Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Marcus will cut the rate on its easy-access savings account to 4.55% from Saturday - can you find better rates elsewhere?View the full article
    • Legal claim alleges Steam's market dominance means consumers are paying too much for video games.View the full article
    • In-person collaboration has been linked to high performance and job satisfaction, but these benefits don't increase with more days spent in the office.View the full article
    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
  • 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

EXPERIAN... The final battle commences


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5445 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

if it's available to english creditors it doesn't have to ... take them to english court. it's been published here....... just like Mr Murat.....:)

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 862
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

so I suppose that would let me go down the same route with the CRAs in Scotland right?

Thanks for looking that up btw

 

Wouldn't I have to use a Scottish court though since I live in Scotland?

Edited by knoxvillain

[COLOR=blue][B]Defaultless since 2012 :)[/B][/COLOR][COLOR=green][/COLOR]

Link to post
Share on other sites

well... that depends if you have an address you use in england... Mr murat lives in portugal doesn't seem to have stopped him.....

 

:)

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

so I suppose that would let me go down the same route with the CRAs in Scotland right?

Thanks for looking that up btw

 

Wouldn't I have to use a Scottish court though since I love in Scotland?[/quo

 

In truth it is the United Kingdom Law Libel and Defamation with just slight differences, as the example 12 months in England 3 yrs in Scotland.

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone (besides me) who intends to take any CRA on ...I suggest you contain and word in your LBA to them, something along the lines of....

 

In this action you will be required to produce to the court the irrefutable evidence that the information you have passed on to third parties who have viewed my credit file, that infers/insinuates that I am a Defaulter on agreements and that it is a warning to others that I am to be avoided in the making of further similar agreements/credit facilities as I am proven to be unreliable and of doubtful character and that my financial credibility is highly questionable and I that should be avoided./shunned is in fact both accurate and true.

It will not be accepted by the Court to merely say you relied on the supplier of the information that it was correct, The Data Protection Act may allow some discrepancy but The Libel/Defamation Laws will not.

That excuse is no defence under theses Acts.

You can add to it to strengthen it to suit your own case.

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone (besides me) who intends to take any CRA on ...I suggest you contain and word in your LBA to them, something along the lines of....

 

In this action you will be required to produce to the court the irrefutable evidence that the information you have passed on to third parties who have viewed my credit file, that infers/insinuates that I am a Defaulter on agreements and that it is a warning to others that I am to be avoided in the making of further similar agreements/credit facilities as I am proven to be unreliable and of doubtful character and that my financial credibility is highly questionable and I that should be avoided./shunned is in fact both accurate and true.

It will not be accepted by the Court to merely say you relied on the supplier of the information that it was correct, The Data Protection Act may allow some discrepancy but The Libel/Defamation Laws will not.

That excuse is no defence under theses Acts.

You can add to it to strengthen it to suit your own case.

 

sparkie

 

Remember, though, that a dafamation claim will not be dealt with in the County Court.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, though, that a dafamation claim will not be dealt with in the County Court.

 

Car2403,

Sorry to correct you,

It appears that you have not read the whole thread or you would

have seen this I posted earlier,....no offence mate:cool:The majority of people have believed it is only availavable for the rich and famous, at one time it was but all that has changed, you can sue for libel and defamation inthe County Court, and it is absolute fact 80% of libel/defamation claims are settled out of court because if it goes to court it nearly allways ends up a massive damage awards for the claimant.

 

sparkie

 

THE 1996 DEFAMATION ACTOne of the aims of the Act was to make libel actions more accessible to the public. Libel still remains the only civil action for which you cannot get Legal Aid but if plaintiffs are willing to accept damages of £10,000 or less they can take advantage of the new 'fast track' procedure. This, of course, makes newspapers much more liable to be sued.

 

S8-10: New summary procedure

 

The summary procedure under Ss 8-10 of the Act aims to assist the ordinary litigant by controlling and reducing the role of the jury without abolishing it - thus making libel more predictable, more accessible and quicker and cheaper for the ordinary litigant.

