Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

Is the pressure getting to Abbey?


Seminole
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1957 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've just had a letter from Dawn Hoyle saying it's taking more than the originally anticipated four weeks to reply to my "complaint". In previous correspondence she's been described as "Head of Customer Satisfaction". She's now metamorphosed into the "Head of Complaints"!

 

Perhaps they've given up on customer satisfaction...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't give her the 4 weeks. Stick to your targets. They have the money to get extra help if they want it. They don't seem to realise that they are goig to need extra help long-term!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry. The DPA expiry date is 26 March. If they haven't let me have the information by then, then it's off to the Information Commissioner and I'll be suing on an estimated basis. I've made this very clear to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And include a claim for their breach in failing to supply you with the data

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm suggesting this on the basis that there must be an implied term that they will comply with UK law. This measn that there must also be an implied term that they will comply with resonable customer request which invoke their statutory duties. Therefore it must be a breach of the duty to fail to comply with their statutory duty.

So there is the breach. You are right, you have to identify a loss. It could be the cost of chasing them on it plus your £10 fee which presumably they have not returned to you (I hope that you have paid it) and in the extreme scenario youcould get an injunction without too much fear of it leaving the small claims track.

 

However, I think that once their lawyers saw the breach included in the claim, the word would go out pretty smartish to comply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After yesterday's letter saying that they needed another four weeks, I have today received a response to my complaint.

 

Mrs Tracey Valentine produces the usual spiel about how they believe that the charges are fair. A couple of interesting points though:

 

1) "I note you say you are unhappy with the charges you have incurred over the last six years. If you felt at any time the charges were unfair or incorrect, then the matter should have been raised at that time". I don't think I've seen this before so I'm wondering if it's an attempt to develop a new line of defence.

 

2) "Abbey's Current Account is good value and our charges compare fairly with other banks. For most people banking is free and they do not incur penalty charges" Oops.

 

3) "If the complaint escalates into a claim in the County Court, we will review each case individually and if we feel that our relationship with our customer has broken down completely, we may decide to give notice to close the account unfrt the Terms and Consitions" As the account is already closed I'm not exactly quaking in my boots but this seems to me to be a pretty desperate threat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After yesterday's letter saying that they needed another four weeks, I have today received a response to my complaint.

 

Mrs Tracey Valentine produces the usual spiel about how they believe that the charges are fair. A couple of interesting points though:

 

1) "I note you say you are unhappy with the charges you have incurred over the last six years. If you felt at any time the charges were unfair or incorrect, then the matter should have been raised at that time". I don't think I've seen this before so I'm wondering if it's an attempt to develop a new line of defence.

 

2) "Abbey's Current Account is good value and our charges compare fairly with other banks. For most people banking is free and they do not incur penalty charges" Oops.

 

3) "If the complaint escalates into a claim in the County Court, we will review each case individually and if we feel that our relationship with our customer has broken down completely, we may decide to give notice to close the account unfrt the Terms and Consitions" As the account is already closed I'm not exactly quaking in my boots but this seems to me to be a pretty desperate threat.

Can you send a copy of this letter to research@ please. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem, I'll scan it later.

 

Looking at the rest of the letter I may have a DPA problem. The original letter I sent was the draft which included 7 days notice and the DPA request. I didn't send £10 as I believe that this is not required unless they ask for it. I have sent them two reminder letters about the ticking clock on the 40 days and the deadline is 26 March.

 

Abbey's latest letter of the three I've received is the first to acknowledge the DPA request. They've enclosed their form and have asked for £10. They are either hopelessly incompetent or they are hoping to delay things further.

 

My inclination is to send them £10 but demand that they provide the information by the 26th. I think that this is reasonable as they failed to acknowledge the application until now despite being reminded about it. If they don't provide the information by the 26th, I propose to complain to the Information Commissioner and sue on an estimated basis. In some ways this might be the best outcome as I think they owe me in excess of £5k and I will sue for £4.9k now and look at using their non-compliance as the basis for negotiation or even a second action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically the 40 starts when they have payment, but you could argue that because they wre so dilatory and time wasting that it should start from the date of your reminder. I don't know if it work but might be worth a try.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a separate thread for my action but just as a matter of interest I have had a letter from Dawn Hoyle today saying currently investigating complaint raised 4 weeks ago (I didn't write to her nor has she been in touch with us before so couldn't understand it). It sounds pretty much the same as the letter in this thread. I notice that the signature is printed and I took the view it was a standard letter and probably one of many. The wording is not quite right for my complaint.

Looks like Abbey are in a flap and possibly inundated with correspondence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically the 40 starts when they have payment, but you could argue that because they wre so dilatory and time wasting that it should start from the date of your reminder. I don't know if it work but might be worth a try.

 

I made a DPA request to abbey's DPA department, they sent my cheque back and said they are passing it to complaints department and that they try not to make access requests if its not needed they will provide the print outs/ statements free of charge.

so how comes they request some people to pay the £10 and others not to? we are all reqeusting the same information?? :roll:

Natasha

 

Abbey-received DPA letter on 13/03, received some breakdown till 2004 waiting for the more recent ones(where most charges occurred)

sent reminder email on 17/4/06

called abbey on 19/04/06 to remind them:rolleyes:

sent another email on 26/04/06:mad:

Approx charges £2500

received £500 refund in dec 06

sent LBA

Capital one- sent DPA letter 17/03

Sent prim letter for charges of £260 14/04

Received a refund £109 awaiting further refund of £151

Settled IN FULL

Barclay card- Sent DPA letter 17/03 sent reminder 14/04

received info claiming £120

settled in FULL

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may be trying to avoid giving a full disclosure because it will show that there have been no manual interventions - which has been the piece of wreckage the banks have been hanging onto recently.

