Jump to content

Johnnie

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Johnnie

  1. Letter received today - the tenth - dated seven days ago - the third. The letter is the usual pre-printed thing threatening me with loss of benefits because I failed to apply for a job. The job I failed to apply for was given to me to apply for on 29/10/10, a Friday... The 30th was a Saturday... The 31st was a Sunday... and they wrote to me on the third? I actually posted the application a while ago, obviously it took a while for the application pack to come out from the employer and will no doubt be a day or so getting back to them in the snail mail. It does make you wonder - with unemployment soaring - are they running out of ways to make it look like its falling and so they are doing all in their power to just terminate the benefits. We'll see. I have three young kids so hardship payments won't just be 'hardship' in name alone.
  2. "As for not believing me regarding accessability of call recordings, is quite telling." Otelo clearly state in their report that Three supplied them with a RECORDING OF THE SALES CALL. The report is quite specific.
  3. I intend to continue to treat the goods as unsolicited. All I require is that my rights are upheld and I am protected from being bullied into a bogus contract (and suffering the charges thereof). That is not holding anyone or anything to ransom. I honestly don't believe that a sound recording is inaccessible except solely by the system on which it is archived, without there being a means to access or reproduce, reformat or transport that recording. While "...It could be any Tom, Dick or Harry on the recording..." A transcription holds no authenticity at all.
  4. and btw: "The Act covers personal information that: is held, or going to be held on computer; is in, or going to be in, a manual filing system that is highly structured so that information about you can be easily retrieved; is in most health, educational, social service or housing records; or is other information held by a public authority." A sound recording would no doubt be held on computer - I doubt anyone still uses audio tapes. I can't see why this could not be provided easily and even sent by email as an attachment if necessary.
  5. Yes, I refused to have a contract phone, but one turned up anyway. Yes, I still have the goods. I don't want the goods, but they are their own proof they have not been used. As previously mentioned I arranged to return them to '3' in exchange for written proof that the contract was voided and no money owed.
  6. No money has changed hands. No payments have been made. No form of payment comittment or contract has ever been agreed to. A genuine sales recording would confirm that a mobile phone offered on contract was refused.
  7. @ Human Writes: "I'd insist that Otelo provide a copy as well as three, the call recording is your personal data and Otelo would have to disclose the call recording on receipt of a SAR as well." I imagine that a SAR to Otelo would be very useful - since this would perhaps provide the exact version of the recording that they used in the investigation. In reply to my letter asking for an actual copy of the recording on which Otelo based their judgement Otelo state: "Thank you for your letter dated 18 October. You refer to information supplied to this office by Three and state you require a copy of this information before commenting further. The information you refer to does not belong to Otelo. In order to obtain copies of any information relating to you that is held by Three you can submit what is know as a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the Data Protection Act 1998. Further details of how you can make such a request can be found on the Information Commissioner's Office website at www ico gov uk or by telephone on 030 123 1113. I must advise that Otelo's process does not allow for additional time for you to obtain information using a SAR. I note your comments but you must confirm how you wish to proceed within the timeframe advised in my last correspondance." According to the third paragraph there - it would appear that I can't SAR Otelo?
  8. The SAR is going off today. "Get the SAR and then appeal Otelo's decision, I'm surprised the Otelo have refused to supply you with the call recording on which they are basing their findings, you've got a right to the call recording I'd insist that Otelo provide a copy as well as three, the call recording is your personal data and Otelo would have to disclose the call recording on receipt of a SAR as well. " I am also very disappointed that the investigation did not include disclosure of this material. Hardly an impartial or transparent report if the evidence presented is not made freely available to both parties. "...anyway without listening to the recording your in no position to know what three's evidence does or does not say." Otelo gave a detailed account of the claimed recording in their report. There is very little room for me to dispute the contents of the claimed call, knowing that I refused to agree to a contract, without claiming that the recording is fraudulent.
  9. Thanks rebel, I made some enquiries about a SAR yesterday. I will follow them through and update with any developments.
  10. I have recently had cause to complain to Otelo in order to resolve an issue with '3' mobile. For the last year '3' have been insistent that I agreed to have a contract with them - despite the fact that I refused to agree to a contract with their sales agent (when the sales agent cold called over a year ago). Despite requests from myself and the Trading Standards Office, '3' (seven months ago) were unable to provide any written proof of this contract or a recording of the sales call (which in any case would prove that I refused to agree to a contract and told the sales agent that I was 'not interested'). During Otelo's investigation '3' submitted a recording which they claim is the sales call with myself. I have reason to believe this recording is a fraud: In their report Otelo detail how during this conversation I compare my current contract with that being offered and agree with the salesman that the contract with '3' is £20 a month cheaper - much better value than my current contract. In point of fact I have NEVER had a contract phone and I enjoy Orange PAYG service topping up by only £10 per month (£20 cheaper than £10? How is this possible?). I believe '3' have fabricated this recording in order to avoid being subject to the regulations governing mis-selling , recently introduced/reinforced, and to avoid any comeback on the considerable amount of harrassment I have suffered from their debt collection agency. Otelo have refused to provide a copy of this recording, despite using it as the primary piece of evidence in their investigation. If an authentic recording of the sales call did exist it would prove that I refused to enter a contract with '3', as I stated to them in a letter seven months ago. '3' Insist the fictitious contract was 'activated' yet the phone and SIM remain packaged as received. How does this meet the definition of activated? The phone and SIM were received without paperwork of any kind. I negotiated with Mr Irving of '3' to return the phone in exchange for written proof that any claim '3' held to a contract with me was nulified - I am aware from many, many reports by consumers posted on the internet that phones posted back to '3' are often misplaced before they reach their destination and the ones that do are more often than not received with different and more serious faults than they had when they were despatched back to '3' - I refused to return the phone without the confirmation as discussed. Mr Irving now denies this conversation took place. Since Otelo seem to be protecting their client and they will close their case without giving me sufficient time to raise a SAR, I am at a loss to understand who I can rely on to enforce the laws that exist to protect me. What now?
×
×
  • Create New...