Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I disagree with the charge and also the statements sent. Firstly I have not received any correspondence from DVLA especially a statutory notice dated 2/5/2024 or a notice 16/5/2024 voiding my licence if I had I would have responded within this timeframe. The only letter received was the single justice procedure notice dated the 29.5.2024 this was received on 4.6.2024. I also disagree with the statement that tax was dishonoured through invalid indemnity claim. I disagree that the licence be voided I purchased the vehicle in Jan 2024 from RDA car sales Pontefract with agreement to collect the car on the 28.1.2024. The garage taxed the vehicle on the 25.1.24 for eleven payments on direct debit  using my debit card on my behalf. £62.18 was the initial payment on 8.2.24  and £31 per month thereafter the second payment was 1.3.24.This would run from Jan 24 to Dec 24 and a total of £372.75, therefore the car was clearly taxed before  I took the car away After checking one of my vehicle apps  I could see the vehicle was showing as untaxed it later transpired that DVLA had cancelled my tax , without reason and I did not receive any correspondence from DVLA to state why it was cancelled or when. The original payment of £62.18 had gone through and verified by my bank Lloyds so this payment was not declined. I then set up the direct debit again straight away at my local post office branch on 15.2.2024 the first payment was £31 on 1.3.2024 and subsequent payments up to Feb 2025 with a total of £372.75 which was the same total as the original DD that was set up in Jan, Therefore I claimed the £62.18 back from my bank as an indemnity claim as this payment was from the original cancelled tax from DVLA and had been cancelled . I have checked my bank account at Lloyds and every payment since Jan 24  up to date has been taken with none rejected as follows: 8.2.24 - £62.15 1.3.24 - £31.09 2.4.24 - £31.06 1.5.24 - £31.06 3.6.23-£31.06 I have paper copies of the original DD set up conformation plus a breakdown of payments per month , and a paper copy of the second DD setup with breakdown of payments plus a receipt from the post office.I can also provide bank statements showing each payment to DVLA I also ask that my licence be reinstated due to the above  
    • You know hes had it when they call out those willing to say anything even claiming tories have reduced taxes on live tv AS Salmonella says: The Conservative Party must embrace Nigel Farage to “unite the right”, Suella Braverman has urged, following a disastrous few days for Rishi Sunak. The former home secretary told The Times there was “not much difference” between the new Reform UK leader’s policies and those of the Tories, as senior Conservatives start debating the future of the party. hers.   AND Goves replacement gets caught booking in an airbnb to claim he lives locally .. as of yesterday you can rent it yourself in late July - as he'll either be gone or claiming taxpayer funded expenses for a house Alongside pictures of himself entering a house, Mr McGuinness said Surrey Heath residents “rightly expect their MP to be a part of their community”. - So whens farage getting around to renting (and subletting) a clacton beach hut?   Gove’s replacement caught out on constituency house claim as home found on Airbnb WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Social media users quickly pointed out house Ed McGuinness had posted photos in was available to rent     As Douglas Ross says he'll stand down in scotland - if he wins a Westminster seat - such devotion.
    • I've completed a draft copy to defend and will post up here for review.  Looking over the dates and payments this all stemmed from DVLA cancelling in Feb , whereby I set up a new DD in Feb hence the overlap, why they cancelled when I paid originally in Jan I have no idea. Anyway now stuck with pending court action and a suspended licence . I am also firing off a letter to DVLa recorded disputing the licence revoke
    • Thank you both for your expert knowledge and understanding. You're fighting the good fight by standing up for people like me and others with limited knowledge of this stuff. I thank you. I know all my DVLA details are good. I recently (last year) renewed my license, and my car's V5 is current with the correct details; the same is valid for my partner. I'll continue to ignore the love letters 😂 and won't let it bother either me or my partner.  I'll revisit this post if/when I get a letter of claim.  F**k ém.
    • Please check back later on today for a fuller response and some edits
  • 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

mobile scam


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5163 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

My daughter just got scamed,she was called and sold insurance for her new phone,,she paid by bank card over phone.after she relised she was called by a mobile,checked with phone company who said not them.

She cancelled her card and phoned police all within 1hour,so be careful.

Now then the intresting bit is that the caller knew all her details down to the phone details and the bank is saying she will not get her money back as she gave her details willingly.Ok she did but the caller knew all her details ,any advice most wellcome.many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you've discovered, if you willingly provide your details you cannot simply change your mind and expect a chargeback, (in the same way if you paid them cash). You certainly have rights to cancel the insurance and under the DSR yo have rights of cancellation, but you do this by cancelling with the firm that provided the service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats who we think passed her details on ,now found out who this company is and requested moneys back .Told should receive a cheque in 5 working days .Will keep updating ,maybe not a [problem] after all ,fingers crossed.many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, online and in the shops, there are lots of tick boxes on the forms that say things like "we will pass your info on to trusted 3rd parties. If you don't want us to, tick this box" and then they put another one "please tick this box if you consent to marketing". So you need to tick one and leave one blank... it's designed to catch people out who just scan through things. Next thing you know you are bombarded with marketing calls.