 

The choice is yours: take the free statements or insist on full DPA disclosure(which may or may not be useful later).

 

I'm sorry, I cann't give a more definitive answer thatn this.

 

Maybe admin or the other mods?

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a DPA request to abbey's DPA department, they sent my cheque back and said they are passing it to complaints department and that they try not to make access requests if its not needed they will provide the print outs/ statements free of charge.

so how comes they request some people to pay the £10 and others not to? we are all reqeusting the same information??

 

They are not entitled to do this. If you are satusfied with their response and are content to receive statement alone then fair enough. however, if you have asked for full disclosure including evidence of manual intervention then you should return the cheque with a stern letter saying teling them that they are acting in violation of the DPA and that the clock is ticking and that if they do not comply that their refusal will be included in any claim and that their letter of refusal (which I hope you still have) will be shown to the court as part of your evidence and to the IC to whom you will be makng a complaint.

 

Can we have a copy of the refusal letter please. Scan to [email protected]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys i dont have a scanner but if you pm me your address i will send a copy to you.

Natasha

 

Abbey-received DPA letter on 13/03, received some breakdown till 2004 waiting for the more recent ones(where most charges occurred)

sent reminder email on 17/4/06

called abbey on 19/04/06 to remind them:rolleyes:

sent another email on 26/04/06:mad:

Approx charges £2500

received £500 refund in dec 06

sent LBA

Capital one- sent DPA letter 17/03

Sent prim letter for charges of £260 14/04

Received a refund £109 awaiting further refund of £151

Settled IN FULL

Barclay card- Sent DPA letter 17/03 sent reminder 14/04

received info claiming £120

settled in FULL

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem, I'll scan it later.

 

Looking at the rest of the letter I may have a DPA problem. The original letter I sent was the draft which included 7 days notice and the DPA request. I didn't send £10 as I believe that this is not required unless they ask for it. I have sent them two reminder letters about the ticking clock on the 40 days and the deadline is 26 March.

 

Abbey's latest letter of the three I've received is the first to acknowledge the DPA request. They've enclosed their form and have asked for £10. They are either hopelessly incompetent or they are hoping to delay things further.

 

My inclination is to send them £10 but demand that they provide the information by the 26th. I think that this is reasonable as they failed to acknowledge the application until now despite being reminded about it. If they don't provide the information by the 26th, I propose to complain to the Information Commissioner and sue on an estimated basis. In some ways this might be the best outcome as I think they owe me in excess of £5k and I will sue for £4.9k now and look at using their non-compliance as the basis for negotiation or even a second action.

 

Nothing in the post today and I'm not expecting them to courier it over.

 

Hi ho, it's off to court we go...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you're in a big hurry I suggest you start again by sending them £10 with a standard dpa request letter (don't fill in their stupid form). Legally, they're entitled to get £10 from you before they carry out your request. When you make your claim against them it's definitly best to go in with exact figures if you can.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

said they are passing it to complaints department and that they try not to make access requests if its not needed

If they said that aren't they shooting themselves in the foot? Whether it is needed or not is irrelevant - it was requested and therefore a mandatory task, ar at least I would have thought so.

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you're in a big hurry I suggest you start again by sending them £10 with a standard dpa request letter (don't fill in their stupid form). Legally, they're entitled to get £10 from you before they carry out your request. When you make your claim against them it's definitly best to go in with exact figures if you can.

 

I do realise that although Stephen sued for an estimated amount and did quite well! The point here is that they were reminded about the ticking clock on three separate occasions after the intital DPA request went in and they didn't bother to respond to the request until a week before the 40 days were up. They wrote to me with the usual blurb about needing 4 weeks to resolve the complaint but nothing else and I quite reasonably (in my opinion) assumed that they were working on the DPA reqyest

 

Either Abbey is totally incompetent or this was simply a delaying tactic. The £10 is the maximum amount that a company can charge but there is no obligation on them to charge anything. I wouldn't recommend that anyone should send a DPA request now without enclosing the £10 but I believe that it is reasonable to assume after four weeks and three reminders that if they haven't asked for the £10 they're not bothered about it. It was certainly not the intent of the legislation for the organisation holding the data to use the subject access fee to prevaricate.

 

I will be making an IC complaint as well as commencing proceedings and the particulars of claim wil include details of the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point about them waiting 3 weeks before telling you you need to send £10 is a fair one, and it's difficult to imagine the Information Commissioner gving them too hard a time about it. They could reasonably argue that 21 days is a reasonab;e time to respond to a letter.

 

All the more reason why we need to urge anyone going down this route to include the £10 as a mater of course. This will close off a loophole, don't you think?

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the more reason why we need to urge anyone going down this route to include the £10 as a mater of course. This will close off a loophole, don't you think? __________________

precisely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could reasonably argue that 21 days is a reasonab;e time to respond to a letter.

I think they could probably argue that 21 days is more than reasonable, but a neccessity borne out of current demand...

 

ANY advice that keeps them on the defensive is good advice...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, should we not make any charges we levi against the banks "reasonable"? after all we dont want them putting in a counter claim!

 

What makes you think they are not?

 

You can either reclaim just the charges, reclaim the charges + interest accrued on those charges at bank's interest rate, or if you go to court, add 8%, which is what the courts themselves allow. What is there that is not reasonable? I'm confused!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1957 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...