Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm afraid that if the value of the item was under declared then that is probably the best that you can hope for. Also, because the item was incorrectly addressed – even by a single letter, if that because the issue relating to the delivery then that has probably compounded the problem. There is probably very little that can be done. If you are lucky you will get the item back and then you can start again and declare it properly. Undervaluing parcels which are sent by any means is always going to cause a problem if the item is lost or damaged. It may mean that the cost of delivery is slightly less – but at the end of the day the risk becomes yours. When you enter into any kind of contract, effectively you declare it a level of risk to your contracting partner – and they decide to enter into the contract with you based on that level of risk. You have declared a level of risk and £50 – and that's the deal.
    • Perfect. Nice and brief and to the point. You don't bother to start telling your life story. Just the way it should be. Send it off. You have probably done enough reading to understand that it won't make any difference don't start drafting your particulars of claim. Open an account with the MoneyClaim County Court system and start preparing. Post your particulars of claim here before you click it off. You may have noticed that at some point you will be asked if you want to go to mediation on this. We used to advise it but now we recommend that you decline mediation and go to trial. Your chances of success are much better than 95%. Going to trial will incur an additional hearing fee but of course you will get that back. However if you go to mediation, they will simply try to penny pinch and to get you to compromise and also they will sign you up to a confidentiality agreement and probably threaten you if you breach it. Not only that, if the mediation fails because you stand your ground, it will add additional delay while they then give you a date to go to trial. The best thing to do is to decline mediation – prepare for court hearing. Pay the extra fee. The chances are that rather than get a judgement against them they will then offer you a full settlement rather than go to court. If they do offer you full settlement then you will be obliged to accept it – but that's what you want. If they don't offer you full settlement then you will go to trial and there will be a judgement against them. Just so that you understand, our first interest is that you get your money back – but a close second is that it does go to trial and there is a judgement which we will then be able to use to help other people. Anyway as you should realise, we will help you all the way.
    • I sent a parcel to Singapore but i spelt the address incorrecltly by 1 letter so the parcel couldnt be delivered and was returned back to the Uk but checking the tracking today the parcel had returned to the UK but is somehow on its way back to Singapore as the tracking says "Item leaving the UK"    Ive spoken ( tweeted) Royal Mail help who confirm that the parcel seems to be going back to Singapore and that if its not " Delivered" by the 29th of April theyll deem it as lost and will accept a claim but i cant remeber when booking what the compensation amount was but i dont think it covers the amount of the item.  As it was my fault that it wasnt delivered in the first place can i trey and claim the full amount back ? i think if i remember correctly it was £50 compensation but the item was £170 So the timeline is thus ...   22nd Of March .    Booked via P2G & dropped off a Post Office.  25th March arrives in Singapore and goes through customs ect ect 26th   Incorrect address and item is flagged as "return to sender" 28th Item leaves Overseas intenational processing centre 15th of April , Item is leaving the Uk (Again)   ?    
    • Post the NTK up here for the regulars to double-check. I highly doubt it's compliant with POFA though. Ignore the deforestation that comes unless it's ever a letter of claim. Any luck with the organ grinder?
    • Probably the case @lookinforinfo Also an update, I've got the registered keeper letter. Just to check that I continue to ignore it until PAP letter comes in?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

SAR Request


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4370 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

There is much argument about this I recently asked the ICO for a definitive

answer to this and there is not one.

It depends on the view of the data controller as

to what is personal data, the can supply, they

may not supply it and may direct you sect 77/78 of CCA 1974.

I suggest doing both.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Thanks

I should of mentioned that this is now with a DCA, but after reading some threads it seems if you send a CCA to the DCA ( lol i think there could be a song there) they usualy write back saying they will ask the originator for it.

 

Do you think its better to send the CCA to the credit company or the DCA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always the CCA goes to the DCA, the SAR to the original creditor,

when debts are sold it is with the minimum of data so if the agreement

has not been included then they must pass the request on.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

my view is that an original agreement would be personal data as defined as ordinarily it would be a document in a relevant filing system etc with a persons name/address etc on it, ie identifiable+related. as the ico say themselves; post #193 here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?305755-Robinson-Way-\-Harwich-Farrelly-issue&p=3586658#post3586658

personal_data_flowchart_v1_with_preface001.pdf

ironically, a cca request does not now require that an actual copy of an original agreement be provided even if there is one (whereas a sar would!). a reconstitution would suffice provided it is accurate. (although it would seem unreasonable under a cca request not to send an actual copy if they have one. and they usually do if there is one. and under a sar there would not be the same effect following non compliance) but, yes one should be sent if there is one.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ICOs reply for a ''definitive'' answer was basically there is not one.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So would a SAR to a DCA only be of use to show harassment/dates/ownership/who sold to them?

Or are there any other uses?

Would I also be right in saying given the nature of DCAs they would be very economic with details in their reply?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ICOs reply for a ''definitive'' answer was basically there is not one.

 

yes, you said.

 

seems clear to me that it would be p data, following the ICO's own technical guidance/flow chart re 'personal data' linked above. (of course, if a particular original 'agreement' is not 'identifiable' eg (which is unlikely), then it would not be data as defined subject to a sar! not much odds though, as if there is one it will usually be sent at some point in either case)

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...