 

This is another reason that I only buy PAYG then swap the SIM out, because I don't trust the sales staff not to put a phone through for marketing (a lot of them get a bonus for signing people up for marketing, and when they sort the contract directly onto their computers they don't even ask, and just consent you to marketing)

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

my cousin had the same problem,took out a new phone,phone call soon after saying that CPW had passed her details on & would you like insurance etc

site:whocallsme.com whocallsme o2 iphone carphone warehouse OR cpw

site:whocallsme.com whocallsme o2 iphone carphone warehouse OR cpw - Google Search

 

site:whocallsme.com whocallsme "2010"o2 iphone carphone warehouse OR cpw

site:whocallsme.com whocallsme "2010"o2 iphone carphone warehouse OR cpw - Google Search

 

a lot of people are claiming the same thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

a lot of people are claiming the same thing

 

What? Incompetence in protecting their marketing preferences? These will be the same people who on calling these Meerkcat, Opera Lovin' comparison companies who make their money on selling on the details of enquirers, including home address and full DoB, feign surprise anyone would do such a thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Incompetence in protecting their marketing preferences? These will be the same people who on calling these Meerkcat, Opera Lovin' comparison companies who make their money on selling on the details of enquirers, including home address and full DoB, feign surprise anyone would do such a thing.

ignorant maybe

 

wouldn't it be more constructive if you kept your personal views to your self and let forum members educate themselves as to how customer data is being supplied and used by unscrupulous con merchants?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely they have to learn somehow? This is as good a place as any - however, if you don't like my 'personal views' try to ignore them. Trying to blame a firm for passing on personal details when they've got every right to is a case in point, no point trying to push toothpaste back into the tube.

 

Of course lots of people can 'claim the same thing' - it doesn't mean to say anything illegal or improper has occurred. Nice to see you're still spreading that ol' goodwill....

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is just one typical example of hundreds concerning Carphone Warehouse and o2

08443350424 - who calls me from 08443350424? 1/3

I set up a new contract with the Carphone Warehouse on Saturday after purchasing a new iphone. Carphone Warehouse offered me there expensive insurance at £10.99 per month which I took out as the phone was so expensive to buy. By Tuesday, Michael Davies, from 02 rang to offer me cheaper iphone insurance. He knew my name and asked me to confirm my postcode and house number which I did (because he was from 02) He was offering me £105 for 18 months or he could split it, apparently over my first and second bill which I was prepared to do at £52.50. Michael then asked me to confijrm my long card number on my debit card which aroused suspicion. I told him I wasn't prepared to do this as he could be anyone. He assured me he was from 02 and that with it being a new number, not many people, if any would have it only 02 and Carphone warehouse and my friends. Michael then read out the first 4 digits of my RBS debit card and asked me to confirm the rest. I told him no and that he could be anyone trying to [problem] money. He told me due to confidentiality and security purposes, Carphone Warehouse had blanked out the rest of the card and assured me that this was good practice on there behalf. He needed my account details to cancel the existing insurance deal with Geek Squad in order for 02 to set up there insurance. I didn’t give Michael any details and said I would cancel my own direct debit with Geek Squad and call him back to take out there insurance. Michael Gave me his 02 extension number of 150, and then a separate number of 0844 335 0424 which I could call back on to take up this offer. After googling this number I found that they are conning bastards that are in no way connected to 02 or Carphone Warehouse, just trying to con money out of trusting, honest people. I'll be ringing 02, I’ll be going in to the Carphone Warehouse and I’ll be in touch with Watchdog.

Trying to blame a firm for passing on personal details when they've got every right to is a case in point, no point trying to push toothpaste back into the tube.

 

Of course lots of people can 'claim the same thing' - it doesn't mean to say anything illegal or improper has occurred.

personal data being used to cold call mislead and con but "it doesn't mean to say anything illegal or improper has occurred."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, the point you're trying to make is.... what?

 

Firms are dishonest?

 

What 'personal data' did the cold caller actually have? I don't see any having been disclosed. From that end of the ramble you quoted, it appears than neither O2 or CW have done anything illegal (or at all, in this case).

Yet it was CW that was being blamed in the first instance.

 

If folk are happy at providing their personal details to [problematic], who else it there to blame? The [problematic]? I don't think so. Let's not forget, there are people out there who think Direct Debits are wonderful and the DD guarantee protects them from error.

 

If folk are too silly to see this is untrue (for a legitimate organisation) how on earth can they be trusted to be wary of anyone selling stuff over the phone. For this very reason, I don't. Funny, I haven't been stung yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not conclusively.

 

In the recent T-Mobile farago - agent(s)? Were passing on information regarding new customers to firms to sell on - this was call-centre related, and easily traceable.

 

However, it is no secret when networks release number blocks for the latest contract SIMS from each network and virtual operator. They simply dial numbers within these blocks, safe in the knowledge they've only just been connected.

 

On the other end, they call old number ranges to say you can 'upgrade' :) My Cellnet number is was 0860 the first code they used, now - as 07860 no new customers are added, but I still get 3 calls per year saying i'm entitled to an upgrade (I'm not, but they don't know this).

