I had a problem with a company called Parking Eye. The failed to have their contract outside the car park and they had the word FINE in the wording of their T&C's. Each time they contacted me I wrote back stating that the cost to them would be £50 per letter that I had to open from companies I have not authorised to write to me. I stated that the first 2 would be free and if I received a third letter from them or an agent of theirs then I would accept their acceptance of the contract between us. I would not charge for this letter but would charge for ALL 4 if I received a fourth letter. They cancelled the ticket as they were 'concerned' (their words) about contacting me. My sister tried that with Excel and had the same response a cancelled ticket after 3 letters. hope this helps

I wouldn't add the interest they charged you to any claim, charges + CI = full payout

Is the CAG going to press other 'helpful' sites like BBC, MSE etc. that have info for claimers, which is wrong - like applying 8% before court action etc.? Will there be a uniform guide to include CI, going back 6 plus years etc.? because at the moment I help people going to court (MacKenzie friend) over these charges and they all, bar a few, have the MSE/BBC template and have basically a deeply flawed case against the bank. On many occasions the 8% interest was added on first letter. Any ideas ladies and gents?

well Whistleblower showed it to be 9.something pence

I threatened to charge a company called Parking Eye for hassling me so I stated that the first 2 letters I received from them would be free but if I received a third they would be agreeing to my contract of £50 a letter and this third letter would ALSO be free. However, if I received a 4th letter from them, or any agent of theirs concerning this matter, they would have to pay for all 4 letters £200. I had 3 letters but they failed to tell me they had cancelled the ticket because it was the 4th letter and they didn't want an invoice for £200. These companies are a disgrace

Well Done I knew she woud win

yes they should be returned after 21 days if unclaimed and quicker if refused. One to ask the PO

I had a problem with a company called Parking Eye. The failed to have their contract outside the car park and they had the word FINE in the wording of their T&C's. Each time they contacted me I wrote back stating that the cost to them would be £50 per letter that I had to open from companies I have not authorised to write to me. I stated that the first 2 would be free and if I received a third letter from them or an agent of theirs then I would accept their acceptance of the contract between us. I would not charge for this letter but would charge for ALL 4 if I received a fourth letter. They cancelled the ticket as they were 'concerned' (their words) about contacting me. My sister tried that with Excel and had the same response a cancelled ticket after 3 letters. hope this helps

request a cost breakdown for every charge to be sent to you within the next 14 days if not done already

I must advise you that the head of a banks' post room can refuse any item it sees fit. I used to work in publishing and we did this on many occasions. The only ones that got through were the ones addressed to the Chief Executive Officer and were marked 'Strictly Personal and Confidential'. We did not dare refuse those. It works for me every time.

The concept is discharging your responsibilities

Which address did you use for the court papers?

Where is the case being held, England or Scotland?

You must allow that the company concerned are not allowed by the DPA to tell you about her debt amount. It is not being dodgy just legally compliant. Obviously you would know the debt amount eventually when the payment was taken.

She is the cardholder and she will be liable. Just dont use the cards.

Under rights of Appropriation laws one can request a chq at any time during the process. If you have not touched that money request they cancel the credit and issue a chq as your gas bill/rent needs to be paid urgently etc.

Neither is penalty charges but it looks very likely they will close

Normally A&L, Abbey and Nationwide are the main closers

:o Draft Statutory Instrument 2006 No. [ ] The Compensation (Regulated Claims Management Services) Order 2006 CONSUMER PROTECTION, ENGLAND AND WALES The Compensation (Regulated Claims Management Services) Order 2006 Made… … … Coming into force in accordance with article 2 This Order is made in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 4(2)(e) and 15(1) of the Compensation Act 2006[1]. A draft of this Order has been laid before Parliament in accordance with section 15(3)(b) of that Act, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Before making this Order, the Secretary of State has consulted the Office of Fair Trading and such other persons as he thinks appropriate, as required by section 15(3)(a) of that Act. Accordingly, the Secretary of State makes the following Order: Citation 1. This Order may be cited as the Compensation (Regulated Claims Management Services) Order 2006. Commencement 2. This Order comes into force on the day after the day on which it is made. Definition—“the Act“ 3. In this Order, "the Act" means the Compensation Act 2006. Regulated services 4. —(1) For the purposes of Part 2 of the Act, services of a kind specified in paragraph (2) are prescribed if rendered in relation to the making of a claim of a kind described in paragraph (3), or in relation to a cause of action that may give rise to such a claim. (2) The kinds of service are the following— (a) advertising for, or otherwise seeking out (for example, by canvassing or direct marketing), persons who may have a cause of action; (b) advising a claimant or potential claimant in relation to his claim or cause of action; © subject to paragraph (4), referring details of a claim or claimant, or a cause of action or potential claimant, to another person, including a person having the right to conduct litigation; (d) investigating, or commissioning the investigation of, the circumstances, merits or foundation of a claim, with a view to the use of the results in pursuing the claim; (e) representation of a claimant (whether in writing or orally, and regardless of the tribunal, body or person to or before which or whom the representation is made). (3) The kinds of claim are the following— (a) claims for personal injuries, within the meaning in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998[2]; (b) claims under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme established under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995[3]; © claims for a benefit specified or referred to in article 3 of the Compensation (Specification of Benefits) Order 2006[4]; (d) claims in relation to employment (including claims in relation to wages and salaries and other employment-related payments, and claims in relation to wrongful or unfair dismissal, redundancy, discrimination and harassment); (e) claims for housing disrepair (that is, claims under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985[5] or section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972[6], claims in relation to the disrepair of premises under a term of a tenancy agreement or lease or under the common law relating to nuisance or negligence, but not claims for statutory nuisance under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990[7]); (f) claims in relation to financial products or services. (4) In spite of paragraph (2)©, the service of referring a claim's or a claimant's details to another person is not a regulated claims management service if it is not undertaken for or in expectation of a fee, gain or reward. Signed by the authority of the Secretary of State What do you guys make of this?

