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

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...