Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'marketing'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 12 results

  1. Hello Caggers, Hope I am posting in the right area - I would appreciate some advice please on text messages I am receiving from NatWest regarding 'getting their mobile App'. We are at a slatemate as I perceive them to be marketing texts, which I am opted out of, but NatWest are insistent that these are service texts and is a communication which can be relevant to the maintenance of my account. I would like some advice as to whether I should be persuing this further and if so, how. I'll give you the back story, apologies if this is lengthy: In November 2016, after finally having had enough of the numerous text messages I was receiving from NatWest, I made a formal complaint and asked for the messages to stop. In December 2016, NatWest sent their response saying that they did not uphold my complaint as I had been opted out of marketing information on all platforms since 2011 and that these messages were service texts which I agreed to receive as per their terms and conditions. Whilst I was prepared to concede that messages informing me of how much I could put into my ISA account would be "relevant to the operation and maintenance of my account", I did not feel that text messages asking me to sign up to a Rewards account for a monthly fee, engaging in Twitter discussions and messages encouraging me to download their App (complete with web link) were relevant and sought assistance from the Financial Ombudsman. In February 2017, the Financial Ombudsman upheld my complaint, stating that some of the messages would be deemed marketing texts, albeit they did not specify which messages they were or how many. NatWest agreed and I was offered a small amount of compensation. Though I was not entirely happy that they could not guarantee I would not receive any more text messages, I accepted the findings and offered that my mobile number should be removed from their databases should I not be happy going forwards. This resolution was agreed by all parties. Since then, I have had monthly text messages from NatWest relating to new/improved features on their mobile App, all ending in "Get yours today at natwest.com/gettheapp". I am quite 'old school' and don't need the App in order to do my banking and felt that these would still come under marketing texts. Last month, I sent a letter to NatWest's complaint department, asking them to invoke the agreement to remove my mobile number from their databases, explaining why. Today, I have received a final response from NatWest. They have agreed to remove my mobile number from their databases, but do not uphold my overall complaint as "the texts to which you refer to are service texts in that they are advising you of a service we provide that you could benefit from." This statement, to me, is contradictory as the whole point of marketing information is to advise people of a service that they could benefit from. Service information should be updates or changes to services they already use. The clause in the terms and conditions that NatWest refer to is as follows: 1.9 Communications about your account 1.9.1 We will contact you with information relevant to the operation and maintenance of your account by a variety of means including via online banking, mobile banking, email, text message, post and/or telephone. If at any point in the future you change your contact details you should tell us promptly about those changes. I see nothing in the above about what would be deemed as "relevant to the operation and maintenance to my account." By NatWest's own admission when the case went to the FOS that some of the text messages I was being sent would be deemed marketing, it would appear that there is a fine line between what is deemed marketing and what is deemed a service text. I would love to take this up further, even if it was just to get some clarification as to whether this was an acceptable type of service text, but would like some thoughts as to whether I would have a case and how to go about it. It seems such a shame that I have to put myself at risk of fraud as NatWest will no longer be able to reach me promptly, but this appears to be the only way I can stop the text messages. Look forward to hearing from some of you in due course, GS.
  2. Aviva posted me some very insulting to me marketing material in february so I contacted them to complain. They claimed that I had opted to receive marketing some years before, when i lived at a previous address. After further correspondence where they failed to produce any evidence of htis supposed agreemnt or ticked box (never used web or paper forms to agree to anything) they admitted they did not ahve such an agreement, had mixed my personal data up with another person of a similar name as well and offered me £75 when I had requested £250 as that was a sum courts had agreed was a minimum under persuasive case precedent. The main problem is the peopel who deal with a complaint are limited in what they can offer and do not know much about the DPA or even what other departments have been up to. in my case it was Aviva Insurance UK Ltd that had passed on erroneous personal data to Aviva Equity release Ltd, a separate company, without any authorisation and they finally accepted that this was a breach of the DPA, apologised and have agreed to pay me the £250 demanded to avoid legal action. Next year the law changes on what is deemed consent when ticking (or not) boxes and who they can pass your details to without express consent so hopefully this will become a rarer instance but in the meanwhile if you have a complaint, be persistent, stick to your guns if you are right and dont accept a stock response that they dont have to think about. My complaint got to director level because they didnt initially think they could be wrong, ignored the Vidal Hall v Google decision and blamed me for their errors. You dont have to put up with rubbish from big companies.
