Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes typed it, how would I input it any other way, probably timed out took over half hour. H
    • You typed it in? actually typed it all out? if so, maybe you took too long or something, like session timed out. Does the status show defence filed or no change?
    • Hi just typed all defence clicked next and it's deleted all. Any help
    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
  • 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

H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5073 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

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Regarding the memo - without seeing it is impossible to say but it could be referring to their standard 'refund one charge if you have been a good boy for 12 months' policies to 'don't refund anyone till 2012' then 'only if you are a good boy for 3 years'.... rather than anything about refunds off the back of the test case (ie 'we're going to win and this is how we will continue' as some one said earlier)

 

It would be interesting to see it in context.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies as I know the relevancy is very loose here, but banks in Australia and New Zealand are also being impacted by overdraft charges, so much so that National Australia Bank and Bank of New Zealand have now opted to stop imposing charges altogether. Apparently this is because of the number of complaints received from customers charged $25 for being a $1 overdrawn.

If only UK banks could see the light....

 

Link

 

PS I read the board often, I just don't contribute as everyone is so much more knowledgeable than me... and apologies again

 

LOL you made me laugh so much.

I have this vision of all the (so called ex public school) bankers sitting in their respective private members' clubs. They are discussing how such banking sections throughtout the world act like they do. Then they think of Austrailia and joke about sheep and look shocked that such banks have decided to listen to complaints and act on them. 'Listen old boy', puffing at the cigar and sipping coffee, 'Those Australian sheep people need to visit the UK and see how banks are really run. What was that? Ahh yes those degenerates here should know their place and be darned lucky we allow then what we do', with all the men bursting out into loud laughter.

.... sorry could not resist.

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies as I know the relevancy is very loose here, but banks in Australia and New Zealand are also being impacted by overdraft charges, so much so that National Australia Bank and Bank of New Zealand have now opted to stop imposing charges altogether. Apparently this is because of the number of complaints received from customers charged $25 for being a $1 overdrawn.

If only UK banks could see the light....

 

Link

 

PS I read the board often, I just don't contribute as everyone is so much more knowledgeable than me... and apologies again

 

It's nice to read, thanks for sharing that. It seems as if there is just one school for all the worlds bankers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going back to the UTCCR 1999 in relation to whether the contract would fall under its protection. It would appear that the relevant date is the 1st July 1995 (date the regs came into force) therefore, the customer must have entered into the contract after the relevant date to be afforded protection.

 

Anyone think contrary?

 

PW.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect Paul

 

From that date it comes into force. In other words all those people that have an account opened before that date are still protected as will be those who opened accounts after that date.

 

Basically all this act does is continue to protect everyone on a rolling basis insofar it amends the current legislation to make it more up-to-date and valid whilst continuing to update the previous act.

 

So by all counts the 1995 act replaces the previous act but continues to apply over the period the old act covers...eg from say 1990

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am attempting to claim back Natwest business interest charges from 1988 onwards. Does this affect my case? In other words can I use UTCCR or as it is a business account do we just fall back on common law and Unfair Contracts 77 (I think off the top of my head?).

 

I didn't think these laws were retrospective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect Paul

 

From that date it comes into force. In other words all those people that have an account opened before that date are still protected as will be those who opened accounts after that date.

 

Basically all this act does is continue to protect everyone on a rolling basis insofar it amends the current legislation to make it more up-to-date and valid whilst continuing to update the previous act.

 

So by all counts the 1995 act replaces the previous act but continues to apply over the period the old act covers...eg from say 1990

 

I'm not sure on that, I think there was an HOL case where it stated that housing tennants were protected under the UTCCR 1998 if the contract was entered after 1st July 1995.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case Paul then I sit corrected :D

 

So basically, whether you had an account opened prior or after 1995 then it will apply from 1995.

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case Paul then I sit corrected :D

 

So basically, whether you had an account opened prior or after 1995 then it will apply from 1995.

 

Surely the question that needs to be asked is "was the enforcement of the term fair when it was applied?".

