@MigsterThanks for the link to the privacy policy. The story continues unfortunately: I posted the requested info and had it tracked & signed via Post Office (3rd Sep). Email 1st Central the tracking number straight after. Expected a confirmation within 5 working days as per their policy to state whether everything is accepted or not. Heard nothing but 1 month later (01 Oct) I got an email saying "Unfortunately we are unable to locate the item you have sent to us in the post. We have tried to complete a track and trace on the Royal mail website to confirm it was signed for using the reference number you have provided but the site does not appear to be working at this time and will not carry out the search on your reference number." I went on the Royal Mail website and the tracking detail works fine; I just email them a screen shot of this stating it was signed and delivered 1 month ago so now I'm questioning whether they are saying the Royal Mail did not fulfil their service to deliver the mail or they have lost/mishandled my private data in their process (which brings back the original question in the title). The usual threat of policy cancellation after 10 calendar days if I don't sent them the information. From the start I refused to email my personal data via un unencrypted email hence I posted it which was the option they suggested I do. I think I've done everything within reason and complied to all their request but they keep asking for something different every month with continuous threats to cancel my policy. Will appreciate any advise and how best to deal with this as it's getting tiring with no clear indication when they will be satisfied. The final option is to cancel the policy myself but I don't see why I have to take the financial penalty for it. Many Thanks.

Slick132 Maybe I would also think like you if they asked me in the beginning and not 3 months into the policy . Regardless of their need for data is genuine or not there's a definite ignorance of data security here by lack of defined policy on this matter. We all read companies getting hacked or misplaced customer data which is one potential reason why you found fraudsters having access to your bank details in the first place. Again no mention on data protection by 1st central on this matter so they could be selling my data to dodgy third parties using unencrypted channels without my consent for all I know. What happened to GDPR here? I can see why banks steps in with checks as they are legally bounded by it and it hits their bottomline. Just not convinced why 1st Central would stand into this "policing" role. Going back to the genuine need of the data, logically there 3 possible outcomes when I submit the requested information: 1) policy continues, no problem. 2) changes to the policy: £50 plus whatever increase due to new information 3) cancel policy: £75 deducted, remaining policy refunded. Either way they have profited from "someone's" account. I'm not sure they would care where the money came from once the bank have authorised it. Maybe there's some new law that insurance companies have to do more with due diligence and/or the frauds are hurting this finances somehow. Hence why I asked if this is going to be the new norm? Are other insurance companies also requesting this level of data?

Hi all Just want some opinion on this matter. I've regrettable insured with 1st Central 3 months ago and on 2 separate occasions being asked for proof of details which I think they are over stepping their boundaries in terms of privacy. 1st time round they requested usually stuff like DVLC check code, driving licence, NCB and V5 That was fair enough the latest request for a bank statement showing the card I paid the policy with; I don't understand what influence that has to the policy. They also want proof of home address (council tax statement or utility statement) which I would think a scanned driving licence I give them 1st time round was sufficient. I really don't think they are using my data to valid my insurance policy anymore. I'm generally cautious of my online presence. Nowhere in their policy do they mention data protection and how is my data stored/managed. Frankly I don't really trust them as I know they use very aggressive cookies on their website to track IP addresses, device names etc. I've never been asked to submit proof of personal details to this level before by any insurance company; Is this the norm now how insurance company operate? Another point is they given me 2 choices; either email it (not particularly safe) or post them which is at my cost every time I post to meet their constant request.

Well I got lucky in this case that the other party had moral integrity. I had a quote from a local body repair shop, send the quotation and other party pay me without any question on the same day. It could have gone a lot worst. Still I have no idea how this would impact my insurance premium next time so I can only hope this payment will cover this on-cost.

