what should I do now - if anything

[flooz]

Thank you Gez, DD and everyone else that's helping me, I shall be posting the letter tomorrow, I can now see how 'generous' I am, giving them extra time, although I do have to remember that the letter wasn't 'signed for', but as cheque was cleared through my bank on 2nd February, and counting 40 days from there, I'm loath to give them any more time, but if I must..... ;-)

 

You're stars!

[gezwee]

Hi Flooz

 

Remembered now you mentioned not rec del in a previous post, sorry to stall you slightly but you'd be best served allowing a little more time....... if you proceed with litigation you need to be seen as the injured party and by allowing more than the prescribed time frame you have acted in accordance with pre action protocols. I'd maybe send the letter now but extend the deadline to the 28th March (54 days total from clearing).

 

You can leave the number of days as outlined in the letter as they cannot dispute that you have condeded to + 40 days if you file on/after 28th of this month.

 

If/when you come to filing you can still use the effective date as 10th January, it won't then matter if it can be evidenced as they will have no defence with regard to prescribed period of compliancy.

 

Gez

[flooz]

Thanks Gez, I had just printed the letter, but I gave them a further 7 days, till 15th March. just working it out, that's 42 days since cheque was cashed, but 63 days since the letter was sent. Perhaps, to be on the safe side, I should give till the 21st as you suggested.

 

With a bit of luck, their 'internal post' will delay my letter getting to the correct dept.

 

Incidentally, I know there's been many of Cap1's names been posted on here: I've got Sven Lagerberg. Anyone else had him? (not literally )

[gezwee]

 

Incidentally, I know there's been many of Cap1's names been posted on here: I've got Sven Lagerberg. Anyone else had him? (not literally )

 

I was gonna say his mother did but thats a terrible double entendre, you can tell its getting late........

[Dotty50]

Yes Flooz,

 

Mr Lagerberg wrote to me but it seems that he is ignoring me now!

[Laura Cooke]

Thanks Gez, I had just printed the letter, but I gave them a further 7 days, till 15th March. just working it out, that's 42 days since cheque was cashed, but 63 days since the letter was sent. Perhaps, to be on the safe side, I should give till the 21st as you suggested.

 

With a bit of luck, their 'internal post' will delay my letter getting to the correct dept.

 

Incidentally, I know there's been many of Cap1's names been posted on here: I've got Sven Lagerberg. Anyone else had him? (not literally )

 

Yes good old Sven on mine oddly all foreign names on all of my data controllers

[flooz]

Oh, we can all get to know him then, lol.

 

Some fancy title he's got, eh? lol

 

My letter's just been posted.......... Let's see what happens now.

[Laura Cooke]

Good luck flooz:)

[flooz]

Thanks Laura - I'm not holding my breath though, lol.

 

It's always been a stance of mine - to fight corporate bullies - I loath them.

[flooz]

Reply received today. Not the information required, I haven't scanned in the whole letter, as it's quite clearly 'we still require your signature'.

 

Any advice on what to do now? Do I ignore the letter and just wait for the extended deadline before writing (they have only 5 more days), or do I respond further?

 

It looks like Cap1 are definitely NOT going to play ball. I didn't want to go down the 'legal' route, mainly because this is my husband's card, and whilst I'm quite happy to sit in front of a court and fight something, I know my husband isn't comfortable doing that - but then I guess he can allow me to be his 'representative'.

 

Any advice please?

 

Many thanks

[diddydicky]

yes , photocopy two household bills within the last three months- say rates water rates gas leccy etc and send that to them

 

remind them that they require proof of identity and that a signature is not sufficient proof but the bills are

 

that way if you make a complaint they will not have the proverbial leg to stand on

 

be honest- if you are not giving them your signature because you think they may use it for other purposes then tell them that

 

otherwise just sign it and then cross it with two bars like a cheque and put a footnote under it that you have "tamper proofed" the signature

[flooz]

Thanks DD. They have actually had proof of ID (IMO) - the cheque sent to them was drawn on Husband's personal bank account (he's also the main account holder with Cap1, I'm a secondary), it was clearly signed with the same signature as used for Cap1, and the cheque has been cashed. Is that not proof enough?

[johnerog]

Hi flooz still battling then. Keep your chin up.

John

[Laura Cooke]

They try to grind us down never had our Capital One Subject Access Request tried saying the signature they had wasn`t the one on file all a stalling game but no idea what you do next other than Court

[johnerog]

They try to grind us down never had our Capital One Subject Access Request tried saying the signature they had wasn`t the one on file all a stalling game but no idea what you do next other than Court

 

Information Commissioner. If everybody reports them the Comm. will have to act.

John

[Laura Cooke]

Think I have already done that John I`ll check reported that many forgot whose who lol mind you the ICO are months behind with all their complaints

[flooz]

Thank you all for your continuing support. I'm more than happy to report them to the ICO, the more they are difficult, the more I'm likely to dig my heels in with them.

 

Is there a correct format to follow when writing? I did look to see if there was anything in the library, but to no avail.

 

But just in case I'm being difficult - is there anyone who doesn't agree with me that the signature/cheque/honoured scenario is without any doubt proof enough?

 

Many thanks

[Laura Cooke]

Agree with you flooz the ICO as a form on line you fill in you have to produce proof of what you have sent and when like proof of recorded delivery

[diddydicky]

Thanks DD. They have actually had proof of ID (IMO) - the cheque sent to them was drawn on Husband's personal bank account (he's also the main account holder with Cap1, I'm a secondary), it was clearly signed with the same signature as used for Cap1, and the cheque has been cashed. Is that not proof enough?

 

it's proof of name - not address

 

personally i think this signature stuff is a lot of hot air- but it is up to you

 

those caggers who make a crusade about them being officious- may well be the same caggers who throw their hands in the air in disbeleif when they receive someone elses data through the post

 

cant have it both ways!!

[Laura Cooke]

We sent hubbie`s signature they then said this wasn`t the one on file they also wanted signature for CCA told them to stop acting the fool and wasting time they sent the cca but haven`t sent the Sars the latest they wanted was "Driving Licence" that`s a good one hubbie brain damaged how on earth would he have a driving licence or anything else in his name all bills are in my name as he can`t talk to discuss things and they know his situation they really are the limit

[diddydicky]

dear sirs

 

You have been provided with a signature on a cheque which has cleared your bank.

 

i do not have a driving licence or a passport

 

i have provided proof of address and you have already sent me documents in response to a s78 CCA request

 

you are now being obstructive and although you are probably having a "chuckle" at my expense at the moment- i suggest that your chuckle might turn into a "chorkle" if following a complaint you are hit with a £5000 fine!

 

Kindly stop obfuscating and being difficult and supply what has been requested

 

Y F

[flooz]

Ooh, I like that DD. Thank you, I fully intend to use it!

[Laura Cooke]

You can count on DD to come up trumps lol great stuff lol

[gezwee]

Crap1 are laughable in their response, almost appears they do not have the staff available to cater for SAR.

 

They seem happy to tell you how much you owe (Flooz previous post 221 3rd March) and bring the agreement to your attention again......but can't bring themselves to provide the data detailing how this sum has been calculated.

 

Not sure what defence they would imply they have if you filed against them with the CCA correspondence for the same period attached to your claim.

 

Would certainly report them if only to have their butts kicked.....

 

Gez

[flooz]

Indeed they are Gez, you should see the grammatical and spelling errors in the letter!