Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks guys. Received a letter today from Resolvecall to say that I have been removed from their files and my account has been closed, it continues to say that I maybe contacted in future by Intrum or another debt collection agency. Do you think it’s worth finding Itrums address and sending them the same letter? Thanks in advance 
    • He is still trading.   I won't get anything out of it, no.  But is that the point?  Not charging it means the Govt misses out on important revenue 
    • for whatever reason, if you did not get the original PCN on the car/by hand nor in the post before things escalated you need to appeal using the correct forms, not a soft appeal to the issuing council Which forms to use for which offence pe2/3 & te7/9 - Local Authority Parking and Traffic Offences - Consumer Action Group  
    • as this situation has now come up again for you, how confident are you that if you get on the straight and narrow with having a respite of 60days (Options for dealing with your debts: Breathing Space (Debt Respite Scheme) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)... would you then be able to resume ok? if not quite honestly, the very best thing you can do is to get ALL your debts defaulted by the issuance of and the registering of a Default Notice from each creditor. this is done by stopping ALL PAYMENTS, it wont hurt you short term, esp as all the debts are still with the Original Creditors. this of course will kill credit for 6yrs, but, will cause the debts to vanish from your file (paid or not, paying or not) on the DN's 6th B'day, but of course that wont mean the debts are not still owed, legally, just your file will be clear of them all. if you read a good 10-20 of the stories in this very same forum you found to start yours, you'll soon get the idea behind the advice given. as for things like IVA/BK etc NEVER EVER do those, that secures unsecured debt. just contact one of the free DMP providers and get breathing space implemented, that gives you a 60 day buffer to firm up your future actions. but DO NOT enter into a DMP, do one yourself. they can be a bit pushy, but simply insist you just want breathing space invoked, i would only be giving them enough info to achieve BS too, don't give them anything you don't need too, they are funded by the banks and debt collectors and can sometimes be over intrusive and nosy wanting info that is better not revealed. dx    
  • 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

Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4984 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

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I totally agree!! Im not entering into this argument because I believe that (unless ive slipped through a timehole and the Third Reich are in power,) they cannot process your data without your position!! I have used this argument against a creditor, who admitted in writing that they have no agreement and are not going to persue me for the debt, that they have no right to issue a default and continually state on my file that I have a debt! And yet they still do it! So I await an outcome of the argument to tell me wether I should proceed action based on DPA or CCA !

Honestly...im not arguing!!

 

They are not processing YOUR information, for the last time! They are processing their own, with their own interest as the reason!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, m55. That argument has gone right over my head, so perhaps I need it explained in words a 5 year old can understand.

 

I thought, if there is on record an alleged debt... Someone owes the debt. That someone is obviously recorded as owing the debt, so how can the data held not be personal information? Are you saying that, in that case, there is no right of an alleged debtor to request data held relating to that debt?

 

Confused?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

one of my contacts has found a CREDIT APPLICATION FORM sent to him where he had the chance to "recommend a friend" [iNDUCEMENT ]to apply for a credit card with a companY.

 

 

On the succesful opening of the new account both the referrer and the holder of the new account would be rewarded with a "finite amount of money "

 

will someone please look in the advertising and issueing of circulars aspect of the cc act 1974

 

CAN ANYBODY SEE ANYTHING THAT MIGHT INVALIDATE THE AGREEMENT ?

 

part 1v section 43 onwardsi

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not processing YOUR information, for the last time! They are processing their own, with their own interest as the reason!

 

BUT only part of that information is theirs, the bits like the debtors name, payment details etc is personal and so whilst they may be processing their own information, by doing so they are processing yours too. That's my understanding. Anyone anything more definitive on this like a legal ruling to clear it up one way or the other?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

IOC says, unless you have give written persmission i.e you signature that they can process, they are in breach of the DPA. This is why IOC wants my credit to demonstate that they are doing this without my permission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, m55. That argument has gone right over my head, so perhaps I need it explained in words a 5 year old can understand.

