Bridgewater Gestapo Tactics

[tomsk]

At a recent meeting it was asked whether the enforcement officer has had any form of training etc.

It turns out he hasn't and so it was advised that he should be CRB and generally security checked aswell as being placed on an industry standard customer service training course. The canal company have stated that the enforcement officers role will be reviewed.

Sounds sensible.

[StarUKKiwi]

So do we know what happened at the meeting? I know NABO are trying to get details of boaters experiences.

 

We luckily didn't have the misfortune to meet Sonny on our trips through over the past couple of weeks.

 

All the C&RT licence holders seemed to be trying to get through as fast as possible which is a shame

It came up at the Council Meeting and there is to be a meeting between CRT and Peel Holdings at executive level

[Richard10002]

At a recent meeting it was asked whether the enforcement officer has had any form of training etc.

 

It turns out he hasn't and so it was advised that he should be CRB and generally security checked aswell as being placed on an industry standard customer service training course. The canal company have stated that the enforcement officers role will be reviewed.

Was that the Bridgewater Canal Trust Meeting? If so, it was also suggested that any complaints/issues be put in writing to the Canal Company. My own view on that is that, given that they don't seem to respond to emails, there is little chance that a snail mail letter will be given any more attention.

[RLWP]

Was that the Bridgewater Canal Trust Meeting? If so, it was also suggested that any complaints/issues be put in writing to the Canal Company. My own view on that is that, given that they don't seem to respond to emails, there is little chance that a snail mail letter will be given any more attention.

 

You do have another advantage with a physical letter, you can get it recorded and signed for.

 

Richard

[cuthound]

You do have another advantage with a physical letter, you can get it recorded and signed for.

 

Richard

You can send emails with a request for delivery and read receipts.

 

I once got a "not read receipt" back from one of my team. I checked with the IT team who told me you get one when someone else deletes an email with a read receipt without reading it.

 

I used this at the guys next appraisal as evidence of his lack of communication skills. Never got another one!

 

Edited to add the last paragraph.

Edited October 3, 2016 by cuthound

[RLWP]

You can send emails with a request for delivery and read receipts.

 

No guarantee that it will get through a companies spam filters though

 

Richard

[cuthound]

Not so, you will get a "not read receipt" if the email is deleted. Emails in company spam folders are regularly auto-deleted.

 

See the edit in my last post.

Edited October 3, 2016 by cuthound

[Paul C]

You can send emails with a request for delivery and read receipts.

 

I once got a "not read receipt" back from one of my team. I checked with the IT team who told me you get one when someone else deletes an email with a read receipt without reading it.

 

I used this at the guys next appraisal as evidence of his lack of communication skills. Never got another one!

 

Edited to add the last paragraph.

 

Not receiving a "read receipt" isn't proof that they didn't read it though - its possible to prevent the sending back of read receipts, indeed I think most email clients will always ask if you want to send one.

[RLWP]

Not so, you will get a "not read receipt" if the email is deleted. Emails in company spam folders are regularly auto-deleted.

 

See the edit in my last post.

 

Not very helpful though, is it. All that says is they didn't receive it. A signed for letter proves they did receive it

 

And as Paul says, you can suppress the sending of a read receipt

 

Richard

 

Hmm, two words demonstrating 'i before e except after c' in one post

[ditchcrawler]

 

Not receiving a "read receipt" isn't proof that they didn't read it though - its possible to prevent the sending back of read receipts, indeed I think most email clients will always ask if you want to send one.

I never send read receipts, I use Becky as my mail client and for some reason it just wont send them even if I OK it. but I don't have it set up to do it automatically. It asks first.

[Paul C]

They're basically not reliable, or to be relied upon, if you're sending them over the internet. (Some companies internal email systems will be based on only one or a few email systems, so can be set up to reliably work, but that's a side issue). Basically, there's that many different email systems, and configurations, that while there's a standard for delivery/read receipts, its perfectly possible to configure an email system to not send these, ignore them, dump them etc. And many providers configure their email system as such. Also pretty much every email configuration I've seen (no doubt an idiot could reconfigure it to auto-send them) prompts the receiver to ask if they want to send the read receipt or not - so there's the perfectly reasonable scenario that the end user receives (and reads) the email, but doens't want to send the read receipt etc.

