Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Information Commissioner rejecting my complaint!


Lapos
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5883 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

i am just picking up on some defaults that I've been battling but kind of gave up on last year after getting dis-heartened. The event that stopped me in my tracks was the Information Commissioner rejecting my complaint.

 

I complained on the grounds that the banks in question is recording data without my consent as they have failed to furnish me with a copy of the original credit agreement or any proof that they had my consent to record data on me within the prescribed times.

 

The Information Commissioner replied with the somewhat surprising response as follows;

 

"Unfortunately from information you have provided us this is not an issue that we can assist you with.

 

This is because you have made your request for a copy of your credit agreement under the consumer credit act. The information commissioner does not regulate or advise on the consumer credit act.

 

In order to pursue this matter i would advise you contact the office of fair trading.

 

I am sorry we're not able to help you."

 

 

Now as far as I'm concerned and from what i have read this is th Information Commissioner's issue. The bank are recording information on me without consent. Am i wrong??

 

What should i do guys? I've just put in CCA requests again and intend to see it through till the end this time. i want to be prepared for the next stage when they don't reply, should i just go to the OFT this time??

 

Thanks

 

Carl

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

i am just picking up on some defaults that I've been battling but kind of gave up on last year after getting dis-heartened. The event that stopped me in my tracks was the Information Commissioner rejecting my complaint.

 

I complained on the grounds that the banks in question is recording data without my consent as they have failed to furnish me with a copy of the original credit agreement or any proof that they had my consent to record data on me within the prescribed times.

 

The Information Commissioner replied with the somewhat surprising response as follows;

 

"Unfortunately from information you have provided us this is not an issue that we can assist you with.

 

This is because you have made your request for a copy of your credit agreement under the consumer credit act. The information commissioner does not regulate or advise on the consumer credit act.

 

In order to pursue this matter i would advise you contact the office of fair trading.

 

I am sorry we're not able to help you."

 

 

Now as far as I'm concerned and from what i have read this is th Information Commissioner's issue. The bank are recording information on me without consent. Am i wrong??

 

What should i do guys? I've just put in CCA requests again and intend to see it through till the end this time. i want to be prepared for the next stage when they don't reply, should i just go to the OFT this time??

 

Thanks

 

Carl

 

As I understand the law, the Data Protection Act specifies all data must be accurate and you have the right to amend inaccurate data.

 

You can't default on a credit agreement which doesn't exist, so the defaults shouldn't exist if no credit agreement exists. So.....get the lenders to verify that there is no valid credit agreement, and then hit them with a DPA request to remove the defaults.

 

I do know that banks and Credit Reference Agencies don't see it like that, but the spineless ICO should be helping you.

 

Citizens Advice Bureau might be a good port of call. I would also garner some more opinions. I am not aware of a test case and so far this is a muddy grey area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before complaining to the ICO did you send the company a s10 notice under The Data Protection Act?

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rory,

 

Thank you both for your response,

 

all i sent was the CCA request, then a second letter threatening a IC complaint if they didn't respond, excuse my naivety what is an S10? is that an S.A.R.?

 

Regards

 

Carl

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. A S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) is done under section 7 of the Data Protection Act and is a request for personal data. Under section 10 of the Act you can ask them to cease processing your data (they have 21 days to respond). Sending a section 10 notice is really required before you make a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office. A template for a bank charges defaults section 10 notice is here. Obviously it would be slightly different in your case but it gives you the general idea. I would also suggest that you read The Data Protection Act.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A SAR is a Statutory Access Request. This is when you give nasty people £10 and ask them for every piece of information they have on you. Mark Thomas (topical comedian) did this on one of his shows and got the MI5 to respond with all data on him. They sent emails with agents asking "did you see the show last week?". Seriously though, its really useful as it forces people you are in dispute with to disclose all the details they have on you.

 

A Section 10 request is sent to the nasty people (for free IIRC) and tells them to stop processing your data as it is causing me (well you) distress.

 

And if you ever need a cure for insomnia, or like me, work in IT then Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29) is a good site to visit. It is the DPA verbatim.

 

Jo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning Guys,

 

Thanks again for your replies. I know realise what an S10 is, i actually sent one last week to HSBC i just didn't realise it was an s10 if that makes sense?:|!

The thing is I've heard/read that the IC has been taking the lenders side recently when it comes to processing default data. 2 of the lenders i am 99.99% sure have no credit agreement but my HSBC loan i know they do, The loan was settled last April and i have sent a S10 from a template on this site(curlyben's i Think) so am wondering what course of action to take as it seems the IC is as much use as a chocolate fire guard lately!

 

Is it looking like court action for all of them? what do you think guys?

 

Thanks

 

Carl

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...