Hello, Need some advice please: have been involved in a hit and run at first but after obtaining some CCTV footage, the people I suspected have now owned up to the damage. All the garages I took it to have said the door needs to be replaced. Anyway, went to one garage AutoFix who gave a quote and have said they work with Enterprise Accident Management Arm. I am inclined to go with this option as AutoFix are reputable as well as Enterprise who will deal with the whole insurance claim from 3rd party and provide a hire car. The person who hit my car, have said they will admit liability (i mean it will be hard for them to refute anyway!). I have their insurance details. I am worried if I tell my insurance, even though non-fault, my insurance premium would go up. So what I am asking is which avenue to go: - through my own insurance; OR - through AutoFix and Enterprise Accident Management Arm with guaranteed headache taken off me as well as being provided a hire car; OR - claim from 3rd party my self? I have seen some people do this on here and claimed expenses back off the 3rd party. Any help or suggestions would be great. Thank you, jay

Hello! I did as advised over the weekend, and to my surprise I received the following reply: "Thank you for your email addressed to our CEO, Jes Staley. I am responding to you on his behalf and I’m sorry you’ve had cause to complain. Rest assured that your complaint is being taken very seriously and has been passed to our dedicated Executive Complaints Team for investigation. I am sorry to hear of the problems you have experienced. We will ensure a thorough review of the circumstances you outline is undertaken and arrange for you to be contacted with an update as quickly as possible but no later than 22 August." I have asked that they pay for my solicitor's fees as a bare minimum for time wasting whether or not we purchase the property in question. Even today, I have not received their updated mortgage offer, so will wait until tomorrow before looking at alternate options. I will keep you posted. Many thanks, Jay

Thank you so much! I will call them tomorrow as they are open until 1pm. Will keep you posted on what happens. Jay

Hi All, I am in need of some help/guidance. In the process of buying a house. Our mortgage offer has been issued by Barclays. We had put an offer in back in June 2018 for X amount, which was accepted by the sellers and mortgage offer given based on X amount. However, we negotiated a further reduction in the purchase price around July 4th 2018. A few days later, our mortgage advisor updated/filled in a form and sent it off to Barclays with new (lower) purchase price, and to issue an updated/amended offer. Fast forward to today, we still have not received a thing. My solicitor has been chasing them over the past 2 weeks. Barclays have themselves admitted that its taken longer than their own 'policy' states, and every time he phoned, the adviser kept saying they will send an urgent request off to the relevant department to get this sent out. Apparently, the amended details have been entered onto the system, but no documents issued. We phoned them about 5 times, and still the same response from them. I am going to phone them myself and get answers as I still have not done so. We have paid our deposit to our solicitor, contracts and other documents signed, but not exchanged with the other party until Barclays offer has been received. The major worry for me is that the current sellers, had agreed with us to move out by September 14th, and they are permanently going to live abroad. This was not signed in any type of document as such, just verbal agreement. Due to Barclays not acting fast enough, I am afraid we will lost out in buying the house. Is there anything I can do to get this resolved? Should I complain to Barclays? FCA? etc Many thanks in advance. Jay

Hello! Yes I have read your post #11. I was just merely asking about where I stand with these idiots. Anyway, council internal complaints procedure exhausted, and have now contacted ombudsman about tower hamlets. I was just thinking of getting a GDPR request through solicitors to see who messed up the address, which clearly is the solicitors...who aren't my client unfortunately. How do I go about about taking action against council (other than ombudsman route)? Can I also contact ICO because solicitors handled my data incorrectly despite council giving the correct details? Again, these are just thinking out loud questions, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Jay

