact he also copied another employees medical document.

14/i was threatened with disciplinary action if i contacted anymore senior management again by the hr manager after there internal procedures were ended.

15/company said you can have the document back no action was taken against all those involved.

16/went to a solicitor to late to take action under constructive dismissal.

17/company gave me one months pay to keep it out of the press.

18/company would not sanction my pension so i had to go through the pension administraters myself this cost afew thousand and reduced my monthly pension.

19/im now on benefits of £65 aweek for me and my wife and i have a morgage.

20/i regard there actions as gross misconduct and in the company rule book it states that bullying and threatening conduct is gross misconduct.

21/company also have a dignity at work policy.

22/because it was supervision they were protected by the corrupt hr dept who did nothing

[honeybee13]

Hi there. I'm interested in your comment on pensions. Usually contacting the pension adminstrator doesn't cost anything, unless you ask for information more than once a year, for instance.

 

Can you tell us any more please?