 

In a suitable case a plaintiff wanting a quick apology and modest damages will not be forced to incur huge legal costs in getting them.

 

Claims will be dealt with without a jury.

 

The court may dismiss plaintiff's case summarily if satisfied it has no reasonable prospect of success and there is no reason why it should be tried.

 

Equally, Court may give judgment for the plaintiff if satisfied there is no defence which has a realistic chance of success.

 

Summary relief consists of any or all of the following:

 

* Declaration that the statement was false and defamatory

 

* Order to publish suitable correction and apology

 

* Damages not exceeding £10,000

 

* Injunction restraining further publication

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

INTERESTING THAT EXPERIAN WON'T ALLOW US TO PUBLISH LIBELOUS COMMENTS ABOUT THEIR CUSTOMERS......

 

 

We will apply for a ruling if we do not want to include your note of correction because we think it is defamatory, frivolous or scandalous, or unsuitable for publication for some other reason.

 

CreditExpert.co.uk

 

Interesting that this means they except that they ar PUBLISHING and that this could lead to LIBEL actions.........

 

mmmmmmm ......:p

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that this means they except that they ar PUBLISHING and that this could lead to LIBEL actions........

 

From Defamation Act 1986.

 

"author" means the originator of the statement, but does not include a person who did not intend that his statement be published at all;

 

"editor" means a person having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it; and

 

"publisher" means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose business is issuing material to the public, or a section of the public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of that business.

 

Accordingly, the bank is the author and the CRA the editor, not a publisher as their info is not available to the public. It could be said that the CRA is publishing the info as an editor of the info the bank sends it as the author.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that depends on the definition of a section of the public. I mean all people who do credit checks arn't banks... they can be employers, landlords etc. It just means that they pay for it. Well people pay to goto the cinema and they are still 'the public'.

I think it means that the publishing doesnt happen if it is only available to 'in house'.

 

If I am wrong why would experian themselves descride a notice of correction on their system as 'publishing' ?

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that depends on the definition of a section of the public. I mean all people who do credit checks arn't banks... they can be employers, landlords etc. It just means that they pay for it. Well people pay to goto the cinema and they are still 'the public'.

I think it means that the publishing doesnt happen if it is only available to 'in house'.

 

If I am wrong why would experian themselves descride a notice of correction on their system as 'publishing' ?

 

IMHO finlander you are correct in your logic.

 

If an individual has say 2, 3. 4, incorrect defaults on their credit file and no "outsider" ever sees those defaults....there is no "actual" harm or damage done. no publishing... no defamation.... no damage....BUT as soon as that file is searched by a third party it becomes "published."...and I believe I have pointed this out before.....that is the instant of libel/defamation.

 

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, over the past few years, another element has entered the English legal arena: 'no win, no fee' litigation, by which losing claimants do not have to pay anything to their lawyers. If they win, the lawyers are entitled to charge far more than their usual fees ? up to double. Until no win, no fee, libel claimants had to find their own money (a lot of it) to finance a court case.
Are there really 'no win, no fee' solicitors who might take our cases on with the CRAs, especially if there are a lot of us with individual claims or a class action, or on an individual basis?
Link to post
Share on other sites

i also think that the fact their clients 'pay' for their services is no relevent or takes the clients out of the definition of public. After all the public buys the daily mail but that doesn't stop them being publishers

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there really 'no win, no fee' solicitors who might take our cases on with the CRAs, especially if there are a lot of us with individual claims or a class action, or on an individual basis?

 

The Bars Pro Bono Unit probably would.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It costs so much to take those disreputable agencies to court and the **** knows this therefore they will treat us joe public like puppets and treat us like we are the ****. After all their roots that the agencies emerged from was DCA's and they still carry on DCA's practices with impunity from the law. :eek:

 

Unless the government dose something about them we have no hope becasue the ICO will not do anything tangible for us so we have to put up with them controlling our lives.:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise that this thread is about experian. However, I would appreciate your views on the followng the following letter that I have received from Equifax, which is in response to this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1588841.html

 

Dear AC

 

Re: Credit Agreement - Link Financial MBNA

 

The Client concerned has investigated the accuracy of the information above and has verified its accuracy. In their response they have advised they have supplied documents to you directly as requested. Any disputes regarding charges should be directed ro MBNA. Therefore, the information remains unchanged.