Hello! Sorr, to clarify - I wrote to the council's solicitors directly, under GDPR. I also sent a SEPARATE request to the council. The request I sent was using the template on this forum, only adding the following at the beginning: ****START**** Under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act, please supply me with details of how my personal data was managed while in your care. In particular I am looking for a copy of the data originally provided to you by Tower Hamlets council in or before early 2017, prior to commencement of CCJ proceedings, and any subsequent updates supplied by them, including, but not limited to, all of my contact details such as address information. This also includes the correspondence updating my correspondence address when applying for a set aside. I also require details of any subsequent processing of this personal data, including, but not limited to, its storage within your systems, how, when and by whom it was updated, and its use for correspondence with myself and any third parties such as courts. Please ensure that all actions relating to this data are date stamped accurately. While I understand that certain correspondence between yourselves and Tower Hamlets council may be subject to legal professional privilege, I would ask that any such privileged data not directly relating to the supply of address details be redacted rather than suppressing the correspondence in its entirety. There is no applicable fee for this data disclosure – unless you feel that my request is manifestly unfounded, excessive or repetitive – in which case you have a duty to let me know without any delay. ****END**** The solicitors's response was the following: ****START**** I’m writing to provide you with the additional information you requested from us, following your initial subject access request, received 29th March 2018. I believe we have responded to most of your questions surrounding the use of your personal data, but please allow me to address the specific questions you asked in your most recent communication: • Other than with the courts, when applying for and setting aside the county court judgement, your data has not been shared with any third party. • No automatic decisions have been made with your information. • Your details have not been used to categorise or profile you in any way. • Your information is stored and processed primarily on our database, Visualfiles. Initial information provided by our client is stored on a secure, internal server with access restricted to the relevant team and senior management. Further information regarding the processing of information can be found on our privacy policy here. Attached are the additional document you have requested: • Original Data provided by Tower Hamlets • Our ‘Gateway’ form. We use this form to upload your data onto our internal database. • Additional communication between our Client, Tower Hamlets, and us, specifically regarding notification of an incorrect address and follow up activity. ****END**** I sent an email today asking for when TH made the referral to solicitors, looking back at email thread, TH referred my case on 27th March 2017. Yet when I asked solicitors, they emailed back this morning stating case was referred to them on 3rd May 2017! This keeps getting better and better... Can I go to the legal ombudsman? Before doing so, do I need to exhaust solicitors complaints procedure even though I am not the client...? Thanks in advance. Jay

Hello Sorry for the late post. I did receive bank's GDPR response. They still referred to the complaint I raised with Lloyds and that they have answered the questions as part of their first response to my SAR prior to GDPR; so they had nothing to produce. Should I approach the ICO? Jay

Hello BF and CAG Community I have received the council's solicitors GDPR request. What was interesting was that, the referral made by the council to the solicitors had my correct correspondence address, along with the address of property in question. This was provided to me by a referral document. Another document was sent to me that the solicitors use to input data into their database. Interestingly, both the correspondence and property address were the same (both listed my rental property). An email attachment was sent between TH and J&P, where the solicitors admit that they had messed up. I do not know whether this helps my case, but can I complain to the SRA? And/or take legal action against the solicitors? Any thoughts on the matter would be great,

If the council maintain that they had given my correspondence address, then they would also be liable under DPA because they have not handled my data appropriately. It was definitely not my last known address or usual address.

Hello Ganymede, I am not I'm afraid, its the councils solicitors. So SRA is out of the question? But I am sure we can sue for negligence... Not good service because I do not live there, all other mails are directed to correspondence address. I visit the property probably once a year... council had my correspondence address, they admitted passing this onto the solicitors, so why did the solicitors fail in serving at the wrong address - not once, but twice?

Hi All - For those of you who have not read my issue, here is a history on another thread: https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?485667-Got-CCJ-due-to-council-and-bank-blunder!!-what-compo-should-i-ask-for&p=5116746#post5116746 In a nutshell: - own a rental property in another London borough to where I live - council initiated CCJ proceedings for non payment of Service Charges (payments were being made but without a reference, so monies could not be allocated to SC account) - council's solicitors were sending court paperwork to rental property, and not correspondence, despite council providing correspondence address - CCJ issued - Council solicitors have taken the responsibility to remove CCJ at no cost to me - in their draft order to remove CCJ, the solicitors were giving false info in their statement of truth section. AND still continued to send paperwork to rental property, despite having correct correspondence address. There have been invaluable help on this forum, so any help with this would be greatly appreciated. BF I know you mentioned suing them for negligence - could this be something we look at whilst waiting for SAR's from bank and council? Many thanks in advance, Jay

Just sent part 2 of our FOI request. Let's see what that produces. Thanks BF and UB Jay

Hi BF - I have sent the FOI along the lines you have suggested by email directly through LBTH website. Thanks, Jay

All sent this afternoon. What shall I ask for FOIA? I will send that on Tuesday. Thanks Jay

Hi BF I will ask my father to go into branch on Wednesday and have them both cancelled and set up new ones, and see what results that produces. In terms of the council SAR - what shall I ask for? All information relating to a payee bank account change during/around Aug 2016? As for FOIA - ask the council what happens when a leaseholder does not change his/her pay instructions to new bank account details, how is that handled by the council? And for the bank SAR - do I ask for information relating to a request made by the council to Lloyds to change bank account details? If they have this, this in turn will show whether the council requested a reference to be put on payment reference - is that correct? FoS deadline is June 7th to respond. I have replied back saying I need more time to respond fully as I am awaiting to gather further evidence to help my case. I have not sent the SAR requests yet, but will be ready to do so come Tuesday morning. I just wanted to be sure what I am requesting with everyone's help on here. Thank you, Jay

