Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • stuff and all they can do .......they are TOTALLY powerless   and you are well used to dealing with REAL bailiffs anyway looking at your history   
    • ok Finally got home!   I'll try and keep it short however we finally got to an agreeable place   Walked over to sales as there was no more servicing could do especially as the aftersales manager quite simply said they will not be footing the bill. Spoke to the salesman, updated him and he was lost for words and had to ask me where things were left -  Requested senior management to come down - both head of business and general sales manager are off for half term.  That left the buying manager - ironically the same who purchased the car in for the dealership.  He was called downstairs but in the time that he did, he must have called the aftersales manager.   Once down, everything suddenly changed -  I was told they are now 'reaching a compromise' (I assume between the two departments) and it will be put right.  The part is being ordered, is on backorder for 2-3 weeks and once in, they will fit it. This of course means I am potentially out of my 30 day exchange/1000 mile exchange however appreciate I can drag it out if it came to rejecting it.    I got the aftersales manager to put in writing the part IS being ordered and if the part does not for whatever reason fix it, I CAN exercise the exchange regardless of how many days/miles I am out. --This was CCd to the sales manager, the service advisor and the buying manager stating he is accepting/making the decision in the absence of the two other managers.   So all in one- another wasted 5 hours there + the drive up/down but we are hopefully now at a point the final issue will be either permanently fixed or it will be the deciding factor of returning the car.  The part-ex has also gone so it's not like we could even just change back for now.   The part is scheduled to arrive pretty much the week of our due date which really messes this up in terms of transport/planning however we'll cross that bridge then - for now, I need to destress the other half who really did not need this especially with what is essentially for her the baby car    Could I ask - IF it does not fix it and we decide against the exchange - can we still reject?  If we can, what happens to the part-ex thats now gone/auctioned off?   I too believe 99% it will fix it but just curious.     Also just for anyone else taking an interest, the MMI unit that is faulty is not just the navigation but everything Audi - phone, radio, cd, sd card, service indicators, settings for the various components - its all part of the MMI brain.  And so the reason this is important that it is resolved is usually with this unit, if one part fails, it's likely the entire unit will fail.      
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Data Protection Complaints – Template Letters


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3338 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Yes I did mean PCN, my typo error there.

 

I have read many posts on here however I have a friend who has a PCN issued by excel and they have resorted to calling here by phone (saying they are a solicitor acting on behalf of Excel) and demanding payment there and then. I always replied and they eventually got the message, however I guess it's up to the individual as to how they feel about ignoring these letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Many people are unhappy about DVLA selling our personal data to, amongst others, parking companies. The position at present is this:

 

1. DVLA does not need your permission to disclose your personal data.

2. You have no right to demand from a parking company that they delete, erase or otherwise remove your personal data unless the data are inaccurate. If you feel that the parking company is processing (holding, storing etc.) your data for too long or not for the right reasons, then all you can do is plead with the Information Commissioner (best of luck with that).

3. DVLA hold the view that parking companies have a right to ask the registered keeper who the driver was whom they claim was in breach of contract and that is 'reasonable'. The Information Commissioner has confirmed this.

 

We don't like this position any more than most other people. This is why we are pleased to tell you:

 

1. There is no law (currently) which requires the registered keeper to tell the parking company who the driver was. So, all you have to do is bin the ticket. You could write back and say that you are unable to say who the driver was. The parking company can't take you to court because they don't know who to take! Any action would fail and is why they don't take people to court.

2. The Protection of Freedoms Bill currently passing through Parliament will ban clamping but make the registered keeper responsible for the actions of the driver. This would be the first tiime that a person completely unconnected with a contract will be legally responsible for its breach.

3. We have submitted a formal Complaint to the European Commission (which has been accepted) which amongst other things, questions the legality of 'Regulation 27' upon which DVLA relies. The remit of the Information Commissioner does not extend to considering European legislation and its compatibility with the Data Protection Act.

4. Even if a parking company knows who the driver is, they can only claim, 'damages' which represent their loss of business or costs, so huge sums will not be enforceable in court.

 

Interested parties may like to check out our Web Site which we set up purely to help the data subject - the ordinary person - not the data controller - the people who obtain and store our data. Should the Complaint be upheld, the details will be found on our Web Site - dataprotectionsociety.co.uk. It's completely free.

 

Right now - don't sue DVLA - you will lose. Keep your powder dry but you can bin all those tickets.