 

This information is supplied and owned by our subscribing clients and as such we do not have the ability to amend the information without written authorisation from them. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your dispute we suggest that you contact the company concerned with any additional enquiries and they will advise you further.

 

Equifax Customer Services"

 

 

I am enraged, as I requested that Equifax remove the inaccurate defamatory data that Link are processing...

 

The original creditor was MBNA, they sold the debt to Link whilst the account was in dispute over PPI and S78 CCA.

The alleged Credit Agreement has been deemed irredeemably unenforceable;

I have pursued Link for documentary evidence that they are legally entitled to collect on the debt, however, I have not received any proof; Link do not have my consent to process but Equifax refuse to remove siad data.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

AC

Edited by angry cat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise that this thread is about experian. However, I would appreciate your views on the followng the following letter that I have received from Equifax, which is in response to this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1588841.html

 

Dear AC

 

Re: Credit Agreement - Link Financial MBNA

 

The Client concerned has investigated the accuracy of the information above and has verified its accuracy. In their response they have advised they have supplied documents to you directly as requested. Any disputes regarding charges should be directed ro MBNA. Therefore, the information remains unchanged.

 

This information is supplied and owned by our subscribing clients and as such we do not have the ability to amend the information without written authorisation from them. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your dispute we suggest that you contact the company concerned with any additional enquiries and they will advise you further.

 

Equifax Customer Services"

 

 

I am enraged, as I requested that Equifax remove the inaccurate defamatory data that Link are processing...

 

The original creditor was MBNA, they sold the debt to Link whilst the account was in dispute over PPI and S78 CCA.

The alleged Credit Agreement has been deemed irredeemably unenforceable;

I have pursued Link for documentary evidence that they are legally entitled to collect on the debt, however, I have not received any proof; Link do not have my consent to process but Equifax refuse to remove siad data.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

AC

 

 

court is the only language they understand

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise that this thread is about experian. However, I would appreciate your views on the followng the following letter that I have received from Equifax, which is in response to this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1588841.html

 

Dear AC

 

Re: Credit Agreement - Link Financial MBNA

 

The Client concerned has investigated the accuracy of the information above and has verified its accuracy. In their response they have advised they have supplied documents to you directly as requested. Any disputes regarding charges should be directed ro MBNA. Therefore, the information remains unchanged.

 

This information is supplied and owned by our subscribing clients and as such we do not have the ability to amend the information without written authorisation from them. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your dispute we suggest that you contact the company concerned with any additional enquiries and they will advise you further.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

AC

 

They are talking a lot of you know what,

 

Now can you imagine if they played ball, they would have no business left, cos that will mean that everyone on their file will be kosher without any defaults.

 

It takes just one person to take them to task and they are doomed. Just like the penalty charges up to know banks were challenging their customers and now the things have changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi angrycat. i had basically the same crap from them. I challenged them to confirm what investigation and verification, specifically, was done with my information and they said they would not tell me as they have contractual obligations to the company in question and it is confidential!

 

I have actually just managed to get 3 'outstanding debt' searches removed after fighting tooth and nail but get this....

 

Not because they were wrong, inaccurate, not allowed etc, oh no. I accidentally discovered that the company that did the search did not actually have an account with Equifax. I told them about this and suddenly, searches removed - without approval from the company I may add.

 

Thing is, their staff were putting their internal messages to each other on my online dispute discussion (don't think they meant to lol) so what they were talking about and what they were officially telling me were completely different.

 

ALL going to the information commissioner, as it is very revealing. They really are conniving, sneaky gets.

 

I'd better go and get print outs of this now I think of it - just in case!

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5445 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...