  3. Hi CAG, hope this doesn't come across as too trivial. I have a pet hate about unwanted marketing emails / messages etc, particularly from companies I use, when I've expressly asked not to receive these. It's the reason why I've had the same email and mobile number for over 10 years with little-to-no junk. On the occasions I do get something, I usually pick it up with the company directly to sort it. However, First Utility seems to have crossed a line this time - in the last week or so, I've had a postal letter, 2 texts and an email. However, these aren't strictly from First Utility - but from Siemens, on FU's behalf, trying to get me to buy a smart meter. Am I right in thinking this is not only breaching my request not to receive marketing information, but actually breaches Data Protection by passing my details to a 3rd party? Would be good to go back to them with something more robust than 'please do not send me this' for them to then ignore.
  4. Oh my. What an exciting opportunity. Those wonderful clever clever people at Cenote Marketing (dot) co.uk have offered us a huge amount of personal data about you relating to a variety of aspects of your personal life - and no doubt of your family as well. What a unique opportunity to pry even more closely into other people's lives and to pursue them with marketing or other distressing and nuisance communications. It seems to be available to any NosyParker (dot) com agency and no mention of any checks as to whether the buyer is a responsible person or is registered with the ICO - although maybe that comes later once you make the phone call. And I wonder who sold it to them ... ... anyway, who cares. I can't wait... ... the CAG is about to snoop on your poop. Yummy!
  5. Telemarketing companies that hound members of the public with unwanted calls could become easier to penalise under new government plans. Culture Secretary Maria Miller wants to allow the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to take action against offending companies more easily. And the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) will consult on imposing heftier fines. The ICO received 120,310 complaints about "unsolicited marketing calls" between April and November last year http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26806116
  6. This is a slightly odd one, so please bear with me! I live opposite a pair of semi-detatched houses. One of the houses (number 5) has just been sold by a local estate agent. The house it's attached to (number 7) is my friend's house. This morning, along with the post, a glossy marketing leaflet from the estate agent who sold number 5 has come through the door. It's got pictures of a number of local properties, with a slogan 'We've Sold All These Houses!'. My friend from number 7 has just been over brandishing a copy of the leaflet, very upset that right there on the front of the leaflet is a picture of number 5 and number 7 (obviously, they're semi-detached!) but she's annoyed that her house is being used on the leaflet even though it's not been sold (or even for sale) by the estate agent, and she's not given them permission to use a picture of her house. I've tried telling her it's fine and it's just not possible to show a picture of one half of a semi-detatched house without it looking silly, but she won't listen - she does not want her house used for marketing purposes. I suppose I can kind of see her point - it wouldn't bother me, personally, but it bothers her. She's not a CAG user, hence I'm posting here on her behalf - Does anyone know if the estate agent has done anything wrong by using a photo of someone's house on marketing material without the owner's permission? Thanks in advance!
  7. I live in central london and Vodafone's coverage map shows solid 3G coverage for this area, yet at best i receive 3G about 40% of the time, the rest of the time my data connection is EDGE or even for much of the time, just 1990's GPRS. The network is so overloaded that even with 3G signal, actual internet access is not a given, but when on an edge or gprs signal (i.e. 60% of the time), a lack of internet connectivity is virtually guaranteed, since these arcane 1990's technologies are completely overloaded by all the modern smartphones in the cell trying to access high bandwidth modern internet services. I have spent the past week in Devon, here a 3G signal is very hard to find anywhere, even EDGE is quite hard to find, usually nothing more is available than 1990's GPRS, which (being so totally overloaded) in practice offers zero internet connectivity of any sort. Not merely have Vodafone completely oversold their network capacity such as to be selling internet connectivity that they don't actually possess, not merely have they lazily failed to take full advantage of more recent technologies (such as HSDPA rolled out in a truly nation wide fashion) which might rectify much of the problem, but that they also dishonestly market their service by claiming 3G connectivity in areas where there is no such connectivity, such as central London. To make sure the problem was Vodafone and not my phone, I did some informal tests in walks around central london with 3 separate phones (HTC Touch HD, iPhone 4 and Samsung galaxy S3) - exact same results with all 3 phones. I was quite shocked on a recent trip to Spain where immediately on arrival my phone was delivering fast, reliable 3G internet access seemingly everywhere I went. Why can't Vodafone UK manage the same level of service here?
