Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

Lending Stream GDPR failure***Success***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2022 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

Well fellow caggers it seams like lending stream are taking no notice of the new GDPR regs

 

I applied for a SAR on 25 May and have just spoken to them to find out where it is as I have no comms from the part from their acknowledgement

 

They have informed me that because it has been sold to Lantern that they need some more time to get the required information.

 

I have informed them that I shall be reporting them to the ICO for failure to comply.

 

Has anyone got the link to the letter I need to send to the ICO I can't seem to find it now

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Report the fact they are being obstructive to the ico

Why dont you start an IRL complaint anyway?

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

I have already DX

 

I only had one loan with them and it went to the ombudsman but was rejected

 

my main reason for this SAR is to see if they carried out the default procedure correctly and see what info they have in case of a claim being issued

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how the court system works in Northern Ireland, but in the England and Wales you'd send a letter before action and then issue a claim in the court.

 

The cause of action is their breach of their statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and you'd claim damages for distress.

 

If you issue a claim you'd want to keep it small - £250 would be a good starting point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now received an email from NI Courts and Tribunal service saying they have to refer the claim to a judge to see if it can proceed as the courts staff don't know if you can submit a claim for damages due to distress

 

I will say that all small claims are checked by court staff before being issued in NI

 

anyone heard of this sort of thing in the UK?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Checks are also carried out that claims are suitable for MCOL (England & Wales)

 

Please be aware that not all disputes are suitable for MCOL. For more information on

different types of disputes you can download booklet EX301 – ‘I’m in a dispute – what can I

do?’ from http://www.justice.gov.uk/forms

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

MCOL is probably not appropriate for this sort of claim as your damages are for "distress" which is technically a personal injury. You'd want to issue the claim through your local county court.

 

Cant anyway...this is Northern Ireland

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

well whilst the claim is being queried LS have sent what they think is sufficient as a SAR

 

they've included

1) Statements

2) Application

3) DN

4) TN

 

No screen prints, calls, who they've disclosed my data to etc

 

I have emailed them to notify them of their failings and have given them 48Hrs to comply

 

Im awaiting my claim coming back from being looked at by a Judge but I am going to let it run

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is actually the Data Protection Act 2018 which gives legal effect to the GDPR in the UK.

 

Not quite correct, until Brexit that is. The GDPR is in effect without the DPA 2018 but the DPA makes changes, exclusions and exemptions as allowed for by the GDPR so they both have to be read together. Mostly the DPA just incorporates the GDPR for when Brexit occurs with main exemptions for security services and crime detection from a number of provisions of the GDPR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From tracking my Claim online I can see that the judge has responded and my claim has moved from being queried to being active

 

So the judge has accepted I have a valid claim and I will wait for whether LS contest the claim or defend it

Link to post
Share on other sites

well claim packs have been sent today

 

got an email over the weekend from LS saying they are looking into my email where I told them they were deficient in their late SAR

 

as the papers have now been issued I won't be stopping my claim against them and will wait to see if they defend it even if they do provide me with the info as they were still late in giving me the SAR info

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) the claimant held and account with lending stream under the acct no ..............

 

2) On dd/mm/yy the claimant sent Lending Stream a Subject access request under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)

 

3) Under the GDPR Lending Stream has 30 days to satisfy this request to date they have not fulfilled this request and the claimant claims £xxx for damages and distress.

 

these are the POC I filed and it got queried by the courts as they asked for the legislation I was relying on but it has now been served on LS after confirmation, maybe one of the others could check and amend

Link to post
Share on other sites

just received this -

 

Dear xxxxx

 

This is in continuation to our previous email dated 13th July, 2018. We apologize for the delay in sharing our response.

 

Thank you for waiting while we were gathering the requested information. We understand that you were concerned about the information shared by us in the email dated 4th July, 2018 and you believe that it was incomplete. Hence, we have gathered all the requested information and would like to share our findings.

 

To begin with, as you have requested for the copy of complaints data; we have attached all the relevant complaints data relating to your loan accounts. Also, we have attached the transcript and email communications shared with you in regards to your loan accounts.

 

For your concern about your information and data being processed, we would like to inform you that as a responsible lender we are required to report the status of your loan accounts to the credit bureaus on a regular basis and if you require any further information in regards to your credit file, you may contact them accordingly.

 

Please be informed that the information provided at the time of borrowing serves an important part to perform the affordability checks and to enable your credit agreement to be serviced. And your data is only processed for purposes in accordance with the specific consent you have provided.

 

Also, as stated above, your data is not available for any automated processing. It is only used in accordance with the consent provided by yourself for the processing of your credit agreement, including that appropriate affordability and credit worthiness assessments are carried out. Also it is required to ensure that financial transactions between ourselves and yourself are actioned appropriately and legally required credit reporting is fulfilled. Please be assured that the administration of our customer records is maintained appropriately.

 

For your reference we have attached all the relevant documents. We hope the above helps and addresses all your concerns.

 

Hence, please consider this as our final response towards the matter.

 

 

I replied with -

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Thank you for your email below. As stated in my email of 04/07/18 this is now subject to a County Court Claim issued in Langanside Courts Belfast on 03/07/18 under ref 18/064158. This has been served at your business address - Lending Stream, Wysteria Grange Barn, Pikes End, Pinner, London, HA5 2EX.

 

As you are still deficient in the information you have provided in my DSAR I shall be pursuing the Claim, please respond as you see fit to the Courts paperwork.

 

If however you are willing to discuss this without the needs of involving the Courts I am willing to remove my claim on the following conditions-

 

a) All documentation that you hold on myself is disclosed

b) Compensation in the amount of £100 is paid to myself

c) I am reimbursed the Court fee of £35

 

As you are aware the courts regard themselves as the last resort to sort out differences and if you do not accept this proposal I shall produce this email as evidence of my willingness to resolve this issue without involving the Courts.

 

Regards

 

This see what their reply is, the claim form was posted on Monday so they have received it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...