Hi All I'm was recently involved in an accident which the third party crashed into my car in a car park. The third party admitted liability and I have our conversation in social media to reinforced this fact. Having looked at the "damage" to my car the next day I found it’s barely a scratch and that I can easily T-Cut any visual imperfection. As per my knowledge, I called the insurance and informed them of the situation and it’s for “information only” as no claim is necessary. The insurance said there was no need for me to call them unless I was claiming but since I called they would note it down in my records which I now need to declare for any future insurance I buy. Ultimately I don’t think I can even claim for the damage even if I wanted to as it’s too superficial. The third party is happy to pay for the damage directly but other that my time and some T-cut, do I need to factor in a possibility of my insurance cost going up next renewal? Would it go up as I have reported it? If so, how to I even calculate that if I’m not claiming? In this situation feels like I getting financially penalised for doing the right thing and not at fault. In theory the third party doesn’t have to declare to their insurance, therefore no impact to their future premium. Thanks you any advice in advance.

poppasmurf I understand what you mean. I did speak to the claims department and they said that we wouldn't be able to claim financial loss from policy cancellation, only personal injuries or possession loss. My mother had the same no fault incident on her previous insurance (not good to have two people driving into you and writing off two cars within 12 months) and they were happy to transfer her policy to another car, hence why I expect the same to happen here. At the very least, I assume the insurance will either refund the policy via third party expense or transfer the remaining of the policy to a new car. This way you're not out of pocket from a not at fault incident. Regards,

Hi everyone, I'm speaking on behalf of my mother who recently was involved in a car accident which she was not at fault. Our insurance (Shelia Wheels) has written the car off and offered a payout which was reasonable and have accepted. Waiting for the cheque through the post. No excess was paid because the third party insurance has accepted liability very early on. We are in the process of buying a replacement car and assumed the insurance will transfer the policy to the new car plus whatever the price difference. From my understanding over the phone, they will cancel the policy by the end of this month with no offer of refund or policy transfer. Considering the third party has accepted liability very early on, I don't understand why my mother has to pay for a new annual insurance. All cost from our insurance is reclaimed back from the third party. She's only been with Sheila wheels for last then a month. Can someone clarify this? Thanks in advance for any advise given.

Ladies/Gents Just want to see if people are aware of this or how true it is: Terminate T-Mobile Contract http://forums.cnet.co.uk/-mobiles-/get-out-of-your-3-contract-early-now/t10030009/?pageid=2 Apparently from 10 June 09, T-mobile changes their Terms & Condition which means legally anyone who is with T-mobile since it was first notified in April can exit their contract with no terminate fees. Has anyone done this or know more about it? I'm trying to find out how that would affect me but I can not find information regarding the changes to the T&C on T-mobiles website, as if they are hiding it so I'm a bit concern. I don't want to terminate the contract as I'm happy as it is but if they hike up the prices then I be forced to take action. Does anyone know what is going on or could direct somewhere? Also it says on the T&C they need 30 days of notice to cancel, is that 30 days from the day of introduction of new T&C or some other date of reference? Where do I stand legally on this? Thanks for everyones' reply

Thanks BURP, that clarify the issue. Just to confirm, I haven't paid any of the Bailiff fees, only the landlord's rent. Sorry but I have a few curiosity questions if you can kindly answer: What I need to do is to write them a letter telling them I owe them nothing and they should stop contacting me on this matter? Why would they take it up to the small claim court if as you say I owe them nothing? Is it just a scare tactic to get some money out of nothing? So let me just get my head round this...If it is a council matter then I'm entitled to pay fees for first/second letters through the post but if is a private/commercial matter then they can not charge me for any letters posted as the landlord would have paid upfront for the bailiff's services. Are I correct? Thanks again for you helpful advices

