Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The important thing to know is that MET - although they will send you threat after threat about how they will divert a drone from Ukraine and make it fall on your home - hardly ever do court. Even in the very small number of cases where they send court papers, if the Cagger defends, they drop the matter before the hearing.  They have no real intention of putting their rubbish claim before a judge.  The aim is to find motorists who are terrified of the idea of going to court and who will give in when the court papers arrive. Thanks for doing the sticky and well done on finding F18's thread.  Do what they did.  On the first page - I think post 19 - there is the address of the CEO of BP.  Write to them, lay it on thick about being genuine customers in the various premises, mention the small kids, the very short stay time, attach any proof of purchase - and request that they get the invoice cancelled.
    • Thank you for that, I have obviously already been convicted so I think the appeal lodged is for the previous offence? Sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I suppose my only concern is that weds I go there and they don’t let a stat dec happen. If they do then as you say and solicitor says it’s highly likely I’ll be happy with the outcome. But I’m being told there’s no guarantee for the stat dec to be hard Weds as that’s not what the hearing is proposed for. Solicitor has stated that you can put a stat dec before a magistrates at any time so it shouldn’t be a problem.   
    • I re-read the extract from your  solicitor's letter this morning and think I might understand what they have in mind. I believe (and it’s only a guess) their strategy is this: 1.    You will make your SD 2.    You will enter fresh pleas to the four charges (not guilty) but will offer to plead guilty to speeding on the understanding that the FtP charges are dropped. 3.    If this is accepted they will attempt to argue that the two offences were committed “on the same occasion” 4.    You will be sentenced for those two offences (the sentence depending on whether the “same occasion” argument succeeds). They also have a plan in the event that your offer at (2) is unsuccessful and you are convicted again of the 2xFtP charges (and so face disqualification under “totting up”): 5.    They will make an “exceptional hardship” argument to avoid a ban. 6.    If that is unsuccessful they have already lodged an appeal in the Crown Court against that decision. (This is the only “appeal” I can think of). 7.    They plan to ask the court to suspend your ban pending that appeal. If I’m correct, I’m surprised the Crown Court has agreed to accept a speculative appeal (against something that hasn’t happened). The solicitor says this is to lodge it within the normal timescales. But you will have 21 days from the date of your conviction (which will be next Wednesday) to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court, so there is no need for a speculative appeal. I have to say that an application to have your ban suspended pending an appeal is unlikely to succeed. The Magistrates Court is unlikely to agree to it for one very good reason: if they make such an order (suspending your ban until your appeal is heard), all you need to do is not to pursue the appeal and the Magistrates order suspending your ban will remain in place. Hey Presto! No ban and no need for you to trouble with an appeal. Perhaps he will ask for your ban to be suspended for (say) three months or until your appeal is heard (whichever occurs first). This potentially creates a problem because if your appeal is not heard in that time either your ban will kick in or you will have o go back to court to get the suspension extended. But the solicitor obviously knows more about these things than I do. I would want to be very clear about this solicitor’s fees and what he proposes to charge you for. As I said, there is absolutely no need to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court. That can be done if and when it becomes required. But I am still firmly of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly likely that you will not need to progress beyond point 2 above. Point 3 is optional and I don’t know whether he solicitor has made It clear to you that the only thing you will avoid in the event of success is three penalty points. You will still be fined for the second offence and your driving record will still be endorsed with the details, but no penalty points will be imposed. Do let us know how it goes.  
    • I'm really trying, but worst case I can't find what are my options?
    • John Lewis' Privacy Notice states that their CCTV Systems does not use facial recognition or collect biometric data - so I assume it should be fine?    Thank you a lot for your reply. I've scheduled my first therapy session ne t week. Really the time to turn my life around..
  • 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

192.com people finder


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3485 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 tried to answer the questions raised however I can still see that there is confusion over our service. Due to the specific nature of an individual’s data and the anonymity of the forum I am unable to respond directly. I know it has been raised that a few people on the forum are concerned about contacting me directly as I would then be able to link them back to their forum identity. This is not the case, if you contact me through [email protected] I have no idea who you are and therefore would be making no such connections. So if anyone would like to contact me with any further questions or a Subject Access Request please do and I will respond accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 550
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have just had a lengthy conversation with my prospective MP (Who will almost certainly win his seat at the next election because he has a tiny majority to overturn) about this company and what they are doing and the lack of regard to our data security.

 

His first impression is that what this company is doing is contrary to the principles of the Data Protection Act and if it is using some loophole to stick 2 fingers up at the Act then he would be interested in taking this up at a parliamentary level to prevent them from continuing this practice.

