Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you. Such a good point. They did issue all 3 before I paid though. I only paid one because I didn’t have proof of parking that time, only for two others.    Unfortunately no proof of my appeal as it was just submitted through a form on their website and no copy was sent to me. I only have the reply. I believe I just put something like “we made the honest mistake of using the incorrect parking area on the app” and that’s it. Thanks again for your help. 
    • They are absolute chuckleheads. You paid but because you entered a different car park site also belonging to them they are pursuing you despite them knowing what you had done. It would be very obvious to everyone, including Alliance that your car could not have been in two places at the same time. Thank you for posting the PCN so quickly making it a pity that you appealed since there are so many things wrong with it that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. They rarely accept appeals since that would mean they lose money but they have virtually no chance of beating you in Court. Very unlikely that they will take you to Court given the circumstances. Just in case you didn't out yourself as the driver could you please post up your appeal.
    • Jasowter I hope that common sense prevails with Iceland and the whole matter can be successfully ended. I would perhaps not have used a spell checker just to prove the dyslexia 🙂 though it may have made it more difficult to read. I noticed that you haven't uploaded the original PCN .Might not be necessary if the nes from Iceland is good. Otherwise perhaps you could get your son to do it by following the upload instructions so that we can appeal again with the extra ammunition provided by the PCN. Most of them rarely manage to get the wording right which means that you as the keeper are not liable to pay the charge-only the driver is and they do not know the name and address of the driver. So that would put you both in the clear if the PCN is non compliant.
    • Thank you so much. Yes, I wish I had done my research and not paid. It's all for the same car park. Here is one of the original PCNs, they are all the same bar different dates. PCN-22.03.24-1.pdf PCN-22.03.24-2.pdf
    • Hi Clou, Welcome to the Forum and thank you for reading first before you posted. There seems to be many problems with Cornwall and getting a signal to use your a phone which could be why these parking companies don't use alternatives. It is a shame you paid the first one as you would probably have not had to pay that one either.  Was the car park at which you paid the same parking company as the one sending you these PCNs? On the subject of PCNs could you please post them up so we can see if they comply with the Act.
  • 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 3474 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...