Hi everyone I recently wrote on the 13th Nov concerning Bailiff first charges: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/168039-bailiffs-first-visit-what.html I've used BURP's letter template (the one with the "pay me £4999" etc.). Well I have recieved a letter back from them, please see pdf attachment. They still want £439.63 for a attending a Levy where a levy was not made, so basically a first letter through the post for £3249.60 distress of rent. According to their table on appendix 1, para 1 it doesn't work out to £439.63, especially with these added "Van charges" and "man hours" for no levy taking place. Just to be clear, the rent with the landlord has been resolved and so the only problem is the Bailiff's charges. One thing I don't understand is this "common law" which apparently you can bypass without issuing a warrent. Can someone clarify please. Whats the next step? Any suggestion. I was going to write them another letter today with a complete breakdown of the charges which I believe is correct using their own figures on the appendix and settle it this way. Thanks for all the replies. Cheers 20081119075338812.pdf

BURP I've just send the letter to the Bailiff this lunchtime with your template. I've pay the Landlord directly although the payment was late which I thought I'm liable to the Bailiff's fee (of course not as much as he have quoted for). Well as long they don't harnass me anymore then I don't care whether they response to the letter or not. Hopfully that is the end of it. Thanks again for your time

BURP I have paid the Landlord directly and was just wondering whether I need to pay the Bailiff fees now or wait till the 14 days after I've sent the letter. Thanks

Thankyou for your guildance BURP I have yet to pay the fees because of this problem. Will it be okay not to pay anything until the actually figure owe has been resolved? So to confirm first thing I need to do is writing a letter to the Bailiff and National Enforecement Services who contracted the job to this Bailiff. Wait 14 days to reply then depending on that outcome I will file the Form 4 and letter to the Police department. Thanks again for your time, Tom

Hi anyone I'm hoping someone will kindly point me the right place. I'm helping a family member who is a first tenant for a commerical unit. They were a month late on their quarterly payment which was explained to the landlord by phone but he refused the late payment under any circumstance. Either way the full payment was been cleared a day after a letter was received by a bailiff. No warning of bailiff prior to this. The question is what can their charge for a first letter through the post with no levy agreement as no one was at the site at the time of the first visit. The distress for rent is £3249.60 + £439.63 Bailiff fee Basis charge per day = £75 Basis charge for a Van for 2 hrs @ £100 per hr = £200 VAT = £48.13 Levy Fee + VAT = £116.50 Total = £439.63 Bailiff fee Does this number sounds right? I been reading the forum and I thought a first off letter charge with no Levy signed is just a one off sliding scale payment? How much should they be charging? Why is they a Van charge when they can't remove goods without a signed Levy in the first place? If the fee is incorrect then who do I complain to? The Bailiff? Form 4? The landlord? National Enforecement Services who contracted the job to this Bailiff? Thanks for the help from all you kind people. Cheers Tom

Hi everyone First time posting here I'm in a slight problem with a LG TV I brought from Currys a couple years back... The YSUS panel on my LG 42" TV died 24 months in. I wrote them a letter with the "not fit for purpose" and stated the trading standard law etc. Currys wrote back saying they will refund me the repairs from any repair shop of my choice. All fine and dandy at this point. I assume that if I get it repaired through the "Tech Guys", Currys recommended repair centre then I should be cover again if the problem re-occurs. Well I checked the prices and compare it to a local specialist repairman who will charged about £600. So if I use the Tech Guys it would probably be +£1000 considering they charge £170 + VAT just to send an engineer out to see what the problem is. It cost me £1500 for the TV and so I'm trying to push Currys for an replacement instead. I wasn't in the position to pay that much money up front and Curry won't change their mind about paying for the repairs directly. Also my local specialist guy have on many ocassion experienced this faulty YSUS panel. According to him it is a known problem, possibly a design flaw and/or manufacturing capability issue so with the 3 month warrenty that he will be able to give, to him there is a likely chance for the fault to develop again. So if I get it repair now then I will have 3 months warrenty. If the problem occurs again then Currys can technical wipe themself clean of any responsibility because I got it repaired through a 3rd party. Either way. Am I in a any position to push Currys for a replacement? Is there any I can argue for an replacement instead? Considering the cost of Plamsa TV has dropped significantly over the 2 years. I'm happy to take a TV (not a LG one again) with the same size screen but cheaper. What do you guys think? Cheers for any replies.