Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


52 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Looking for consumer law assistance. I signed up on a website for their offer of a free service in the Terms of Use of the services, there was no mention of price, contract or length they would provide the service but there was a mention that they would continue processing my personal data for 5 years. The lawful basis was for contract reasons or legal reasons. i have tried to cancel the service so they stop sending me the information by post and email, but they are stating that the contract for the service is for 5 years and they don’t need to stop processing my personal data and they consider the contract as still in effect. My feelings are there is no contract, merely a gratuitous promise by them to provide the service. Is this correct: 1. They made an offer for providing the service for free 2. I accepted the offer by signing up for the service 3. Their consideration was the actual service and implementation of that service 4. As the promisee I did not provide any consideration 5. Thus there is no contract they are saying there is a contract, they will not cancel it, and my consideration was the signing up for the service, and the obligations they set out in the terms. The obligations under the contract are obviously not consideration but what about the signing up for the service. how can I get them to cancel any alleged contract and remove my personal data? thanks
  2. That sounds like a reasonable option. Except I will be abandoning an untaxed, uninsured vehicle onto the public highway. That’s an offence. Vehicle could get towed and crushed and then under tort interference of goods act I could be liable.
  3. Hi, Purchased a vehicle from a trader for £5200 on a credit card. Rejected the vehicle with the trader within 14 days due to multiple failures on the vehicle in addition to it being sold in an unroadworthy condition. The trader refused to refund the money even though accepting my rejection but he wanted me to pay for the original delivery and the return delivery of approx £800. I of course did not accept this and did a section 75 claim. The credit card company did a dispute with the trader and has refunded me the money from the trader. This is where the issue comes to head. I have my original purchase price refunded. The credit card company has not lost their money as they did chargeback under the MasterCard rules. So appears the trader has “lost” the £5200 but now still owns the car on my driveway even though I am the registered keeper. I believe the trader and credit card company owe me a few hundred pounds for my losses suffered such as insurance cancellation, expert report, car tax. The trader refuses to communicate with me even though I have told him many times to come collect the car. What are my options as I need this car off my driveway as it is effecting my wife’s business. Car is not insured and SORN now. Car been on my drive for almost 3 months. Cost to repair car minimum of £3000 just on known faults according to expert report. Thanks
  4. And if our infamous liars Boris and Cummins do this then they can spend a few years in jail under misconduct in public office laws.
  5. Never mind that their signs rarely capable of forming a contract, but their signs and anpr in itself is not GDPR compliant. That is why PE and other ppc allow my appeals every time. Read up on the GDPR and two things stand out, and the court of justice has already ruled on these. One, if there is any alternative to the processing of personal data, especially of a data subject ie the RK that is not even there to view the data processing notification , then that must be used eg barriers such as NCP uses. Two, privacy info cannot be displayed on the same document/signage as other contract info. In almost every occasion they cannot meet these and therefore there is no legitimate reason for the parking charge notice.
  6. Some ideas are good. Some changes are great. This new look forum is not either of those. It’s a terrible layout and interface. Don’t know what platform it is but very poor.
  7. @dx I would agree with you, except we have seen the letter - post 15. And it’s not going in all guns blazing. I simply advised the OP as a starting point to do a SAR to see what has been said about them. Nothing more. They could then make the choice as whether to take it further. 9/10 in my experience starting off with the hint to the other side that the have broke the law leads to them dropping the issue like a hot potato. But in the end it’s the OPs choice
  8. My first post to the OP was based on the fact that the store has given them that letter which states that their details will be recorderd for future court action. Therefore the OP has the option of a SAR to see exactly what the head office, store manager has been told by the security guard. It’s the OPs choice to do that and whether to complain to the ICO or the company for breaching the GDPR. It was meant to offer advice to the OP. No need for snide remarks from anyone.
  9. Strange that. In post 21 you stated ”That letter is prob printed off by the security staff and signed by them without any knowledge of management. All they'll say to store management is ... we caught a shoplifters today and banned them. That's it.” The store manager is surely going to just say that the security guard had informed that the op was caught shoplifting, when the OP phones the store manager. Or was post 21 a mistake?
  10. From a reliable source that works in rlp with some of the large stores. Although in the case of this OP, it’s down to being known by the security and manager. even the ones that don’t keep photos, as you say keep names and address details. Again the GDPR comes into play, and if they haven’t provided the correct info under the GDPR, and haven’t taken the case-by-case evaluation under the GDPR then the keeping of that name and address list is unlawful.
  11. Maybe they do discard the names after a few months. Means nothing. They have not complied with the GDPR even if they keep the details for a couple of hours. Unless they have complied with all the articles I mentioned above. And I can tell you that the large chains have photographs of listed “offenders” that security use to refer to people that hav3 been banned. Not been tested in court under GDPR yet but won’t be too long.
  12. Rubbish. Everyone and every company has to comply with the GDPR. If you have any valid response to my points feel free to raise them so the OP has all the info to hand. But making simple statements that a supermarket can do whatever they feel like to keep a list of banned people without compliance with the GDPR is not helping anyone.
  13. PS I have already used similar to the above against 3 private parking companies and they just withdrew their stupid parking charge notices. Didn’t even need to bother with POPLA. They just escalated to their “legal”teams who knew they on a losing streak and didn’t even want to try test the GDPR in court. Possibly same for the OP from the limited info provided but that’s why the SAR is the first thing to do.
  14. Time you started learning about GDPR. It’s more powerful than you think if you know the law, Let’s see. 1.they need a lawful basis of processing under article 6. The only one is article 6(f). It requires them to have a legitimate reason. They do. It then requires a case-by-case evaluation of their rights against the data subjects rights. Some security guard writing on a form doesn’t meet this requirement. A failure of GDPR. 2. Where did the company get the OP or their husbands personal data from? From a third party ie the security guard or store manager. Therefore requirements under GDPR art 14 must be met. They haven’t probably. A failure. 3.they can share it perfectly fine with a third party as long as their privacy notice, which they have not provided to the OP anyway, states the recipients they can provide the data to. It’s then up to that 3rd party to provide info required under art 14 to themselves be compliant. As they didn’t provided their privacy notice it’s a GDPR failure. 4. They may only process personal data where there is a legitimate and lawful reason. And they may only keep processing for as long as is reasonably justified in all the circumstances. Even the police can only keep people Who have not been convicted personal data for 6 years. A life time ban and keeping the photos and personal data for a lifetime has no chance of being compatible.
  15. And if that’s the case then it’s definitely unlawful processing of personal data. And a claim for damages and distress would easily be obtained.
  • Create New...