 

I thought, if there is on record an alleged debt... Someone owes the debt. That someone is obviously recorded as owing the debt, so how can the data held not be personal information? Are you saying that, in that case, there is no right of an alleged debtor to request data held relating to that debt?

 

Confused?????

 

 

CAN WE INTRODuCE A scientific term into this data aspect

the term "mutually exclusive" and "mutual inclusive" my knowledge of data is that it is stored in "bits" (this is a serious term hence the term bit rate )

 

now to me without having the data threads properly ....

 

if information about person "a" (which can be summarised as "y" bits of information) generates more information (as a result of data processing) that creates more information call it "z bits of information "y

 

---------------------

 

the number "z" must be greater than "y" and the new information

generated is "z" minus "y"

 

it seems therefore that the events are mutually inclusive . If "y" did not exist then "z" would not

-----

and in fact "y" would equal "z" and we would have a simple transfer of information ?

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

F charges - c'mon, its Sunday morning, it's pe--ng down with rain, and you come up with something to do with quadratic equations and DP. Now please, have a little sympathy for us blondes out here with their pj's on and a cup of coffee in hand. I think you should MIND YOUR P's & Q's as my eyes are glazing over:o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear, hear Ladybird. You do indeed have all my sympathy. And if sitting there in your PJ's is causing you distress, the simple solution is to remove them. Now, without wishing to sound like a "blondist", might I suggest you put your coffee somewhere safe while you perform the above process of disrobement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What, putting your coffee down is an improper suggestion? Oh, I SEE. No, please do not misconstrue my intentions. I merely suggested you might be more comfortable without the encumbrance of those restrictive garments you mentioned.

 

Oh, dear. I'm not making this any better am I? :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise for my earlier comments, LB. Of course, please keep your night attire on. I am a great admirer of those females of the species who prefer to wander around in a state of semi-undress, and...

 

Oh, heck. I'm doing it again. I'm going for a lie down.

 

Apologies for the OT tangent this thread appears to be taking, folks. But it's LB's fault for wandering around the forum whilst unsuitably attired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no, I'm afraid you're digging that hole deeper and deeper!

 

 

the MIB'S will be getting excited {and spilling their coffee when they read this}(stimulates their electrons & energy fields)

 

you two had better stay "mutually exclusive"

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

TT lets go straight to court with an application for disclosure or If you have the info include their statement in your NI thereby explaining why you have given them little time to settle before bringing proceedings Something along the lines of "what would have been the point your honour" before anyone picks up on it I use the term honour for gravitas

 

Make them eat their words let them come back to bite them.......Snotty sod

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not processing YOUR information, for the last time! They are processing their own, with their own interest as the reason!

 

Sorry M55 again I disagree - I have posted elsewhere - this is not their information - it is not about them - it is YOUR information - YOU are the subject matter - YOU have to provide consent.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, guys, I remove the information from the CRA regarding payments you've made, I (may) remove the default, but I don't remove the fact that you owe me money and, as has been mentioned hundreds of times before, the debt still exists. Don't quote me the DPA and your data again, refute what I am saying, the debt exists therefore I have a right to post that. If you can prove the debt doesn't exist I'll remove the entry. If you can't it stays - irrespective of the DPA, the CCA or whatever. Time and time again people state this isn't true but again time and time again not a single person has refuted this. I have a right to process my own information. Where does it say I don't have the right.

 

This is getting boring

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I follow your line of argument then you would only be able to process your own information, you would not be able to say who owes you the money as the information about the name and address for example belongs to the person involved. So you could only process that you have various unnamed debts owed to you.

 

I cannot see that you have yet got round the argument that all rights are lost to the creditor if there is an unenforceable agreement or that if there is no trace of the agreement then there is no evidence that the customer agreed information could be passed to a third party. Agreement to process or pass on data is harder to imply so the agreement would be needed to prove that the processing of personal data attached to the creditors data can happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4984 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...