Safe Speed Forums

Hi Bob.

I've sent you a PM. Don't worry, it's nothing scary.

I'm posting this as you may not have noticed you have a new message (look at the top left area of the webpage).

that was the reason i wouldnt work for them. it is not the reason i am retaliating against them

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

got your message thanks

still think you should phone Pollock and get it cleared up. If the agency has told them it was you, what are they supposed to do as Pollock wont be able to get the tachos until the agency forward them to them. The driver has to keep the tachos for 21 days before the agency gets them and then the agency has to forward them to the company so until this time Pollock can do nothing but go with what the agency has told them

the agency told them it WASNT me. they know i wasnt working there. in 2 months, i have only worked for one company with the exception of 1 day which was 2 days before this happened. even the worst agency in the uk could work that one out and this lot are on the ball. they know their drivers individually and when one of them is constantly booked out by the same client week after week, they know what that driver is doing as he is creating less work for them (they dont need to find work for them) so they were well aware of where i was. there is no reason for them to give my details out and i will find out why they did later on today although i doubt they will have an excuse that i will accept as reasonable. im not happy with them either

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

you never seem to stop praising the agency.. the same agency that gave out your details to Pollock as the driver of the vehicle otherwise how would pollock have got your details. I dont think i would work for an agency that has tried to drop me in it and may well be trying to protect another driver just like you are bizarrely trying to accuse Pollock of. As you state yourself you did your job for Pollock to the minimum of your ability so you obvioulsy had it in for them before the speeding issue even occuured.

correct, i didnt want to work for them but i did my job anyway. thats what i am paid to do. i am preparing for my visit to the agency with certain documentation that may prove of use when i ask them what happened.
my primary concern is the fact that pollocks gave my details to the SCP knowing that i wasnt driving
my secondary concern is the fact that the agency GAVE them my details knowing that i wasnt driving.

as i said, i will be seeing the agency in person today, my opinion of them may change dramatically by the time i leave their office. if that is the case, i will be warning every driver i know about all this. i know quite a few of them since i advised them to work for them

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

hello

http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/dat ... tions.aspx

"If I'm asked to pass on personal information, would the people about whom I hold information expect me to do this?"

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

I have just phoned Scott Pollock (my old boss) and we have gone over the situation.
When the NPI arrives at Pollock they look up to see who was driving or if an agency was used. If an agency was used the NPI is forwarded to them and it is them who fill out the drivers details and return the form NOT POLLOCKS so as i though all long it is the agency to blame here. Secondly nobody at Pollocks is aware of complaining about the time took. He has checked your timesheet and you arrived back at Pollocks at 0600 and the office staff dont start until 7am and very rarely see the night men but then again you do admit in early conversations that you meaningly took your time!!
Drivers like you are an utter disgrace and give everybody a bad name.
P.S. you beloved agency has just phoned Pollock while i was speaking to Scott to say they have made a mistake and you were not driving that night....what a marvellous company!!!

p.p.s would anybody that is also a member of TRucknet please post the above conclusion on their too as i am not registered and Mr Chip on his shoulder (Scania) has been spouting his rubbish on there to. Many Thanks

Scanny would have found out by himself (if what you have said is true and not an "Oi boss, you got some sh*t coming your way over a NIP) the reasons for why the NIP ended on his doormat. He would also have had the b*lls to come back and explain what happened.

You obviously have an agenda, as RobinXe asked, which was to protect a boss for whom you no longer work. After reading this post and the other related post I find it is you who are despicable.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

the old "agenda" theme is getting a bit boring!! I cant beleive you are still sticking your head in the mud and denying that Scania has been totally out of order and he should have phoned Pollock first like i suggested and got this sorted out before trying to darken their name.


So i used to work there, it does not mean i am still loyal to them. What is despicable about protecting a firm which was innocent of what it was accused of.

Nonsense. The original recipient of the section 172 request is wholly responsible for the details supplied. This is not a duty that can legally be delegated.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

and agencies are under no legal obligation to give out their staffs personnel details. So how do you sort out then Einstein???
Of course the simplest way is to send it to the agency who will confirm who their drivers was and fill out the details. This is standard practise across the whole industry

So it all comes out. Are you actually aware of the meaning of 'agenda'?

You have the phone number of an old boss, who you are friendly enough to chat to about a matter that doesn't even concern you. Hmm, pally!

You are quite clearly the one with ulterior motives here. I find you to be decidedly unpleasant personally.

Ironically that didn't make sense. Did you intend to be antagonistic with that statement?

If the registered keeper (RK) does not know the driver at the time of the alleged offence, but expects that the agency does, then the legal obligation of the RK is to reply naming the agency. In due course the agency will receive their own S172 request.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Can a company be named as the driver?

Would the obligation not fall to the registered keeper to have records of who was driving their vehicles, be they agency workers or otherwise?

a compny can't be a driver but can be prosecuted for s172.

So then presumably if a company is the RK, they can't pass the NIP off to another company?

It's hardly too much to ask that they know is driving their vehicles and when!