Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My understanding is that they won't provide the name to me whether the investigation is Live or Closed, & I have no legal rep as I didn't have P.I. Cover on my policy, & am intending to claim using OIC.org.uk, but remain completely stuck as they 100% cannot open a claim on the portal without both the Reg. No. & Name of the other driver.  
    • thanks again ftmdave, your words are verey encouraging and i do appreciate them. i have taken about 2 hours to think of a letter to write to the ceo...i will paste it below...also how would i address a ceo? do i just put his name? or put dear sir? do you think its ok?  i would appreciate feedback/input from anybody if anything needs to be added/taken away, removed if incorrect etc. i am writing it on behalf of my friend..she is the named driver  - im the one with the blue badge and owner of the car - just for clarification. thanks in adavance to everyone.       My friend and I are both disabled and have been a victim of disability discrimination on the part of your agents.   I have been incorrectly 'charged' by your agent 'excel parking' for overstaying in your car park, but there was no overstay. The letter I recieved said the duration of stay was 15 minutes but there is a 10 minute grace period and also 5 minutes consideration time, hence there was no duration of stay of 15 minutes.   I would like to take this oppertunity to clarify what happend at your Gravesend store. We are struggling finacially due to the 'cost of living crisis' and not being able to work because we are both disabled, we was attracted to your store for the 10 items for £10 offer. I suffer dyslexia and depression and my friend who I take shopping has a mobility disability. We went to buy some shopping at your Gravesend branch of Iceland on 28th of December 2023, we entered your car park, tried to read and understand the parking signs and realised we had to pay for parking. We then realised we didnt have any change for the parking machine so went back to look for coins in the car and when we couldnt find any we left. As my friend has mobility issues it takes some time for me to help him out of the car, as you probably understand this takes more time than it would a normal able bodied person. As I suffer dyslexia I am sure you'll agree that it took me more time than a normal person to read and understand the large amount of information at the pay & display machine. After this, it took more time than an able bodied person to leave the car park especially as I have to help my friend on his crutches etc get back into the car due to his mobility disability. All this took us 15 minutes.   I was the driver of my friends car and he has a blue badge. He then received a 'notice to keeper' for a 'failure to purchase a parking tariff'. On the letter it asked to name the driver if you wasnt the driver at the time, so as he wasnt the driver he named me. I appealed the charge and told them we are disabled and explained the situation as above. The appeal was denied, and even more so was totally ignored regarding our disabilities and that we take longer than an able bodied person to access the car and read the signs and understand them. As our disabilities were ignored and disregarded for the time taken I believe this is discrimination against us. I cannot afford any unfair charges of this kind as I am severely struggling financially. I cannot work and am a carer for my disabled Son who also has a mental and mobility disability. I obviously do not have any disposable income and am in debt with my bills. So its an absolute impossibility for me to pay this incorrect charge.     After being discriminated by your agent my friend decided to contact 'iceland customer care team' on my behalf and again explained the situation and also sent photos of his disabled blue badge and proof of disability. He asked the care team to cancel the charge as ultimately its Iceland's land/property and you have the power over excel parking to cancel it. Again we was met with no mention or consideration for our disability and no direct response regarding the cancellation, all we was told was to contact excel parking. He has replied over 20 times to try to get the 'care team' to understand and cancel this but its pointless as we are just ignored every time. I believe that Ignoring our disability is discrimination which is why I am now contacting you.     I have noticed on your website that you are 'acting' to ease the 'cost of living crisis' : https://about.iceland.co.uk/2022/04/05/iceland-acts-to-ease-the-cost-of-living-crisis/   If you really are commited to helping people in this time of crisis ..and especially two struggling disabled people, can you please cancel this charge as it will only cause more damage to our mental health if you do not.  
    • I've also been in touch via the online portal to the Police's GDPR team, to request the name of the other Driver. Got this response:   Dear Mr. ---------   Our Ref: ----------   Thank you for your request which has been forwarded to the Data Protection Team for consideration.   The data you are requesting is third party, we would not give this information directly to you.   Your solicitor or legal team acting on our behalf would approach us directly with your signed (wet) consent allowing us to consider the request further.   I note the investigation is showing as ‘live’ at this time, we would not considered sharing data for suggested injury until the investigation has been closed.   If you wish to pursue a claim once the investigation has been closed please signpost your legal team to [email protected]   Kind regards   ----------------- Data Protection Assistant    
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • Hi everyone, Apologies for bringing up the same topic regarding these individuals. I wish I had found this forum earlier, as I've seen very similar cases. However, I need your help in figuring out what to do next because we've involved our partners/resellers. I work as an IT Manager in a company outside of the UK. We acquired a license from a certified reseller (along with a support agreement) and also obtained training sessions from them. The issue arose when we needed to register two people for the training sessions, so we used an external laptop for the second user to keep up with the sessions for only a month. During this period, the laptop was solely used for the training sessions. After two weeks, my boss forwarded an email to me from Ms Vinces, stating that we are using illicit software from SolidWorks. Since this has never happened to me or anyone we know, I went into panic mode and had a meeting with her. During the meeting, we explained that we were using an external laptop solely for the training sessions and that the laptop had not been used within the company since her email. She informed us that for such cases, there are demos and special licenses (though our reseller did not mention these types of licenses when we made our initial purchase). She then mentioned that we had utilized products worth approximately €25k and presented us with two options: either pay the agreed value or acquire SolidWorks products. We expressed that the cost was too high, and our business couldn't support such expenses. I assured her that we would discuss the matter with the company board and get back to her. After the meeting, we contacted the company reseller from whom we purchased the license, explained the situation, and mentioned the use of an external laptop. They said they would speak to Maria and help mediate the situation. We hoped to significantly reduce the cost, perhaps to that of a 1-year professional license. Unfortunately, we were mistaken. The reseller mediated a value €2k less than what Maria had suggested (essentially, we would need to acquire two professional lifetime licenses and two years of support for a total of €23k). This amount is still beyond our means, but they insisted that the price was non-negotiable and wouldn't be reduced any further. The entire situation feels odd because she never provided us with addresses or other evidence (which I should have requested), and she's pressuring us to resolve the matter by the end of the month, with payment to be made through the reseller. This makes me feel as though the reseller is taking advantage of the situation to profit from it. Currently, we're trying to buy some time. We plan to meet with the reseller next week but are uncertain about how to proceed with them or whether we should respond to the mediator.
  • 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