Has anyone been hassling B'card Press Office about this otherwise I will start on them Monday am?

I owe them £9696 but pay £4 a month

The Student Loans Company address in Glasgow.

Thank you for submitting your complaint and supporting information regarding Barclaycard. Please accept my apologies for the delay in my reply. Our investigation into this matter has taken longer than initially anticipated. Complaints such as yours are treated as 'requests for assessments' under section 42 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act). When we receive a request for assessment, in most instances we have a duty to assess whether it is likely or unlikely that the processing in question has been carried out in compliance with the Act. However, we have discretion as to how we carry out the assessment and as to what action, if any, to take. I understand from your correspondence that you made a subject access request (SAR) to Barclaycard and made specific reference to bank statements and to charges levied on your account over the last six years. Barclaycard responded by confirming that it would supply you with information from your bank statements from May 2004 onwards; however statements prior to this date would only be provided at a cost of £3 per sheet. It went on to explain that this was because these older statements were only stored on microfiche which is not a relevant filing system for the purposes of the Act so did not have to be provided as part of a SAR. It may first be helpful to clarify that although the information contained within your bank statements, such as details of transactions, is considered to be personal data under the Act so must be supplied in response to a SAR, the Act simply states that personal data must be supplied in an 'intelligible form'. This means that the information you have requested must be provided if it is held as personal data, but not necessarily in its original format i.e. as a bank statement. As you may be aware, the Act only applies to 'personal data' i.e. information which is processed electronically and which relates to a living, identifiable individual. Information which is held in some manual (non-computerised) records can also be personal data for the purposes of the Act if it is stored in what is known as a 'relevant filing system'. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) produced guidance to help data controllers such as Barclaycard decide whether or not manual records were stored in a relevant filing system; however this was amended following a Court of Appeal ruling a number of years ago (Durant v FSA 2003). In light of the outcome of this case, the ICO revised its guidance and narrowed its interpretation of what constitutes a relevant filing system. This guidance suggests that unless the filing system is highly structured, it will fall outside the scope of the Act and led us to conclude that in our view most manual records fall outside the definition of personal data. We recognise that the definition of a relevant filing system is open to interpretation and that not all parties will agree. During recent months we have once again been reviewing our interpretation of what constitutes a relevant filing system and intend to publish new guidance in the near future, although this is not as a direct result of the recent issues surrounding bank charges. The new guidance is likely to represent a significant shift in emphasis from our existing guidance and our view will be that many more manual records are likely to fall within the scope of the Act. Following your complaint and others like it we contacted Barclaycard for a detailed explanation of its microfiche system, including how the information in it is stored and retrieved. It was not clear from the response whether or not the system was a relevant filing system; therefore Barclaycard invited me and a number of my colleagues to inspect it and see the system in operation. Following our visit, we concluded that the microfiche system used by Barclaycard is a relevant filing system for the purposes of the Act. This means that in our view the information is personal data and should have been supplied as part of your SAR within 40 days and for a maximum fee of £10. As a result, it is our view that it is likely Barclaycard has contravened the sixth data protection principle, as this requires data controllers to process personal data in accordance with data subjects' rights. As I explained above, we are currently reviewing our guidance on relevant filing systems and are placing greater emphasis on the types of systems that are covered rather than those that are not. This will be based on practical examples of non-computerised filing systems. Our decision in this case has been made with this shift in emphasis in mind and it appears that Barclaycard disagrees with us. In light of the Durant ruling and our subsequent guidance, it is difficult to maintain that Barclaycard has acted unreasonably in this matter and it could plausibly argue that its interpretation and subsequent actions were consistent with the accepted view. If this occurs it will be for the Information Tribunal and ultimately the courts to decide which, if either, interpretation of a relevant filing system is correct. We have informed Barclaycard of the outcome of our investigation and I will now write to it under separate cover with details of your complaint. If it has not done so already, I will instruct Barclaycard to provide you with the personal data you requested as part of your SAR. It may be helpful to explain that a contravention of one of the data protection principles is not itself a criminal offence and the Information Commissioner has no power to 'punish' a data controller. In such instances, the Commissioner will seek a resolution to the contravention and once satisfied that it has been remedied then in general no further action will be taken. In addition, section 13 of the Act gives individuals the right to claim compensation if they have suffered damage as a result of a contravention of the Act. If this is something you are interested in pursuing, I recommend obtaining legal advice and pursuing the matter through the courts. The Information Commissioner cannot comment or advise upon any claim for compensation. Thank you for brining this matter to our attention. Your case will now be closed. Yours sincerely, Claire Naven Casework and Advice Officer

We have no ads on our forum pages so you dont need to worry, just a discreet banner for the Hunger site and a banner at the bottom of the page for some wireless technology. So no bombardment.

No unfortunately there is a statuate of limitations, which is for 6 years 5 in Scotland, so the latest you could claim for would be December 2000