 

The Banks know what this law means, so they should have made sure their T&C's, which have changed since 1995 to accomodate the UTCCR, was fully compliant.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think there is much in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that helps with respect to bank charges. In the words of the premable it is "An Act to impose further limits on the extent to which under the law [ ] civil liability for breach of contract, of for negligence or other breach of duty, can be avoided by means of contract terms and otherwise".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think there is much in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that helps with respect to bank charges. In the words of the premable it is "An Act to impose further limits on the extent to which under the law [ ] civil liability for breach of contract, of for negligence or other breach of duty, can be avoided by means of contract terms and otherwise".

 

Correct. The Act restricts the rights of the parties to a contract from disallowing certain obligations which are deemed to be oppressive, but for the greater good. From memory, (haven't read the Act since I studied it some time ago) a good example is a Property Occupiers responsibilities for making their property safe for visitors to arrive at - so, if your employer, for example, had a term in their employment contract that said "no liability for breaches of health and safety will be accepted", while the contract term would be effective throughout the contract, the Act allows it to be challenged in Court (and probably declared unlawful under this Act) as it removes the obligations that Parliament clearly intended to lie with "Occupiers".

 

The Act applies, as the Bank are saying "this is what we will charge you and we will take the money from your Account", so reading the Act and the Regs together is where the power comes from. If the charges are unfair under the regs, the terms allowing their application could and should be challenged from the regs and the Act's perspectives, IMHO.

 

Of course, if they aren't unfair... (snigger, snigger) :rolleyes:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going back to the UTCCR 1999 in relation to whether the contract would fall under its protection. It would appear that the relevant date is the 1st July 1995 (date the regs came into force) therefore, the customer must have entered into the contract after the relevant date to be afforded protection.

 

Anyone think contrary?

 

PW.

 

Sorry it was the court of appeal.

 

The Court of Appeal ruling ensured that Assured Tenants are in fact subjects to the Protection of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations of 1999 enacted some 11 years after the Housing Act of 1988 and confirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2004 some 16 years after the Housing Act of 1988.

The said Court of Appeal decision of 24 February 2004 applied this ruling retrospectively to all Assured Tenancy Agreements entered into after 1st July 1995 where the landlord is a ’seller or supplier of a property and the tenant a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

The said Judgment ensures that tenants – including tenants in public sector accommodation –have consumer protection from unfair terms.

I'm not sure on that, I think there was an HOL case where it stated that housing tennants were protected under the UTCCR 1998 if the contract was entered after 1st July 1995.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I missed something or are there people in the know before a decision is released?

 

I ask because I received a letter from a company the other day asking if I want them to take over my bank charges claim. Where they got my name and address from I have no idea, the only posts I have written re my charges have been on this forum.

 

Are they scraping CAG? The company is called Access Money and I am very annoyed that they managed to get my details, I am a very active privacy campaigner I take breaches of the DPA very seriously. But I will take this issue up with the relevant authorities.

 

However, today I noticed the authorised overdraft on my bank account had been withdrawn without notice - placing myself and my dependents in severe financial hardship. I spent an hour at the local branch trying to find out what was going on and they were very tight lipped. They put me through to their collections department on the phone who would not tell me why the overdraft was withdrawn; only that it was. As soon as I mentioned that removal of an overdraft without written notice is a breach of contract and unlawful they got very unhappy.

 

The chap insisted that letters are always sent out well in advance before an overdraft is withdrawn, so I asked him if he was stating that a letter was definitely sent out (I could see the screen my personal banker was on whilst I was on the phone - there was a section for correspondence and from what I could see there was nothing on the system saying a letter had been sent) but he replied that no he wasn't saying that because he hadn't checked. So I explained to him that the burden of proof that the letter was sent out should I take them to court would be on their shoulders.

 

At this point he got very unhappy indeed and threatened to stop dealing with the overdraft issue and just pass me onto complaints which would take longer and would leave us in hardship. I just said to him how about you sort out the overdraft issue fist and -then- pass me on to complaints.

 

To the credit of the "personal banker" in my branch he was actually very understanding and could not understand why the overdraft had been withdrawn as there has been continuous income going into the account since I graduated last summer (not huge amounts but more than £1000 a month). But the guy on the phone was a complete .

