Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5403 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

Hello, i'm new here.

I have recieved a letter from RLP for the sum of 140.49 which includes the loss of a Boots meal deal...i had eaten it.

When i was taken to the office by the security guards(these guys really love their job!) they detained me till the police arrived who interviewed me at the office and presented me with an £80 fine. The security guard made me sign something that declares that i'm banned from Boots-at no time did the guard mention he would be passing my details onto RLP.

Anyway i paid the police fine and am not considered a criminal as it was my first offence-never been in trouble with the police before.

Rlp sent me a letter demanding atleast 122.99 which is the discounted settlementand 21 days later sent me another letter saying i have another 14 days to pay the full, un-discounted amount of 140.49 that was last week...

i rang them yesterday (on a witheld number)and told them i may be prepared to pay the 112.99 At first 'oh no that is not possible,the 21 days to pay that is up....you must pay the full amount.' I continued to say i would only be prepared to pay 112.99...without much persuasion at all they agreed. I said i'd send it by cheque recorded delivery as i didnt trust given out information over the phone.i feel very uncomfortable them knowing any of my bank details.

Since i have been given the oppurtunity to pay the reduced amount ..should i? Even though its still ridiculous!

Also something else that concerned me in the letter which i'm sure is incorrect is them sharing personal information about me.

This is what it says..." You are advised that the personal inormation we hold may be used in accordance with Data Protection Act 1998, to make employment decisions , decisions regarding the provision of credit and for the purposes of crime prevention and detection."

Can they do that?

Is it worth sending them a letter to protest teh charges and sharing my personal information? this also with a list of random charges for lets say..phone calls, time spent at CAB perhaps? travel charges fro any correspondence i send..

Also a sort of unrelated topic i would like some info on...

In my town of Ipswich they run a street ranger scheme...these guys who assist security guards are aware of thieves, people with ASBO's and they patrol the streets in a red uniform.Very easy to see..they are called Ipswich Central.They have photos of shoplifters and people who have been banned from town and they give these photos to shops so the shopkeepers can be aware of these people if they come into there store.I know this becasue my boyfriend works in a shop in town.

My photo was taken when i was detained but never was i told it would be used for that! my boyfriend says he hasnt seen a photo of me come in but if they are doing this without people being aware is that legal??

Some advice and maybe a rough draft of a letter if i do decide to fight this would be great!

muchos love

bowiefan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they can unless your prepared to fight them they will keep your details for upto 6 years. To fight them means 1st having FPN overturned What do you want to do cos it won't be easy because you admit eating food before payment

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Shanty is right about the prolific offenders. We have the Ring master scheme where I am - operates the same way as Ipswich by the sounds of it except they'd never wear red! (it would upset the Tories!)

 

Jon - this bit about the Data Protection and the info that RLP are holding - well that does concern me. As a HO I have access to an extremely high level of information on people, from a wide variety of statutory bodies, including criminal records. I know my responsibilities regarding this info, I have to apply for it formally, and justify my need to have it by quoting some Act or other, in most cases its serious crime and ASB issues. Because of the nature of the work I do, of course I have to have this info, its essential to enable me to work with all the other agencies. I also have to undertake to destroy it after 6 months. I'm a bit dim this morning but I know my right to this info is set down in some or other relatively recent law. Crime and Prevention something or other from the late 90's.

 

I'm just wondering now, I understand the need for Ringmaster and traders to have certain info, photo's most certainly, because here in my town we have a hell of a lot of addicts and such like and some of them are downright dangerous, but surely, this info should not then be passed to any third party including RLP? I am not allowed to pass any info I have to any third party, so what is the position with these companies doing this to RLP?

 

I would also say that the above is the official way of working things, I also know that I can get any info I need quite informally, because sometimes it is needed out of hours, in a hurry etc, but even then, I have to retrospectively apply for it, and just bloody well hope I can justify the need after the event!

 

I would imagine, in your campaign, you may already have thought of that, but if not, maybe this is another arrow to fire at them!

 

Stealing is out of order and should be punished, however, two wrongs don't make a right and RLP are thieves as well by the sound of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...