Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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 3486 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

Hi everyone,

 

I just registered after reading this thread.

I'd be extremely interested in knowing how your particular cases with 192.com unfolded.

I've recently discovered that I too am a victim of this company. I asked them to remove my details and they seem to have done that but as I was reading this thread I noticed some of you were saying that they actually keep the details.

could any of you confirm if this is correct?

should i send them a letter requesting to confirm they will no longer use my private data.

 

thanks

Edited by sounhappy
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 550
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

192.com accesses external; databases. You need to get yourself removed from the databases you are listed on to be successful. 193 do not hold the data in the conventional sense (like 'Google') they only provide links to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

192.com accesses external; databases. You need to get yourself removed from the databases you are listed on to be successful. 193 do not hold the data in the conventional sense (like 'Google') they only provide links to it.

 

so the dvd disks they sell are not loaded with the data only the links!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe they ever sold DVDs. If you mean the CR-ROMs of old, these were actually scanned versions of the old BT Phone books, and were pretty dreadful in all but one respect, you could (at the rimew) perform a reverse lookup- so users could creade a direction in STREET order, which was pretty neat. It also allowed partial name searches which the BT PhoneDisc did not.

 

These days, they only act as a gatewat to other data - in much the same way CRAs do, by linking publicly accessab;e data to the information they have already indexed. So asking them to remove you is kinda pointless, especially if you don't go to the council and get yourself removed from the voters roll, companies house, registry tust, land register, OSIS phone book and the rest. Then there's the historical data - old Electoral registers, which have been bought by many firms and won't give them up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Not it isn't. It is used as an an identity reference resource. 192 has no access to 'credit reference' information.

 

The poster isn't saying that the poster is saying that the CRA's & others also use 192 who in turn provide said data to their clients ............ which is one of the reasons victims should send 192 a DPA Sec 10 notice telling them to cease processing their data

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, I lost you at the second 'the poster is saying'. 8)

 

By removing your details from 192.com (even assuming they are there) stil leaves the details on all the original databases, and with removal will inevitably lead to a refusal by PayPal to accept the customer. I'm very careful with my data and have had services refused because of this.

 

If THAT is what you're advocating, then at least point out the pitfalls for so doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, I lost you at the second 'the poster is saying'. 8)

 

By removing your details from 192.com (even assuming they are there) stil leaves the details on all the original databases, and with removal will inevitably lead to a refusal by PayPal to accept the customer. I'm very careful with my data and have had services refused because of this.

 

If THAT is what you're advocating, then at least point out the pitfalls for so doing.

 

I'm not suggesting it I'm advising people of their right to have their data from being processed Good grief your the most argumentative person on this forum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if they 'use' 192 as part of their determination of a consumers status why did you imply the questioner was wrong when it was clear to everyone else that's precisely what they stated.

 

It seems you could pick a fight in an empty room

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a rant! If you see a clarification as being argumentative, by all means. The point remains, 192 is not a CRA, and are not set up to be. Your naive response that users should ensure their details are not displayed by 192.com in order to fail Paypal's checks is the biggest own goal since the last time I saw an England footie match.

 

By all means make so called clarifications if you think anyone cares, but give the full picture as I have tried to, not some petulant attempt at point-scoring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a rant! If you see a clarification as being argumentative, by all means. The point remains, 192 is not a CRA, and are not set up to be. Your naive response that users should ensure their details are not displayed by 192.com in order to fail Paypal's checks is the biggest own goal since the last time I saw an England footie match.

 

By all means make so called clarifications if you think anyone cares, but give the full picture as I have tried to, not some petulant attempt at point-scoring.

 

 

As I recall we have crossed swords twice & on both occasions you have been wrong as proven by the eventual outcome of each matter

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what the box is for! The ability of people to opt for includion in the 'edited' register was largely circumvented when the CRAs argued for access ro 'prevent fraud'. They got their waiver, and access to the the full file. This meant that the opting out only prevents your details being harvested by mailing list companies, not quite the original promise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Certainly, follow the links on the website, but as an aggregator - the source data still remains. There are far better resourced on the web for pulling this type of information together, and its free! Many firms also use 192 as customer verification, so absenbce from their listing usuall means a refusal as you 'don't exist'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks buzby, done that.

Do I understand you correctly that there are other such sites where info can be sourced by the public? Obviously cant do anything about the CRA's

 

Yes. 192.com HAVE NO DATA - they are simply a processor of information that is collected by other sources, Companies House, Electroal Register, Phone Book etc etc. The only way to not be listed is to attempt to remove the initial listing (which is impossible) as public records remain, public!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wink is a free online people search service that searches through more than 400 million profiles on social networks. Services covered are Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn. Searches can be carried out names, school, position, and career interests among others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wink is a free online people search service that searches through more than 400 million profiles on social networks. Services covered are Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn. Searches can be carried out names, school, position, and career interests among others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

thanks BUZBY for clearing up my confusion.

 

There's also this http://www.123people.co.uk which is a search engine and will throw up anywhere where you're linked such as facebook etc.

i found my myspace page through that site...which is set to private anyway.

luckily they didn't have anything else of mine on there.

 

thanks CERBERUSALERT for posting the newspaper article.

very interesting...and scary.:!:

 

it's so unfair that companies can access your details...even personal ones...from these kinds of sites.

there should be a law against it.

 

how can i get my details off 192.com, 123people.co.uk and other similar websites?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's information on 192.com that is NOT public record - such as your occupation. Scumbags

 

You misunderstand, there is the Public Record (official information) and public record (where the data subject has made the disclosure). How do you think 193 managed to 'guess' your occupation? Probably from a social networking site, so it is to this you need to address your concerns. For the last 30 years I have randomised my DoB for organisations that have ro requirement or rightr to know, and this has posed few problems but provided many benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...