Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

a question RE: Cireco Ltd & RLP


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5062 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 note from my investigations that Jacqueline Lambert is the Director of both these companies.

 

for those who dont know, Cireco Ltd offer pre-screening services of potential employees for companies who sign up to her database of dishonesty "their previous description not mine"

 

is she legally entitled to process data from one company to the other to form the basis of a business?

 

they charge you in store under RLP and process your data to Cireco Ltd (a subsidiary company) and effecitvely SELL your data as a product?

 

is this legal? have you looked into this Joncris?

Link to post
Share on other sites

from her website:

 

In order to comply with the DPA in relation to recruitment, the client will need to ensure that application forms contain the following information:

“We will verify any information you supply to us about your identity, your honesty and your credit status via screening checks. These contain information about the address given, those involved in theft, shoplifting and defrauding employers and County Court Judgment information. Evidence of dishonesty or the provision of false information about your identity or honesty will mean that you will not be selected for employment”

In addition, clients are advised that the following information should be included in contracts of employment:

“We may verify any information you have supplied to us about your identity and your honesty at any time during the course of your employment. Evidence of your dishonesty may result in the termination of your employment.”

Clients are advised that any action taken in connection with existing employees will have to be in compliance with the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures in force. Clients are strongly advised not to use the search results as the sole basis for any employment decision and Cireco will not be liable for any losses as a result of the Client so doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point to note, of course, is that RLP/Cireco rarely have 'evidence of dishonesty' - just the subjective opinions of rentacops in shops.

 

Does anyone else see a parallel between Cireco's bogus database of 'dishonest' persons and the database of construction workers that ended in a world of hurt for its creators?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point to note, of course, is that RLP/Cireco rarely have 'evidence of dishonesty' - just the subjective opinions of rentacops in shops.

 

Does anyone else see a parallel between Cireco's bogus database of 'dishonest' persons and the database of construction workers that ended in a world of hurt for its creators?

 

Isn't this company actually committing libel, and is breaching data protection by the databases very existence since at least 99% of "fraudsters" on it have never been charged, cautioned, or even taken to civil court ?

 

I would have thought failure to offer a position based on this database would leave Cireco, RLP AND the potential employer open to being sued?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the bit where they are disclaiming any liability to their clients for any losses which may occur as a result of their data base being used, In other words if someone is either denied employment or sacked because of their many falsehoods & they sue their client it ain't their fault ........... they wish:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how this "database of dishonest persons" sits with th Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? Because there don't appear to be any time limits as to how long a person would remain on the database, and it would appear that they are riding roughshod over certain legally enshrined rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how this "database of dishonest persons" sits with th Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? Because there don't appear to be any time limits as to how long a person would remain on the database, and it would appear that they are riding roughshod over certain legally enshrined rights.

 

 

its a little to close to the bone for my liking that they throw out these banning orders, force people to sign forms they dont get a copy of, then sell that data to companies as some form of "screening" for employment, its almost like its "allegedly" in her best interests to get as many names on this bogus list as possible to further her other company's profits.

 

i think i may write a letter to ICO and see exactly what they do with this information and how they feel about how its is obtained in relation to both companies, and wether there is a conflict of interest here, i personally think there is.

 

id love to slap them where it hurts, in the wallet!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...