 

Then it occurred to me that we were expecting this, were indeed warned about it 2 years ago when we filed our claims. Many people warned that the bank might withdraw our overdraft in order to plunge us into an unauthorised overdraft so they could mitigate their losses with regards to our UTCCR claims. Now out of the blue exactly that happens and just a week after I receive this letter from Thesis (no-one has ever contacted me before with regards to dealing with our bank charges and I don't believe in coincidence).

 

I think we are going to hear something soon and I think this something is not going to please the banks and I think this information is already known by many even if it is not currently public knowledge.

 

The banks know they can get away with their current charging scheme because they have all had their T&Cs re-written to make them semantically lawful (albeit still utterly unethical) so it stands to reason that if the OFT test case is going to go against them they would try to mitigate their loses by removing overdraft facilities, allowing them to use their "lawful" charging system. So I am putting out a few feelers in Westminster I think, I have a lot of contacts there now given my work so I will let everyone know if something comes back.

 

On a final note, I personally think that the banks are taking huge liberties at the moment - charges have increased under their newly worded contracts (at least they have with Abbey) and given the current recession (which the banks caused) I expect more people are having difficultly than in the past 15 years. The banks should be banned outright from charging customers until such time as we are out of the recession they caused.

 

First they get bailed out with Tax Payers money, plunge the private sector into turmoil meaning reduced incomes and job losses and then they charge the tax payers AGAIN for being the victims of an economic crisis the banks themselves caused. They are currently on a 2 for 1 deal! It is outrageous and I am surprised they have not been taken to task over it already.

Edited by Paladine
ooops my bad it was not thesis

Paladine vs Abbey (2 Accounts)

Steps Completed

S.A.R. Sent on 31st October 2006

S.A.R. Received 1st November 2006

Letter received from Abbey saying statements and microfiche on the way Received 20th November 2006

Received 14 copy statements for 1 account and 12 for another on 21st November 2006. Began prelim prep.

Request for repayment of fees and schedule of charges sent on 27th July 2007.

Next Action

LBA going out on 10th August 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can bet this is where they got your info from.

 

www.thesis-servicing.co.uk

 

Be prepared for a lot of calls and letters from this lot.

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad I had two letters on my desk and read the wrong one (was up all night eyes not working properly). Access Money are the company who contacted me about my bank charges. they were apparantly given my details by Churchwood/Loans 4 Sure - whom I have never heard of nor ever done any business with so I guess I will be contacting ICO about that one.

 

Yes Thesis have been in touch about my student student loans. I have passed all that on to my MP. Every year I send in my deferment forms by regular post and every year they claim they have never got them so I have to do them again and send them registered post - with one exception when I actually sent it registered post the first time.

 

Then they claim repayments are late and it doesn't matter if I submit another deferment form I will have to make repayments (non refundable) until they process the new form which takes upto 12 weeks. Every year I tell them to go to hell. this year the same thing happened again, so I passed the details on to my MP to sort out because I believe that they are deliberately not processing standard 1st and 2nd class mail (no proof of delivery) so they can squeeze a couple of repayments out of people who are permitted to defer under the threat of debt collection agencies.

 

Every year I phone them up multiple times and every time I phone them there is no record of my previous call on their system and I am not exagerating this has been going on since my first degree in 1997 every single year without fail, drives me nuts (I would be interested to hear if anyone has had the same problem because if they have Royal Mail must have a boatload of deferment forms hanging out somewhere).

Paladine vs Abbey (2 Accounts)

Steps Completed

S.A.R. Sent on 31st October 2006

S.A.R. Received 1st November 2006

Letter received from Abbey saying statements and microfiche on the way Received 20th November 2006

Received 14 copy statements for 1 account and 12 for another on 21st November 2006. Began prelim prep.

Request for repayment of fees and schedule of charges sent on 27th July 2007.

Next Action

LBA going out on 10th August 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Thesis have been in touch about my student student loans. I have passed all that on to my MP. Every year I send in my deferment forms by regular post and every year they claim they have never got them so I have to do them again and send them registered post - with one exception when I actually sent it registered post the first time.