[thebfg]

 

Not very helpful though, is it. All that says is they didn't receive it. A signed for letter proves they did receive it

 

And as Paul says, you can suppress the sending of a read receipt

 

Richard

 

Hmm, two words demonstrating 'i before e except after c' in one post

 

When dealing with companies that, lets say are not the most trustworthy, I would always post 1st class and get a free proof of purchase. The interpretation act 1978 will deem it delivered unless they can prove otherwise. proving a negative is quite difficult. it can be deemed delivered 2 days later.

 

The problem with signed for is they can refuse to sign for it especially if it may be a summons or a threat of court etc.

[Bewildered]

More fun to send it without postage paid so they have to pay at their end

[widebeamboy]

More fun to send it without postage paid so they have to pay at their end

 

only if they decide to accept it as they can choose not to (most ex-clampers and people like Peel just refuse).

 

When dealing with companies that, lets say are not the most trustworthy, I would always post 1st class and get a free proof of purchase. The interpretation act 1978 will deem it delivered unless they can prove otherwise. proving a negative is quite difficult. it can be deemed delivered 2 days later.

 

The problem with signed for is they can refuse to sign for it especially if it may be a summons or a threat of court etc.

 

Absolutely spot on AND to cover your bases even further you could send two copies, from different post offices on the same day as the chances of BOTH failing are nigh on impossible (can you tell I used to read moneysavingexpert forum a lot)

[Laurie Booth]

 

When dealing with companies that, lets say are not the most trustworthy, I would always post 1st class and get a free proof of purchase. The interpretation act 1978 will deem it delivered unless they can prove otherwise. proving a negative is quite difficult. it can be deemed delivered 2 days later.

 

 

 

 

 

Sadly for me this proved to be true.

[Athy]

 

 

 

Hmm, two words demonstrating 'i before e except after c' in one post

Yes, I perceived that too.

[Jim Riley]

[quote name="Liam" post="1892897" timestamp="1475441940"

 

At a recent meeting it was asked whether the enforcement officer has had any form of training etc.

 

It turns out he hasn't and so it was advised that he should be CRB and generally security checked aswell as being placed on an industry standard customer service training course. The canal company have stated that the enforcement officers role will be reviewed.

 

About time too. But can old dogs learn new tricks, pit bulls turned into poodles?

[Guest]

Yes, I perceived that too.

How weird.

[Mac of Cygnet]

How weird.

 

Yes, but it does give weight to the rule, doesn't it? Oh, stop it; this is the height of silliness.

[Guest]

 

Yes, but it does give weight to the rule, doesn't it? Oh, stop it; this is the height of silliness.

It does indeed. I before E except after C, or anything weird. That is what we were taught

[Jerra]

It does indeed. I before E except after C, or anything weird. That is what we were taught

Somewhere around 920+ words that don't conform to the rule against about 40 that do.

[Nige G]

 

Hmm, two words demonstrating 'i before e except after c' in one post

That's weird...

 

Edit: must read whole thread before posting "clever" replies...

Edited October 5, 2016 by Nige G

[Guest]

Somewhere around 920+ words that don't conform to the rule against about 40 that do.

True there are loads, making the "rule" something of a nonsense. Weird, neighbour and weigh to name but a few (and "height" as per Mac of Cygnet's post.).

Edited October 5, 2016 by Guest

[Cheshire cat]

The rule only applies when the sound is "ee", It seems like your English tutors only gave you half a rule. Bring back the grammar schools!

[Jerra]

The rule only applies when the sound is "ee", It seems like your English tutors only gave you half a rule. Bring back the grammar schools!

I went to a Grammar school (the same one as Melvyn Bragg and Anna Ford) and we were taught by teachers we didn't have the advantage of 1:1 tuition from tutors.