unfounded work alligations, my rights?

Nicki

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Where does it say that?

In the Act itself but here is the ICO's layman' guide to what the term means.

https://ico.org.uk/media/1592/relevant_filing_systems_faqs.pdf

Flyonthewall

Nicki, you realise that regardless of terms we have no idea what filing system the school has and the information kept, nor how the OP would send in the letter. So even going by what you're saying it could still be covered.

Although you agree email would be covered, OP would know the email is going direct to the person they wish to see it, they have a copy of the email sent and it's not likely to get lost like paper might. So if a letter is sent the best way would be to email it. No possible confusion or uncertainty then.

Nicki

Your advice to the OP is based though on the fact that this letter would definitely be protected by the DPA, when it may very well not be. Which is why it was worth pointing that out to the OP, as otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. It is also worth pointing out that people who work in schools usually have no better understanding of data protection than randoms on the internet and so even if it was covered, there is still the possibility that it would be shown to the colleague who made the false allegations, and other than creating a fuss with the Information Commissioner about that, in practical terms there would be nothing at all the OP could do about it.

So bearing all that in mind, the best thing is either to do nothing, or to write a sensible professional letter about the situation which he wouldn't care if it were seen by others and particularly by the person who has made the two false allegations against him.

Flyonthewall

Nicki wrote: »

Your advice to the OP is based though on the fact that this letter would definitely be protected by the DPA, when it may very well not be. Which is why it was worth pointing that out to the OP, as otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. It is also worth pointing out that people who work in schools usually have no better understanding of data protection than randoms on the internet and so even if it was covered, there is still the possibility that it would be shown to the colleague who made the false allegations, and other than creating a fuss with the Information Commissioner about that, in practical terms there would be nothing at all the OP could do about it.

So bearing all that in mind, the best thing is either to do nothing, or to write a sensible professional letter about the situation which he wouldn't care if it were seen by others and particularly by the person who has made the two false allegations against him.

Actually the first thing I said was this:

Flyonthewall wrote: »

The data protection act should cover it.

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

TBut I don't see that there is actually any law which prevents stevemLS's letter being passed on to the staff member in question. [if you say there is such a law, I am challenging you to show how this law applies].

The reply above was then that they don't see any law that could possibly stop it being passed on. That is when I stated the data protection act again in answer (because it could).

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Again, the data protection act. The letter would be addressed to a person and it would be private and confidential. Even if it's regarding someone else they're not just allowed to pass that letter on because the data (which contains personal information) is protected by the act.

Ok, at the end I put is and not may be, but if filed under a relevant filing system it would be protected and no mention was made as to what format the letter was being sent in.

My original advice was not to send a letter at all.

If they are going to send a letter then email is, as stated in the last post, the best option. That way they can say exactly what they want with no worries of it being passed on because that would be covered under the act.

I agree it should be a sensible professional letter, of which I don't believe the photo idea is (and that is how we ended up at this point in the first place).

DandelionPatrol

Nicki wrote: »

Your advice to the OP is based though on the fact that this letter would definitely be protected by the DPA, when it may very well not be. Which is why it was worth pointing that out to the OP, as otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. It is also worth pointing out that people who work in schools usually have no better understanding of data protection than randoms on the internet and so even if it was covered, there is still the possibility that it would be shown to the colleague who made the false allegations, and other than creating a fuss with the Information Commissioner about that, in practical terms there would be nothing at all the OP could do about it.

So bearing all that in mind, the best thing is either to do nothing, or to write a sensible professional letter about the situation which he wouldn't care if it were seen by others and particularly by the person who has made the two false allegations against him.

I agree with your point about the DPA - even if it can be argued to apply, there is no guarantee that the letter would be withheld from the member of staff even in breach of the DPA. And if you write a letter which you want withheld, it is not good enough to have grounds for complaint if it is shared.

So the challenge is to write a letter which OP would not mind being shown to the member of staff in question. The so-called 'professional' letter is only superficially professional. In fact it is downright amateur in that it states quite clearly that OP was distressed. This is the last thing on earth that you would want to fall into the hands of someone who could very well be a bully.

I tend to think that the idea of sending a photo is just too novel for some here who can only think of sending this down the road of a conventional workplace grievance processes. This would be completely the wrong process when it is not clear whether the person is a bully or just someone who has made a horrid mistake.

The challenge still stands - to write a letter which

• you wouldn't mind falling into the hands of the member of school staff
• is appropriate for both a bully and someone who has mistakenly identified OP TWICE
• does not admit being distressed by the consequences
• puts in place a marker which would make a third occurrence totally beyond the pale

duchy

Actually the school has a duty of care that anyone dealing with their employees isn't hurt or distressed by them so to say two unpleasant incidences both initiated by false accusations by the same employee have caused distress is entirely appropriate.