 

We are not lawyers (so cannot accept legal responsibility for our views or any action people take as a result of them) but we have been in correspondence about this issue and other related issues with DVLA and the Information Commissioner for more than 10 years. We have also written recently to the Transport Minister, Norman Baker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks lamma.

 

At least some of the issues which we raised form the basis for the infringement action the EU are taking against the UK Government. This DVLA is a separate issue. There are many parts of the Directive which have not been implemented. For example, data subjects should be able to take legal action for any infringement of the Directive whereas UK data subjects are strictly limited.

 

When we have a firm legal basis, we will be advising all those who have been wronged by DVLA and many other Government bodies and maybe some commercial organisations as well. Government is the biggest culprit though. Could be interesting if DVLA have tens of thousands of actions against them.......

 

DPS

Link to post
Share on other sites

lamma,

 

The limitations are there to prevent us knowing what the authorities are up to - how they misuse our data. But the EU wouldn't bring infringement proceedings unless they felt they had a good case. Check out Article 12(b) of the Directive and compare with section 14 of the DPA for example. Check out Article 13(g) against Regulation 27 for example.

 

DPS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done to the Data Protection Society, I've been to your website and it's very good, particularly for us little people. Nice to know that there's some good people out there fighting on our behalf.

 

As regards "reasonable cause" I believe that the decision by he DVLA (for ACA electronic access to RK data) that Membership of the BPA AOS + Compliance with the Code of Practice = 'reasonable cause' is illegal.

 

However, as the DVLA are quite content to allow this to continue (a low guesstimate of no less than 3000 RK data releases to PPCs per day = £7,500 per day to the DVLA just from PPCs) then the best way for the moment is roll with the punches. As soon as it can be shown that a PPC (using ACA electronic access) has breached the CoP then the 'reasonable cause' it relied on to get the RK data vanishes and the RK data release by the DVLA was unlawful.......Complain! complain! complain!.......TSD have always said that it's the sheer volume of complaints that activate action ("it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil").

 

Finally, in 2005 Dr Stephen Ladyman, the then Minister for Transport (when answering questions in Parliament about 'reasonable cause') said

 

In some states in America, if an individual requests information about the owner of a vehicle on the basis of a registration number, the information is provided if reasonable cause is established, but the owner of the vehicle is contacted and told that that information has been provided, why it was provided and to whom it was provided. Both the owner of the vehicle and the person requesting the information know that a request has been made for information. I would like the review to consider whether that should be built into the system as an additional protection.

 

The BPA is a very rich and powerful and influential organisation, realistically I don't think we shall ever bring a halt to RK data release to private companies, and making the DVLA notify the RK of a data release (along these lines) is a perfectly reasonable and practical safeguard, particularly if the wording of the notification was drawn up by a consumer organisation (and not the DVLA/BPA) and sent out in advance of any correspondence from the private company. This would also then have a system in place to enable the RK to appeal and challenge the 'reasonable grounds' submitted by the private company and an independent body (the 'data protection society'??) would then weigh up both arguments before making a decision on whether to allow the DVLA to release the data or not.

 

What could be fairer and safer than that (and also realistically achievable)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The BPA is a very rich and powerful and influential organisation, realistically I don't think we shall ever bring a halt to RK data release to private companies, and making the DVLA notify the RK of a data release (along these lines) is a perfectly reasonable and practical safeguard, particularly if the wording of the notification was drawn up by a consumer organisation (and not the DVLA/BPA) and sent out in advance of any correspondence from the private company. This would also then have a system in place to enable the RK to appeal and challenge the 'reasonable grounds' submitted by the private company and an independent body (the 'data protection society'??) would then weigh up both arguments before making a decision on whether to allow the DVLA to release the data or not.

 

What could be fairer and safer than that (and also realistically achievable)

 

Then charge £25 for the extra work involved. This would still be paid by those having ligitimate reasons for the application, as in the main it would be reclaimable from the person that they were pursuing (insurance claim etc). It would, however, make speculative invoicing less profitable due to the number of successful 'cons' needed to recoup the outlay.

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then charge £25 for the extra work involved. This would still be paid by those having ligitimate reasons for the application, as in the main it would be reclaimable from the person that they were pursuing (insurance claim etc). It would, however, make speculative invoicing less profitable due to the number of successful 'cons' needed to recoup the outlay.

 

Agree wholeheartedly. The current charge is far too low!

Link to post
Share on other sites

DVLA charges £2.50 per request to PPCs - which according to the DVLA only covers costs. DVLA charges to Local Authorities using electronic link is about 5p per request. Aren't all PPC requests done by electronic link.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...