Rogue dialler help


Redstar7
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6069 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 i have a BT landline and get charged from them each quarter. I recently got a bill from them and stated as a "special service" a £160 charge from a known rogue dialler number. What the hell can i do about this? i'm not going to pay for this and want to know what protection i have. I'm prepared to seek legal advice about this too.

Is this UK milk us for all we've got PLC or what?

:mad:

Fight for your Rights!

:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't offer much advise other than to get an up to date virus and spyware scanner on your computer ASAP.

 

Try AVG Anti-Virus and Internet Security - Welcome for anti virus and download AVG Free edition and go to Ad-Aware @ Lavasoft - The Original Anti-Spyware Company - Lavasoft and download adaware personal edition.

 

Also if you have a broadband connection there is probably little need to have your dial up modem plugged into the phone line... remove it

All my posts are made without prejudice and may not be reused or reproduced without my express permission (or the permission of the forums owners)!

 

17/10/2006 Recieve claim against me from lloyds TSB for £312.82

18/10/06 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

03/02/07 Claim allocated to small claims. Hearing set for 15/05/07. Lloyds ordered to file statement setting out how they calculate their charges

15/05/07 Lloyds do not attend. Judgement ordered for £192 approx, £3 travel costs and removal of default notice

29/05/07 4pm Lloyds deadline for payment of CCJ expires. Warrant of execution ready to go

19/06/07 Letter from court stating Lloyds have made a cheque payment to court

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many calls over what kind of period? I'm also assuming you are not a broadband customer. as dial-up modems (and their problems) are pretty ineffective now. Dave's advise on protection is sound, but you can tell BT to bar all outgoing Premium Rate calls at no cost to you, which will at least prevent it happening again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your reply guys, actually i am a broadband user and this happened while i was converting between dialup and my new broadband account way back in June this year.

I also have never since kept my dialup modem plugged in. I have traced the company that charged me the premium number on my BT phonebill.

 

The [problem] company is based in the UK. i found this site which may be useful to others here. ICSTIS Homepage

 

Apparently they cover the 0871 based numbers (the real scumbags) in 2008

great...

Anyway since i know the company to claim my money back from now, their a ltd company. What legal steps do i take to get compensated since this is essentially fraud.

Thanks in advance guys:-)

Fight for your Rights!

:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

ICSTIS have nothing to do with this. If you are complaining about 0871 these are 'normal' non-premium numbers and outwith their remit. As for it being fraud etc, sorry you're wrong. It was your PC that made the calls - not BT or RedSTONE. Since this was simply the standard dial-up fee for internet you were simply paying for the service as you used it prior to switching to BB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't talk daft. PC's don't "make calls". PC's are machines that are used to make calls. People make calls.

 

In the case of "rogue diallers" it's the person who hi-jacks the computer with that illegal software who is responsible for making the call. It's the person who programmed that specific number into the software who is responsible for that specific number being dialled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah yeah. My computer downloaded porn from some site I didn't know about - so I can't be prosecuted? What nonsense! Computer's 'make calls' because they have been programmed to do so. Since the OP is legally bound to pay all calls made from his line - whether a burglar breaks in or his computer initiates it - he pays the bill and recovers the cost from the person responsible. I know you find this impossible to believe, but if there's anyone that's not got a grip on the reality of the matter it is yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah yeah. My computer downloaded porn from some site I didn't know about - so I can't be prosecuted? What nonsense!

of course it's nonsense. its utter nonsense but why are you saying it?

