Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

D.S.A.R noncom, 2 different Co's same 6 year quote


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4454 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 all, hope this is in the right place.

Ok Cap one and bluestone credit management have both refused to send me any info beyond 6 years so I'm looking at taking them to small claims to force compliance. Both are clearly saying that the DPA says they don't have to. While I'm pretty certain that it doesn't I thought i'd better double check?

My real reason for this posting is for help with the POC's, I have got a copy from the library but are these still current and will I need to add to them? I'm thinking maybe something because of them both claiming they don't have to provide anything beyond 6 years.

Thanks Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that really what they say - in writing????

 

 

If so, we'd like to see the letter please.

 

They are absolutely wrong. they are required all personal data which they hold on you in any form.

 

Give us more info and we will helop you do a POC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok i'll scan them later this evening.

I have the bluestone letter with me,,,

"Due to the original agreement being taken out in 2005 we are under no legal obligation to provide you with a copy of the original agreement or any other documentation that have been produced six years prior to this letter.

Therefore your request shall not be acted upon, which we are legally entitled to decline".

 

If I remember right the cap one letter is even more specific saying that the provision for the six years is within the DPA, this a direct quote from their DPA team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bluestone is as above including the poor English, below is the cap one letter,,,,,

 

" You mention that you have previously requested a comprehensive breakdown of the history of your account, since this was opened in December 1998. After looking through our records, i can appreciate you were provided with limited account information following an internal request from our Customer Service team in December 2011. I can assure you that we have not purposely edited any information provided to you. I feel we have adhered to our policies and procedures and I can only apologise if you believe otherwise.

 

With regards to the statements sent as part of your Subject Access Request (SAR). I understand you are unhappy as we have provided you with statements to cover the past six years. I appreciate that you would like a full sett of statements to show the history of your account since this was opened in December 1998. However, after speaking with our Subject Access Request (SAR) team, I have been advised that under the Data Protection Act (1998) we are only required to store six years worth of information on our customers. You can see that I have enclosed copy statements that date back to October 1999 but unfortunately, I am unable to provide you with data relating to the transactions on the account prior to March 2006. This is because we are no longer required to retain this information and once again, I can only apologise for any incon,,,,,,,,,, blah blah".

 

They go on to waive the £10.00 fee for this info, very good of them. They claim I've not sent in the fee, even after I provided them with a photo of the check, proof of them cashing it, proof of postage and receipt.

 

Later, and as a gesture of goodwill they've given me £25.00.

 

I'll add some details soon

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bluestone is as above including the poor English, below is the cap one letter,,,,,

 

" You mention that you have previously requested a comprehensive breakdown of the history of your account, since this was opened in December 1998. After looking through our records, i can appreciate you were provided with limited account information following an internal request from our Customer Service team in December 2011. I can assure you that we have not purposely edited any information provided to you. but they do contain both opening balance and closing balance each month plus minimum payment required, so they must have it all, I really can't imagine them paying someone to spend their time selectively editing old account details leave only selected info I feel we have adhered to our policies and procedures and I can only apologise if you believe otherwise. What they seem to forget is that this was a request for them to "adhere" to English Law not company policy or procedure

 

With regards to the statements sent as part of your Subject Access Request (SAR). I understand you are unhappy as we have provided you with statements to cover the past six years. I appreciate that you would like a full sett of statements to show the history of your account since this was opened in December 1998. However, after speaking with our Subject Access Request (SAR) team, I have been advised that under the Data Protection Act (1998) we are only required to store six years worth of information on our customers. You can see that I have enclosed copy statements that date back to October 1999 but unfortunately, I am unable to provide you with data relating to the transactions on the account prior to March 2006. This is because we are no longer required to retain this information and once again, I can only apologise for any incon,,,,,,,,,, blah blah".This really speaks for itself, all I'll say is as above

 

They go on to waive the £10.00 fee for this info, very good of them. They claim I've not sent in the fee, even after I provided them with a photo of the check, proof of them cashing it, proof of postage and receipt.

 

Later, and as a gesture of goodwill they've given me £25.00.

 

I'll add some details soon

 

I don't know what to add, I've been searching the forums for something similar but found nothing thats even close, well none that went anywhere, so feeling a bit hard done to with 2 at once :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...