Hi BF and UncleBulgaria - Thank you very much for your input. I just went o the bank with my dad, and we had set up 2 SO's today to be paid out on the 29th and 30th of next week every month until cancelled. I aked for a summary of all outstanding SO's on my dads account, and there was no mandate reference of any kind. But what appeared though was the following: Seq No: 002 - LBTH SC £88.96 003 - Payment to J U***n £20.00 004 - Payment to J U***n £25.00 So from the extract provided, it does look like the original SO set up in 2011, was therefore cancelled and a new one setup. My dad only had 1 SO ever setup. So that only leaves the theory UncleB has said. In that case, shall I contact the council and ask what their procedure is when a change of bank account happens and the leaseholder does not change to new account? Or shall I request a SAR to the council asking for information relating to change of account around Aug 2016? Because, if my dad ha not changed the SO details to new account, payments were still being made at around that time anyway, and I had a look at his statements prior and during Aug 2016, no payments had bounced. So it leaves me to think the council also requested a change of bank details but did not allocate a reference. This ofcourse will change a lot in terms of who to go after, if Lloyds only did what they were asked to do. And the bank senior manager today also confirmed, they would not change an SO without the account holders consent etc. Let me know what I ought to do. Thanks, Jay

Thank you for checking Andy How likely is it that Lloyds would have their reference? I haven't been able to call them.this evening, so will do so first thing tomorrow morning. And record the conversation. Thanks Jay

Hi BF and Andy - I just checked the bank statements supplied by Lloyds for my previous SAR under the old regime. It it shows the name of the beneficiary, date and amount. It doesn't show anything more. In this case, shall I submit an SAR under new regime and ask for the mandate number as such? Thank you for your help. Jay

Hello BF and CAG community - I received FoS reply, which as guessed, was not helpful. Please see attached: FoS2.pdf Its very bizarre because this adjudicator seems like she did not understand my concern/complaint, just like the bank. Despite me sending a separate email following on from BF's advice a few posts earlier. And also, she goes onto mention about NatWest when the issue is with Lloyds! I would obviously like to appeal to the chief adjudicator because the response is unsatisfactory. What do you think I should do? I will send off the new GDPR template to bank tomorrow? Thanks, Jay

Hi Andy Thanks alot for your in depth answer. I just wanted to clarify - does that apply to any signed documents for a change in our Standing Order? As mentioned in this thread, apparently the existing SO started in March 2011 got changed/cancelled and a new one set up. And if that was the case, then there must be a document or paper trail declaring this to be so - i certainly did not make such changes. From what i read above, it does cover the situation regarding my dad. Thanks Jay

Hello! I just had a call from Ombudsman service - the adjudicator introducing herself etc. She confirmed to me that she asked Lloyds for info regarding my existing standing order being changed back in Aug 2016 when it all started. Lloyds said they didn't have anything. Just out of curiousity - under Data Protection - how long is the bank supposed to hold all my info? I'm really interested in the proof/documents relating to my change in Standing Order such as a signed document etc. Thanks in advance. Jay

Hello! I received THH stage 2 response, which is utter nonsense. They have offered me £75 as a way of compensation. I've also sent off a letter to Mr Emmanuel as well as their solicitor asking why they wasted my time in waiting for a month to hear the set aside decision - due to them not amending the correspondence address on file - the very same reason why I got into this problem. No response yet. I am moving my THH complaint to stage 3, for an independent review, before going to Local Ombudsman. I will keep you posted. Jay

No problem at all! I was just checking in. Is there a template for the new SARs I can use? I submitted the letter as you informed me to. However, I only sent it to the Ombudsman who acknowledged that they received my clarification on the issue and have added to to the case file. I contacted the bank beforehand, they said since I elected to go to the ombudsman, I am unable to add any further info to my complaint with Lloyds. I will keep you posted. I should hear back within 2 weeks. Thanks, Jay

