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
      • 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

192.com people finder


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3490 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

Oh don't worry about that.

 

192 have an audit trail - so they can see who stole your idenity - isn't that wonderful:rolleyes: :confused:

 

 

yes I'm still waiting for a reply to my retrospective reactive question . And lets be honest logging an IP address isnt exactly foolproof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 550
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

well just read this thread and frankly I am quite disgusted that some "entrepreneur" can start up a website holding people personal data.

 

So in the time honoured tradition send em an email giving 14 days to remove all trace of me and my family or I will be seeking legal advice and compensation

 

Have a nice day ZOE@192.com

 

and no its not a proper email address folks

 

and Zoe I dont care if you work out my name and cag name, cause if I get any other DCA **** contacting me from this day forth, rest assured your company will be on the court summons alongside the dca muppets

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to section 10 of the dpa they would no doubt argue that their data is in the public domain. I would say:

1) births, marriages and deaths are but not in a collated searchable format

2) everything else is proprietary information, that is not in the public domain.

3) cross-referencing and search associations are not public domain.

4)the uses of information have not been authorized by the individual.

5) 4 will do but this point is to say I'm sure there are at least another 10 points.

 

I have just found out about my ex-wife whom I divorced in 1991 (childhood romance married young, long story). I know where she lives, her phone number, that she remarried and has two kids. The point is not if the information is technically available in the public domain but available in an easily accessed searchable format. Plus the stuff that should not be out there at all like ex-directory and opt-out electoral role

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

 

 

Yes I know....very bad form to quote one's own posts, but as if by magic..... BBC News - Facebook faces criticism on privacy change

Edited by dannyboy660
mi spillin woz badd

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I know....very bad form to quote one's own posts, but as if by magic..... BBC News - Facebook faces criticism on privacy change

 

 

well if you want my opinion only a turtle with a lobotomy would use a traceable name and details on any social networking site.

 

AND I should know because I'm married to said turtle which is how I ended up on here:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really great news, now any low life can pay to check who lives at an address, their age and occupation, then check on Google Earth the location.

Isolated house, people out at work good news for them. Old age pensioners, isolated house, good news for them.

Never mind being afraid to go out at night it makes you frightened to stay in !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can we get this 192.com data alert to a broader audience.any ideas?

 

Yes, post the same thread title on MSE.

 

2 years ago, a similar thread overwhelmed "B4U search" with several thousand daily requests for data removal, subsequently requiring many man-hours of work to comply with the removal of personal data.

B4U decided that the work was too expensive and pulled their people-search facility within a week or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just done a little 'tracing' myself using 192 and found something interesting yet quite disturbing. Cross referencing between google, facebook, friendsreunited & 192 I have not only found where my ex lives, but who she lives with; that she never remarried has no children + their telephone number. If I felt like it I could dig even deeper by doing a Land Registry search and find the value of her property, who the mortgage lender was & the purchase price.

 

As it happens we seperated amicably & lost touch when I moved and I have no intention in intruding into her life....... but there are others who could just as easily find similar information about people for more sinister purposes. :eek::eek:

It gets worse, I've just checked google earth with the address I found for my ex & her partner and found I can even view her front door literally. kdvqip.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it happens we seperated amicably & lost touch when I moved and I have no intention in intruding into her life....... but there are others who could just as easily find similar information about people for more sinister purposes. :eek::eek:

It gets worse, I've just checked google earth with the address I found for my ex & her partner and found I can even view her front door literally. kdvqip.jpg

 

 

Cerb old buddy, I have the greatest respect, but I think it's time to stop now, and put the kettle on.

 

This thread is seriously in danger of turning into an episode of 'Marion and Geoff'. ;)

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this link will work but FT.com / Media - Facebook backtracks on privacy apparently it was the Canadian authorities who called foul and pressured Facebook to think again.

 

I'm all for a bit of co-operation and a unified future of peace and stability, 'global village' and all that, but let's not voluntarily give away too many of our liberties and privacies in the (alleged) interest of security.

 

Let's get back to 192.com. Villains or victims??

 

They've only stepped into a lucrative data market, and made a packet from selling details. They must have got them from somewhere, and you must have given permission for them to publish, or it wouldn't happen......would it??

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this link will work but FT.com / Media - Facebook backtracks on privacy apparently it was the Canadian authorities who called foul and pressured Facebook to think again.

 

I'm all for a bit of co-operation and a unified future of peace and stability, 'global village' and all that, but let's not voluntarily give away too many of our liberties and privacies in the (alleged) interest of security.

 

Let's get back to 192.com. Villains or victims??

 

They've only stepped into a lucrative data market, and made a packet from selling details. They must have got them from somewhere, and you must have given permission for them to publish, or it wouldn't happen......would it??

 

I don't think I was given the choice to opt out at birth when my birth certificate was issued - 192 sells your birth details, your mother's maiden

name etc.

 

When I signed up to vote 10 years ago I wasn't given the choice to opt out, yet today 192 has for sale my address at that time and the details of who I was living with and what my house was worth.

 

When I started my own business I wasn't given the choice to opt out of a public register yet 192 can purchase the public register and sell my personal info.

 

These individual registers are there for the public interest, not that of a commercial entity. What 192.com has done is to buy up all the data, package it together and then sells it for a profit to any Tom Dick or Harry wihout regard to my personal identity security. I was not given the opportunity to opt out of that and most certainly would not give my consent to it.

 

To suggest they could be "Victims" is absurd.:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That form requests that you remove electoral details.

 

How do I go about requesting you to remove all my details from your databases - and to make sure they never magically pop back in there?

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My settings have always been on maximum privacy on Facebook - viewable by approved friends and family only. It helps me stay in touch with my far flung kids at Uni etc.

However!!!!!

I was FURIOUS to log on yesterday and find that, due to their new policy, ALL my privacy settings had been reset to their default - viewable by everyone. If I hadn't gone on I wouldn't have known and could have been vulnerable for weeks.

I've reset everything now-but that's not the point is it?

The world's gone mad. I despair!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My settings have always been on maximum privacy on Facebook - viewable by approved friends and family only. It helps me stay in touch with my far flung kids at Uni etc.

However!!!!!

I was FURIOUS to log on yesterday and find that, due to their new policy, ALL my privacy settings had been reset to their default - viewable by everyone. If I hadn't gone on I wouldn't have known and could have been vulnerable for weeks.

I've reset everything now-but that's not the point is it?

The world's gone mad. I despair!!!

 

I had my account with Facebook totally deleted due to privacy concerns. In addition Facebook offers you nothing new as you can email friends, phone friends, etc using other applications. Even Skype offers more than Facebook. Sorry I guess I am just not a very sociable person that way. I prefer real tangible friends!:-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...