Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

MINT being extremely awkward - breaching DPA?


sharkfin
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5296 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

Hi everyone. I'd be interested in hearing some opinions on this situation:

 

I sent off my first Subject Access Request letter to MINT in May 09, requesting a list of all my transactions and charges, and enclosing a £10 note.

 

They sent me one A4 sheet with a list of charges and the month they were each applied to my account, but not the exact dates, and my £10 note. The accompanying letter said they were returning it to me as they didn't charge anything for this information.

 

I wrote back to them, asking for the exact dates for each charge, and as they had already informed me that they didn't charge for this info, I didn't re-send the £10.

 

They replied, saying that they would be happy to provide a complete list, but that there would be a £10 charge for it. Grrr!

 

I wrote back AGAIN and sent off my £10 note AGAIN, only for them to return it AGAIN with a letter informing me that they couldn't accept cash. Extreme Grrr!

 

I wrote back to them YET AGAIN, this time with a cheque for £10 (and an extremely bitchy letter asking them why they hadn't informed me right from the outset that cash was not an acceptable form of payment.)

 

I'm still waiting to hear back from them.

 

What I'm wondering is... As I made my initial request way back in May, and as they didn't tell me straight away that they couldn't accept cash, and they are obviously WAY outside the 40 day limit and I still don't have my info even after FOUR letters... Is this a breach of the terms of the Data Protection Act and can I make a complaint about their obstructive behaviour?

 

The initial SAR was made back in May and was clearly headed 'DPA - SAR' and worded as per the standard letters available here on the forum to request 'a complete list of transactions and charges...' etc etc

 

What does everyone think, is it worth making an official complaint about them?

Edited by sharkfin
Link to post
Share on other sites

don't think they were obstructive as such, though they are being clever, obv, by not giving dates to avoid int claim on charges.

 

when did you send off the std SAR with the cheque?

 

dx

,]

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think they were being dishonest in a sneaky way by not telling me they didn't accept cash until I sent them FOUR separate letters. And their 40 days aren't up yet, offhand I can't remember when I sent the cheque off but I know it's not that long yet :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...