Help
I
Page 1 of 1
I'm confused privacy commissioners response.
#3
not their victim 
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3672
- Joined: 04-August 08
Posted 24 October 2011 - 07:28 AM
hold them to the act, and put in another complaint, this time to the ombudsman???
the ombudsman is supposed to investigate failed process, therefore, as you didnt get a proper response, you can lay a complaint???
keep generetating the paperwork....it shows we actually dont like the system....and one day soon the amount of complaints might just get the attention they deserve?
heres hoping
the ombudsman is supposed to investigate failed process, therefore, as you didnt get a proper response, you can lay a complaint???
keep generetating the paperwork....it shows we actually dont like the system....and one day soon the amount of complaints might just get the attention they deserve?
heres hoping
#4
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 24 October 2011 - 10:41 AM
If it is an inhouse investigator then complain and tell them to correct the documents.
If the information is misleading (same as false ) then get the person dismissed. Don't be scared to identify the person.
They do ACC work because they can not get a job any were else as they are unreliable. Putting there name up may get information from other people or information showing they were unreliable previously in supplying information.
If the information is misleading (same as false ) then get the person dismissed. Don't be scared to identify the person.
They do ACC work because they can not get a job any were else as they are unreliable. Putting there name up may get information from other people or information showing they were unreliable previously in supplying information.
In regard to your wish to attend Polytech, which you advise you could only do with financial assistance; we regret that we are unable to assist in your situation as if you wish to improve your employment possibilities beyond pre-accident level, this must be considered your personal choice and responsibility. Case manager Mr D. J. Lamond 26 May 1988
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1