Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The funds were taken by eBay, rather than Paypal.  I presume Paypal collects the funds from eBay, and so eBay then sting me for the money.   But either way, before this money was taken from my account, my eBay account balance showed as -£85.  Yes, my bank account has been debited by this amount. eBay say that they are completely removed from the chargeback process, because it is carried out by the buyer's financial institution.  So, conveniently, they cannot help, other than by refunding the chargeback fee of £14. 
    • After the breathing space is over and I wanted more time, what would happen? I can and will afford the payments after a few months but I just need that breather to sort some stuff out, as I have said I have never missed a payment.
    • Perfect, thanks for the detailed response. Once question, do you know how long it takes for the breathing space to get applied? Say for example I have payments due in 4 days and I apply today how does that work? Also, sorry for sounding stupid but what do you mean by default once the breathing space is in place? I mean what does "Default" mean. Thanks.
    • there isn't one yet use the default mentioned already there. that covers all 3 debts as i assume the PAPLOC is for all 3 debts? dx  
    • a chargeback via a paypal account used in an ebay sale doesn't usually result in funds being sucked from your bank account,  just that you attain a paypal negative balance. as you saying the money was taken by paypal from your bank account without you authorising this? or is it directly the buyers name that is shown? regarding the chargeback but either way you bank account HAS been debited? dx  
  • 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

Consumer Credit Bill-Data Sharing Opinions??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5675 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

I have just spent a happy evening reading House of Commons Debates in connection with Data Sharing (I know someone will tell me I need to get a life) and this debate grabbed my attention.

 

The link is below, sorry for any old timers heaving a sigh if you have seen this before, but I haven't and I'd like an opinion please.

 

The section highlighted in red is what I would like to query.

It seems that there was no provision before the introduction of the Data Protection Act 1998 for consumers to consent to their data being used. i.e. in credit applications, contracts etc there was no consent box.

 

I know for a fact that several of my accounts were opened long before 1998 and therefore is it correct to say that there was no provision for my consent to be given and CRA's are operating this data sharing without any consent in place at all??? Maybe I am just clutching at straws again but this is one aspect I hadn't thought of. Anyone please?

 

Sorry about the bold I couldn't get it off for some reason!)

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2005-07-14a.980.2

House of Commons debates

 

Thursday, 14 July 2005

 

 

Orders of the Day — Consumer Credit Bill

 

 

 

New Clause 1 — Data Sharing

 

 

 

Let me deal with the historic problem, which the new clause tackles. The Data Protection Act 1998 requires lenders to notify individuals that their data will be shared and the purpose for which they will be used. That legislation led in due course to the industry including standard clauses in the application process to ensure the consent and knowledge on the part of the consumer for any new agreement after data protection legislation came into force. There is no problem for new agreements; consumers have given their consent. However, there is no provision for any account opened or agreement made before the introduction of the standard clauses in contracts. Nothing provides for consumers to agree to their data being shared.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...