That said there is a certain breed of teacher who thinks anyone employed in the school below the level of teacher is so inconsequential that they might genuinely not bother learning their names

Flyonthewall

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

I agree with your point about the DPA - even if it can be argued to apply, there is no guarantee that the letter would be withheld from the member of staff even in breach of the DPA. And if you write a letter which you want withheld, it is not good enough to have grounds for complaint if it is shared.

I'd argue that it is best to be completely honest in order to show their true concern and persuade/strongly suggest that the school take some form of action to resolve the issue/prevent future issues.

Better they know if someone working in their school is distressed. That way they can take appropriate action and make sure that it will not impact the OP health further. Last thing the OP needs is a situation that would cause them more worry.

If the other staff member found out and if they are a bully then something can be done about it at that point.

stevemLS

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

I agree with your point about the DPA - even if it can be argued to apply, there is no guarantee that the letter would be withheld from the member of staff even in breach of the DPA. And if you write a letter which you want withheld, it is not good enough to have grounds for complaint if it is shared.

So the challenge is to write a letter which OP would not mind being shown to the member of staff in question. The so-called 'professional' letter is only superficially professional. In fact it is downright amateur in that it states quite clearly that OP was distressed. This is the last thing on earth that you would want to fall into the hands of someone who could very well be a bully.

I tend to think that the idea of sending a photo is just too novel for some here who can only think of sending this down the road of a conventional workplace grievance processes. This would be completely the wrong process when it is not clear whether the person is a bully or just someone who has made a horrid mistake.

The challenge still stands - to write a letter which

• you wouldn't mind falling into the hands of the member of school staff
• is appropriate for both a bully and someone who has mistakenly identified OP TWICE
• does not admit being distressed by the consequences
• puts in place a marker which would make a third occurrence totally beyond the pale

I'm afraid you just lost the last shred of credibility to suggest that my letter was amateurish (I am a lawyer lol) and to maintain that your facile rubbish is to be preferred.

Flyonthewall

The OP doesn't know why the other staff member named them and I feel a lot of this thread has been about them potentially being a bully. So how about reasons why they may have been named.

1. They're just really bad with names and never get the right name.
2. Some people use names constantly, others rarely. They rarely use names and so haven't remembered their name correctly and said the wrong one.
3. They have similar names.
4. There's something about their appearance or personality that causes them to get the two people confused. It may not be obvious to the OP and they may think they look nothing alike, but it may just be one small thing.
5. They've (perhaps unknowingly) been called by a nickname when staff have been talking to each other. They've mistaken who has been spoken about or the nickname is close to the other persons name causing confusion.
6. They have a friend or know of someone who happens to have the same (or similar) name as the OP, but looks more like the other person causing them to give the wrong name.
7. They don't even realise they said the wrong name, they just had a stupid moment.
8. They have a medical problem that's caused an issue. For example, some people just can not remember faces so putting a name to a face is hard or even impossible, or extreme stress of the situation caused them to make a mistake.
8. They were talking to the OP before the complaint or their name was mentioned beforehand so their name was on the OP mind and they mistakenly said that.
9. They actually don't know the name of the other person and thought it was the same as the OP name.
10. They get the two confused even though they've no idea why. Even if told they could easily get confused next time and wonder which way round was right because they've been confused for so long.
11. The person dealing with the complaint mis-heard or mis-read the name.
12.They are a bully. In which case they're a strange one or they're not really very good at it with only two incidents in 8 months (I assume the first being 8 months, the other very recent), plus at least one incident was obviously not them right from the start making naming them completely pointless. Usually bullies bully more regularly.
13. For 18 years they've been plotting revenge and are finally taking action in the form of wrongly accusing them (18 years planning clearly wasn't enough for the above reason).

So out of 13 reasons, 11 would be genuine mistakes. I'm sure I thought of another genuine mistake too, but forgot it by the time I'd written out another. These were also just off the top of my head so could be more genuine reasons.

Anyway, 11 genuine, 2 not. 1 bullying, 1 just crazy and unlikely.

So that would suggest the OP doesn't have anything to worry about, the other staff member probably just made a mistake.

If they are a bully then it's only started this year after 18 years of being fine. That suggests that something happened at the start of the year that the other staff member didn't like causing them to want to get back at the OP. Although they're still going about it in a rather odd way.

DandelionPatrol

stevemLS wrote: »

I'm afraid you just lost the last shred of credibility to suggest that my letter was amateurish (I am a lawyer lol) and to maintain that your facile rubbish is to be preferred.

Obviously, credibility with you is not something worth seeking.

I take your claim to be a lawyer seriously, and your letter might work on solicitor's headed paper with appropriate text about confidentiality in a way which a similarletter from an ordinary mortal probably would not work.

But unless you are making a credible threat of suing for distress, it is crass to admit distress in correspondence which could be seen by a potential bully. Frankly, when your letter is of such poor quality that you have to stake your claim on your professional status and when you accuse me of producing facile rubbish, we can see that your letter is really from a man of straw.