 

You keep spouting the same rubbish about porn sites and burglars breaking into houses.

Where have you read this rubbish?

 

"Rogue diallers" have little if anything to do with porn sites. that was the cock and bull story the staff mentioned in this article were told to tell the public.

'BT in call centre fraud to ensure winning £1billion business contract' | the Daily Mail

BT covered up a massive fraud by call centre staff to ensure it won a new contract worth more than £1 billion, an employment tribunal was told.

 

Staff made millions of 'false' calls on auto diallers to make sure bonus-linked performance targets were met under a lucrative contract handling calls from Ministry of Defence bases.

The fraud had been going on for at least four years and involved staff phoning themselves to ensure calls were answered under the time allowed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You continue to lose the plot. The example was to prove that through inaction you can be held responsible. Not having the ability to supervise your equipment or ensure malicious software remains the problem of the line renter, nobody else. Further, the OP goes on to talk of 'rogue' dialler on a standard non-premium rate number.

 

As for what appears in print in the 'Daily Mail' for goodness sake, find anyone else that supports their viewpoint in the media and I might take a bit more notice. Still, we all know your position, people don't need to be accountable for their actions if they can find someone else to blame, and your posts in this regard simply give them false hope. You'll be telling me next that if someone uses your phone line to make calls without your authority, you'll not have to pay for them. I hadn't stopped laughing after the first time you suggested this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You continue to lose the plot. The example was to prove that through inaction you can be held responsible. Not having the ability to supervise your equipment or ensure malicious software remains the problem of the line renter, nobody else. Further, the OP goes on to talk of 'rogue' dialler on a standard non-premium rate number.

put some links to verify your opinions.

As for what appears in print in the 'Daily Mail' for goodness sake, find anyone else that supports their viewpoint in the media and I might take a bit more notice.

MoD Demands Payback Over BT '[problem]' |Sky News|Business

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/BT-phone-calls-fraud-could.3223975.jp

icLiverpool - BT staff in £8m phone [problem]

http://www.northantset.co.uk/kettering/Kettering-call-centre-implicated-in.3192639.jp

http://www.motherwelltimes.co.uk/latest-york-and-humberside-news/MoD-demands-39reparation39-over-BT.3191801.jp

well?

Still, we all know your position, people don't need to be accountable for their actions if they can find someone else to blame, and your posts in this regard simply give them false hope.

accountable to who? for what?

I got my money back. explain that

You'll be telling me next that if someone uses your phone line to make calls without your authority, you'll not have to pay for them. I hadn't stopped laughing after the first time you suggested this.

This is plain rubbish please explain how you came to this conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stick to the subject of the thread and not to an exercise in insult slinging.

If the exchange turns into a "flame-war" then I shall have no alternative but to close the thread.

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

put some links to verify your opinions.

 

I need to provide a link to verify my opinion? I've really no idea what you're talking about.

 

As for you 'getting your money back' what relevance is this to the OP who (somewhat carelessly) let his computer make automated calls to a non-premium rated telephone number for dial-up Internet service?

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks buzzer old boy

I need to provide a link to verify my opinion? I've really no idea what you're talking about.

I just wanted you to confirm that everything you have posted here is purely based on your opinion and not any written laws you may have seen.

 

@ Redstar7

 

What was the 0871 number on your bill?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My pleasure. Now you've got that off your chest - perhaps you could move on to the bit you didn't quote? You know, where you believe that nobody is responsible if your computer does anytihng without your say-so? Don't let logic get in the way, as you've still to tell us thay 0871 is undoubetedly a Premium Rate call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you buzzer very informative to the OP and I'm sure your opinions will be a big help.

perhaps you could move on to the bit you didn't quote? You know, where you believe that nobody is responsible if your computer does anytihng without your say-so? Don't let logic get in the way, as you've still to tell us thay 0871 is undoubetedly a Premium Rate call.

I think you may be getting a little confused. You wrote it as your opinion. I never wrote it. I have no idea why you wrote it.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/115843-rogue-dialler-help.html#post1163340

 

You'll be telling me next that if someone uses your phone line to make calls without your authority, you'll not have to pay for them. I hadn't stopped laughing after the first time you suggested this.

This is plain rubbish please explain how you came to this conclusion.

@ Redstar7

 

What was the 0871 number on your bill?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the rerquest to tone it down, you are still bickering on this thread.

I have no alternative but to now close the thread.

 

Rooster-UK.

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6069 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...