In relation to point 1, there is authority to which I can rely on where Camden took to Review:- 2170123723 I heard from Mr Pedro, the partner of the appellant at a hearing today. The appellant makes several points about the validity of the suspension of this bay. In the first place it is said that Ms MacDougall and Mr Pedro both parked the car together for the last time before the Christmas festivities on Christmas Eve in this bay immediately outside the lowrise flats where they live. It remained there until 6 January when the Penalty Charge Notice was issued. They are adamant that there was no suspension warning sign there on that day nor on any of the days upon which they walked past the bay over the Christmas period. The first that they were aware that there had been a suspension was when they discovered that the car had been removed, and they noticed the yellow suspension sign on the post some 3 or 4 vehicle lengths away. I found Mr Pedro an honest witness and gave weight to his evidence that there was no yellow suspension sign erected up to 14 days before the date of the suspension itself, as claimed by the Authority. I have considered the officer's record as to the suspension, on which the council relies for the assertion that the suspension sign was indeed erected 14 days prior to 6 January. I note that the wording of the record is not in terms conclusive of the fact that a sign had been erected – it merely seems to confirm that an order for suspension had been made. To that extent therefore and taken together with the persuasive evidence of Mr Pedro I conclude that there is some confusion about when the suspension sign was in fact erected. I also take into account Mr Pedro's evidence that during this period there were multiple suspensions erected over a period of time in this street and for short periods. It is in those circumstances well within the bounds of likelihood that the keeping track of the suspensions and necessary signage had become difficult. There is force in the argument that the officer should have allowed a 10 minute period of grace before issuing the Penalty Charge Notice, in line with Section 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015. This is the provision which applies where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and been left beyond the permitted parking period. The crucial element is that the initial parking must have been lawful. In this case a course it was, at the time the vehicle was left the suspension was not actually in force, even if there is debate about when the warning sign was erected. The suspension came into force at 8 AM on the morning of 6 January and the PCN was issued at 8:02 AM. In the circumstances I conclude that the issue of this PCN was not compliant with the requirements of the "10 minute grace period" regulations and that the appeal could be allowed on that basis. A final point is on the wording of the sign itself. The appellant points out that it was imprecise, referring to the suspended spaces in relation to the numbers of properties on the opposite side of the street. This can be contrasted with a sign relating to a later suspension (one of the series) in the same bay, a photograph of which was produced by Mr Pedro and which refers to property numbers on the side of the street on which the bay is situated. ------------------------ And the review: This is an application for review by the Enforcement Authority on the basis that the original Adjudicator has erred in law. In effect, Enforcement Authority ground is that the original Adjudicator should not have held that Regulation 4(3) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, as inserted by Regulation 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015, that no penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes, does apply. The Enforcement Authority submit that when a bay is suspended, as was the position in this present case, the prevision cannot apply. In many cases it will not and certainly will not if the vehicle is parked after the suspension comes into force. In this case the suspension came into force at 08:00 and the Penalty Charge Notice was issued at 08:02. The vehicle was in a resdent parking bay for which it was assigned a resident parking permit. The owner had paid to park their vehicle in the bay by purchasing the permit. It is irrelevant whether it is a physical or virtual permit. Regulation 4(4)(b) of the 2007 Regulations, as amended therefore applies because a period of parking that had been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place and that period ended at 08:00. Considering the submission before me carefully I find no ground for review of the original Adjudicator’s decision, which therefore stands. ------------------------------ Hopefully it will be of use to other on here. Jay

Thank you HDoug and EB. If it helps and put things into context, below is the adjudicators decision in the case regarding TSRGD 2002. It was in relation to a YBJ contravention. I can post the reps that were sent to adjudicator. ****START**** The Appellant is appealing a Penalty Charge Notice issued in respect of entering and stopping in a box junction. The Enforcement Authority relies upon CCTV footage of the incident. The Appellant does not accept that a contravention took place. I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter, including the Appellant's comprehensive representations. I have of course also seen the CCTV footage of the incident. The Appellant has made reference to a number of other decisions made by the Tribunal. Each case turns on it's own particular facts and I shall deal with the instant case accordingly. Under Regulation 29(2) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 the prohibition is: "... that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles." I have carefully considered the CCTV evidence that the Authority has provided. This shows the Appellant's vehicle entering the box junction, which effectively covers a two-lane width. His vehicle is initially in the left lane. His vehicle enters the junction whilst the vehicle in front is still crossing the junction. He then attempts to change lanes but his exit is blocked. Contrary to his assertion, no pedestrian is seen impeding his exit, although some time after he has stopped on the junction, a pedestrian is seen to cross at the junction. I do not accept that this was the reason that he brought his car to a halt. The contravention occurs when a vehicle stops in a box junction due to the presence of stationary traffic ahead. In entering the box junction before there was a space beyond the junction to receive his vehicle, the Appellant ran the risk of the contravention. His vehicle stopped in the junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles ahead. This is prohibited. In order to avoid the risk of a contravention, when the motorist enters a box junction, he/she should have a clear exit. This means not only a ""receiving"" space for her vehicle beyond the junction - but nothing ahead of him/her travelling through the junction. The Appellant took this risk and found himself unable to exit the junction. I shall not deal with each of the Appellant's points individually as a number of them are inherently dealt with above. However, I shall make the following additional observations: - the markings on the box are clear and unambiguous - the time of the contravention is correctly noted as 16.23, by which time the Appellant's vehicle has come to a halt - the length of time for which the Appellant stops (approximately 9 seconds) does not, in my view, fall to be dealt with under the "de minimis" principle. Accordingly I find that a contravention did occur and this Appeal is refused. ****END**** Many thanks in advance, Jay