 

Then of course, there's dialling 07 numbers at random - you'll never stop it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal data is money. If you give people the opportunity to sell your information, they will. It's not just the Opera singing meerkats either. Google (and other search engines) target adds to you using the data it holds on you (and turns a pretty penny whilst they're at it!)

 

Look at it this way, if you are trying to sell something (In this case mobile insurance) and you own/rent a call center, it makes sense to target your calls to peoples needs. If you buy all the data from people who's agreement says they "consent to marketing from trusted third parties" straight after they receive a shiny new mobile, it makes business sense to concentrate your call centers on these numbers. It's nothing sinister or illegal (Annoying, yes. Illegal, no) and these companies can buy "lists" from all the major mobile suppliers to keep their staff busy!

 

Tracing who passed the details on, or if they just noted a block of telephone numbers that had been released and set their dialer to keep trying these numbers until they become active would be a hard task!

 

For those Latin lovers "Caveat emptor" (for the rest of us "Let the buyer beware") Check your contract twice before signing it and read the small print. If marketing calls bother you, double check with your mobile operator that you are "opted out of all marketing". Even just write them a letter requesting they opt you out of all marketing will stop them passing your details on further (but this does become a task of pushing toothpaste back into the tube.)

 

My personal take is Don't buy on an incoming call. If you want something, call the company yourself or go online. Buying over the telephone or over the internet offers more protection to the customer, aswell as using a credit card. Remember the golden rule "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!"

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
personal data being used to cold call mislead and con..........

Sorry, the point you're trying to make is.... what?

 

Firms are dishonest?

WalesOnline - News - UK News - Four in custody after phone insurance [problem] that netted up to 5m

Four in custody after phone insurance [problem] that netted up to £5m

Apr 21 2010

 

A WOMAN and three men were being questioned last night about a mobile phone insurance [problem] said to have netted up to £5m over the past five years.

 

South Wales Police have so far identified more than 300 victims of the bogus insurance operation but there are many more.

 

In the culmination of a two-year investigation yesterday, a team of 40 officers raided business premises in the centre of Swansea and homes in the city’s Sketty, Manselton and Birchgrove areas.

 

All four arrested – three men aged 43, 29 and 28 and a woman aged 25 – were in custody at Swansea Central Police Station.

 

The investigation into the insurance [problem] was carried out by South Wales Police’s western division and the economic crime unit. It began in Swansea after customers who bought mobile phones contacted trading standards officers claiming to have been contacted by locally based businesses attempting to sell them mobile phone insurance.

I think buzby should have a read up on the Data Protection Act and laws/regulations.

 

who can and cannot pass on customer personal data?

who that data can be supplied to.

the obligation to carry out due diligence checks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WalesOnline - News - UK News - Four in custody after phone insurance [problem] that netted up to 5m

Four in custody after phone insurance [problem] that netted up to £5m

Apr 21 2010

 

A WOMAN and three men were being questioned last night about a mobile phone insurance [problem] said to have netted up to £5m over the past five years.

 

South Wales Police have so far identified more than 300 victims of the bogus insurance operation but there are many more.

 

In the culmination of a two-year investigation yesterday, a team of 40 officers raided business premises in the centre of Swansea and homes in the city’s Sketty, Manselton and Birchgrove areas.

 

All four arrested – three men aged 43, 29 and 28 and a woman aged 25 – were in custody at Swansea Central Police Station.

 

The investigation into the insurance [problem] was carried out by South Wales Police’s western division and the economic crime unit. It began in Swansea after customers who bought mobile phones contacted trading standards officers claiming to have been contacted by locally based businesses attempting to sell them mobile phone insurance.

I think buzby should have a read up on the Data Protection Act and laws/regulations.

 

who can and cannot pass on customer personal data?

who that data can be supplied to.

the obligation to carry out due diligence checks.

If you don't opt out of marketing or if you agree to them passing on your info to 3rd parties who then tries to sell them insurance none of the DPA rules have been broken. Someone got the OP's daughters number (either randomly dialing it or from her supplier if she agreed to marketing) and sold her insurance. The OP's daughter assumed it was the person her contract is with.

 

The article you posted doesn't have enough info. Maybe the company didn't have a license to sell insurance? Maybe they were using the payment details to take more money or some other crime? You can be pretty sure they didn't legally buy a lot of contact details for people that had consented to 3rd party marketing to sell a legitimate insurance!

 

Personally, I never buy on an incoming call, but that's just me.

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think buzby should have a read up on the Data Protection Act and laws/regulations.

 

I think you should stop telling me what to read. The article is short of facts (surprise surprise) and provides no inkling as to the offences supposedly committed. The fact the people happily call GoCompare/Compare the Meerkat/Money Supermarket for the express purpose of buying insurance, totally unaware that all the details they provide will be used for this along with passing on their details to anyone else they can make money from is the real scandal.

 

You might be phoning for a quote, but your personal details (given willingly) are this firms bread and butter. Sure, they ket paid commissions for passing on sales leads, but even if no policy is taken out - your data has a cash value (to them).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...