  8. Have a read on the article here. http://info.moneyweek.com/urgent-bulletins/the-end-of-britain What is your opinion?
  9. The Information Commissioner's Office has named firms it has concerns over regarding unsolicited marketing calls. Companies revealed on the ICO website include British Gas, Scottish Power, Talk Talk, Weatherseal Home Improvements, The Claims Guys, We Fight Any Claim and Anglian Windows. The ICO can issue fines of up to £500,000 for breaches of regulations on unwanted calls, texts and emails. The companies named said they were working with the ICO. The list was compiled from complaints to the authority and the Telephone Preference Service. The ICO said it expected to see improvements in their operations in the coming months. Three more companies, which have not been named, are being investigated by the ICO. More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20348373
  10. Statement: 2 July 2012 The ICO now has the power to issue a monetary penalty for serious breaches of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations. The powers allow us to issue the worst offenders with a monetary penalty of up to £500,000. The ICO currently has a team dedicated to enforcing these Regulations and is actively pursuing specific cases. In March this year, the ICO introduced a web based form that allows individuals to report their concerns. So far around 12,000 individuals have responded and the ICO is using this information to trace the companies responsible for making these unwanted calls and to build up a picture of how this industry is operating. The ICO is actively pursuing organisations that are the subject of frequent complaints, yet claim to only contact individuals with their consent. We are asking these organisations to provide us with proof that they are complying with the law. Link: http://www.ico.gov.uk/news/latest_news/2012/ico-statement-unwanted-marketing-calls-spam-text-messages-02072012.aspx
  11. Ahhh. . . our old friends Welcome Financial Services ltd get £150,000 fine. . . Organisations are learning the hard way of the consequences of mishandling people’s information – and others need to heed the lessons the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, warned today at the launch of the ICO’s 2011/12 annual report. The Commissioner’s comments came as the ICO imposed a civil monetary penalty (CMP) of £150,000 on the consumer lender, Welcome Financial Services Limited (WFSL), after the loss of more than half a million customers’ details. Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, said: “Over the past year the ICO has bared its teeth and has taken effective action to punish organisations many of which have shown a cavalier attitude to looking after people’s personal information. “This year we have seen some truly shocking examples, with sensitive personal information, including health records and court documents, being lost or misplaced, causing considerable distress to those concerned. This is not acceptable and today’s penalty shows just how much information can be lost if organisations don’t keep people’s details secure. “We hope these penalties send a clear message to both the public and private sectors that they cannot afford to fail when it comes to handling people’s data correctly.” Today’s penalty was issued after WFSL’s Shopacheck business lost two back up tapes which contained the names, addresses and telephone numbers of their customers in November last year. The tapes have never been recovered. This latest penalty means that, since being given the power to issue CMPs from 6 April 2010, the ICO has issued 21 penalty notices, bringing the total value of the penalties issued by the ICO to over £2 million. “It’s a case of ‘wake up and smell the CMP,” the Commissioner said. While figures from today’s annual report show a 0.3% drop in the number of data protection complaints received by the ICO - with 12,985 complaints made last year – the report highlights the public’s growing concerns about unsolicited marketing calls and texts. During the last financial year the ICO saw a 43% rise in the number of complaints under the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations (PECR) – which govern electronic marketing - with 7,095 complaints received. Commenting on these latest figures, the Information Commissioner said: “Last year the ICO gained tough new powers to tackle unsolicited marketing calls and texts, including the power to impose a penalty of up to £500,000 on the worst offenders. “We have now set up a dedicated team to enforce the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations and we are currently working to identify the operators responsible. The ICO has executed search warrants at a number of sites across the UK linked to companies we believe are breaking the law. “We have also set up an online reporting mechanism on our website that allows people to report any marketing texts or calls from unidentified senders. We have received over 12,000 reports to date and we are confident that this work will help us identify those responsible.” The ICO has also witnessed a 7% rise in the number of Freedom of Information complaints, with 4,633 complaints received during 2011/12. Despite this increase in the ICO’s workload and despite cuts in government grant-in-aid, the ICO has reduced by 66% the number of FOI cases that have been with the office for longer than 6 months. The number of data protection cases taking over six months to complete has also fallen by 82%. “Our work resolving freedom of information requests has also increased. As budgets tighten and public spending comes under even greater scrutiny, public authorities must remain transparent and accountable if they are to retain the trust of the public they serve,” the Commissioner said. Meanwhile, figures from today’s annual report show a 60% increase in the number of audits carried out by the ICO Good Practice team. Of the 42 organisations audited, 90% felt that the process raised awareness of the importance of data protection in their organisations, showing that that the ICO’s audits are bringing real information rights benefits to those that take part. The ICO is extending its audits to cover public authorities’ compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and has also introduced advisory visits to help small and medium sized organisations. Link: http://www.ico.gov.uk/news/latest_news/2012/ico-shows-its-teeth-as-the-public-concern-over-illegal-marketing-calls-grows-05072012.aspx
  12. The expected sale of Milk Link to Arla Amba, which has over 8,000 farmer suppliers across Europe, would be the sale of the last part of the Milk Marketing Board, which was started to be dismantled in 1994 under Thatcherite market ideaology.
×
×
  • Create New...