 

Do you ask for proof of posting when sending 1st/2nd class?

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK this gets more and more interesting. I phoned Access Money and was greeted by a Merseyside accent just giving his name, not the company. I asked him how he got my details, he didn't know. I asked him to send a copy of all the information they have about me on their systems but he was not familiar with the Data Protection Act and said he would have to talk to someone "much higher up" than him. I asked him why the Letter of Authority they attached stated:

 

"The undersigned confirm having received a copy of Access Money Limited's Terms and Conditions and confirm that they are fully understood and accepted as the binding agreement in connection with all services provided by Access Money Limited"

 

Yet no Terms and Conditions were included in the letter nor was their any location for terms and conditions specified.

 

He said "All our packs go out with a copy of the Terms and Conditions if you didn't receive one I am very sorry" to which I replied that was very convenient and that I would ask around on various sites to see how many other people have not received the Terms and Conditions that are -always- included.

 

I asked him for his company registration number, at least he got that right (06130626) and the details match the stationary but we all know that companies are cheap as chips to setup nowadays and it only takes a quick phone call and a debit card to do it. They changed their name in April 2008 from Moorsand Ltd.

 

I asked who their registered Data Controller was and he didn't know. I asked if they were registered on the Data Register with the Information Commissioner's Office - he didn't know.

 

Actually the only thing he did know was the company registration number and he was extremely flustered.

 

I told him I would drop an email to Stephen McCartney at ICO (whom I have a professional relationship with) expressing my concerns and that I would also drop an email to another senior contact at Trading Standards with regards to the Letter of Authority asking people to sign a statement regarding Terms and Conditions they have never seen. By this point he was just stuttering like a mad man. I explained to him that next time it might be wise to Google someone before datamining their details and trying to con them, he would have saved himself a lot of trouble had he checked me out first. Really not a good idea to try and pull a fast one with a privacy advocate. I thanked him for his time and told him I had enough now and hung up.

 

So has anyone heard from these guys and did they get a copy of terms and conditions in their letters? I will phone Stephen McCartney tomorrow (in fact I was supposed to have a meeting with him tomorrow but with this bank issue today it is no longer possible) and express my concerns. The ICO Register is currently offline so I couldn't check if the company are registered but I am sure Stephen can look that up for me tomorrow.

Paladine vs Abbey (2 Accounts)

Steps Completed

S.A.R. Sent on 31st October 2006

S.A.R. Received 1st November 2006

Letter received from Abbey saying statements and microfiche on the way Received 20th November 2006

Received 14 copy statements for 1 account and 12 for another on 21st November 2006. Began prelim prep.

Request for repayment of fees and schedule of charges sent on 27th July 2007.

Next Action

LBA going out on 10th August 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you ask for proof of posting when sending 1st/2nd class?

 

No my missus pops them into the post box.

Paladine vs Abbey (2 Accounts)

Steps Completed

S.A.R. Sent on 31st October 2006

S.A.R. Received 1st November 2006

Letter received from Abbey saying statements and microfiche on the way Received 20th November 2006

Received 14 copy statements for 1 account and 12 for another on 21st November 2006. Began prelim prep.

Request for repayment of fees and schedule of charges sent on 27th July 2007.

Next Action

LBA going out on 10th August 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then next time take it to the Post Office yourself and get a Proof of Posting certificate

 

I shouldn't have to - I probably have more chance of winning the lotto jackpot than there is of Royal Mail losing the exact same piece of standard post 12 years on the trot - the odds must be phenomenal and why are the calls not being recorded in their log? I have raised complaints about that with supervisors at least 4 or 5 times - it is pretty obvious that there is something dodgy going on.

Paladine vs Abbey (2 Accounts)

Steps Completed

S.A.R. Sent on 31st October 2006

S.A.R. Received 1st November 2006

Letter received from Abbey saying statements and microfiche on the way Received 20th November 2006

Received 14 copy statements for 1 account and 12 for another on 21st November 2006. Began prelim prep.

Request for repayment of fees and schedule of charges sent on 27th July 2007.

Next Action

LBA going out on 10th August 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...