 

He agrees that the type of data being sold has the potential to expose an individual to significant harm or to expose an individual to having their identity stolen or abused in such a way as to cause significant harm.

 

He has advised me to complain directly to the ICO (In addition to I-CD Publishing (UK) Ltd ) and to copy him in on all communications. He says that the ICO will react quickly to a notification.

 

I get the impression that this kind of issue will be taken seriously by your MP or prospective MP so do the same and hopefully we can reign in this business that is a parasite on our freedom.

 

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My listing is dated 2007, it is my business number & in the public domain its under my business name NOT in my own name , yet 192.com lists me OH & our son - can you please explain how you obtained that information 192 - I'am self employed & not a ltd company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i did a search for me and i found me. Couldn't believe it. Admitedly its well out of date, as i moved out of that house in 2002. It also listed all my old flatmates, 1 like me doesn't live in the UK anymore, and another is now semi-famous. Not one of us lives at that address, and hasn't done since 2002. i pity for poor fools who pay for that info. unless its a DCA of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why 192cs is ignoring the legal requirement "PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT"

 

regardless of their offer to remove, they did not have CONSENT in the first place regardless of where they extracted the info from

 

CONSENT in LAW is required to retain and forward the the INFO to anyone

 

stop playing on we can remove the INFO if you want, you dont in most cases have the right to hold the INFO in the first place :mad:

 

come on 192CS address the questions asked ,

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

i did a search for me and i found me. Couldn't believe it. Admitedly its well out of date, as i moved out of that house in 2002. It also listed all my old flatmates, 1 like me doesn't live in the UK anymore, and another is now semi-famous. Not one of us lives at that address, and hasn't done since 2002. i pity for poor fools who pay for that info. unless its a DCA of course.

 

Breach of the 1st Principle of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Shocking!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I wonder when our "Zoe" is going to answer the questions here...if ever.:rolleyes:

 

No doubt she has some pseudo-jobsworth title like "Customer-Liason-Manager" or "Company-Interface-Executive", specialising in issue avoidance and burying the problem.

 

I for one will take anything she says as BS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....hello Guests....

 

 

 

Blimey, must be a slow day in the offices - there are 8 guests on here at the moment.

 

Do feel free to register & add your comments but do be aware that Caggers can spot trolls from a long way off :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did 192 obtain the necessary consent from each and every individual involved, in order to process their subject data?

 

How long should organisations keep data for?

The Data Protection Act says that information should be kept for no longer than is necessary. The Act does not specify what a ‘necessary’ period should be for particular information. Each case would be considered on its own merits. If an organisation is obliged to retain data for a given length of time under any other laws, this should be taken into consideration.

 

For example, financial institutes may have to keep some information for up to six years in accordance with the Financial Services Authority regulations. A sole trader, however, may not need to keep information for longer than a month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

192 used in conjunction with Facebook/Bebo Ancestry etc, etc is a surefire way to track someone down. Cheap, quick and easy too.

 

Personal info is all over the internet like a mad persons manure.

 

Not advertising here, just another similar example PEOPLE SEARCH,using the electoral roll and voters roll

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The country has gone mad!!

 

The majority of British people have no objection to being in a telephone directory, if that is their choice and if not, they can become ex-directory.

 

Personally speaking I strongly object about having my data banded about on the internet, when I have not provided consent nor, posted up data about myself on facebook etc...

 

Much of the information that is being published by 192, is inaccurate, out of date and often providing data that could be of a sensitive nature.

 

Consumers who have opted out of the ER and who are ex-directory, should not find themselves as being listed on 192 etc.

 

The Human Rights Act and the Right to Privacy, is subordinate legislation under the DPA.

 

The following Link will be of interest to many:

Your rights - The Right to Privacy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the Electoral Roll gets it wrong. Let's face it, we could state that Elvis lived at our address and it would go in. Oooh there's a thought :D

 

I'm on facebook, but not with my real name. If I want anyone to find me, I tell them. Who wants some spotty ex stalker from your schooldays turning up at the door?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who wants some spotty ex stalker from your schooldays turning up at the door?

 

My thoughts exactly. I don't bother with any of that 'Facebook' kind of stuff.

 

It's very annoying - no - actually it's infuriating when you see details relevant to yourself appear on certain websites when you have not given them your express permission to use it.

I suspect much of it comes from the "we may sell or pass your details to reputable third party companies" or similar stuff that's in the small print of innocuous looking things nowadays..........

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...