Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You should start putting everything in writing. Even the ombudsman, to begin a serious complaint by telephone is quite frankly crazy. I hope you have taken a copy of at least the advertisement that you have posted above.  I don't suppose that you kept a copy of the original AutoTrader advertisement.  How much in writing have you got of anything? I would suggest also that you telephone the ombudsman tomorrow and ask them for details of the complaint that they have received from you and tell them that you want it in writing.  You will be amazed how scant The records of which are kept by these people. Read our customer services guide and at least actually give you some idea of how you should deal with customer service people or any call handlers on the telephone.  It is very important that you get a written summary of the report which you made to the ombudsman so that you can see exactly what they are investigating. The complaint to the ombudsman should have been very carefully considered over a period of time rather than simply made in a phone call
    • Funnily enough the ad is still available online Range Rover 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography LWB Previously Sold | Clinkard Performance Cars WWW.CLINKARDCARS.CO.UK Performance, Prestigious and Specialist cars Dealers in Romsey, Hampshire but the autotrader version isn't which was probably slightly different potentially with more information. Reported to FOS over the phone but essentially gave them the same information I've stated here, updating them that I'm paying for a car I haven't had for nearly a month now etc I'll certainly come back with an update. Fingers crossed they will realise it's not worth taking to court. So the inspection among other things found a hairline crack across a load bearing section of the chasis which at the minute to the naked eye looks tiny but could turn out to be catastrophic and has had some filler chucked on top of it but we'll see what Clinkards inspection comes back with. Distance wise I believe they're around 165-170 miles away from me. Also I'm sure many people will have PCP agreements as it's the most common way to buy cars under 5 years old but they just forgotten the terminology or name for it. Pay deposit, choose a length then pay the difference between value today and guaranteed future value at the end of that agreed term   Whole experience has scarred me and moving forward I'd be tempted to pay for a pre purchase inspection myself because these guys are bigggg traders with a lot of top end cars. I just hope they don't make any more silly offers
    • Strange final response. They say that they are still investigating but they are giving you their final response anyway. Seems like a load of nonsense. Have you got a copy of what you then sent to the ombudsman? Anyway, for the moment although would like to know – it really is all for curiosity because as you have put it into the hands of the ombudsman it's probably not worth doing anything more until you have a reply. I would suggest that when you decide to spend this kind of money in future on a used car, that you understand exactly what your rights are before you make the purchase. When you buy anything – and maybe especially used car you should realise that you aren't only paying for the car, you are also paying for a bundle of consumer obligations which are intended to bind the dealer. You are paying for a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality and remains that way for a reasonable period of time and you are paying for any defects which emerge to be addressed and repaired at the expense of the dealer. We've already pointed out that by purchasing the warranty, they have effectively persuaded you to pay for something for which you have already paid. Very decent of you not to want to cause trouble in respect of defects which manifested themselves within the first few weeks. I have no idea why. For £78,000…. This you say that they were age-related problems – that is still no reason why those defects should have been there or why the dealer should not have been responsible for them. It seems to me that you have a clear case against the dealer/the finance company. We don't have many or any PCP purchases on this forum. However, it seems to me that the finance company is probably responsible for the condition of the vehicle because effectively you have bought it from them and to that extent it should be the same as HP. With a hire purchase agreement, it is as if you bought the vehicle directly from the finance company not from the dealer and it is the finance company which bears all the consumer obligations. I think the only thing you can do is to monitor the situation. Update us when you hear from the financial ombudsman and if you need to take the matter to court then we will help you. In principle it should be straightforward – but certainly there is a risk of a serious bill for costs if you lose. I don't see you losing. Did you say somewhere that the report suggested that the vehicle was unroadworthy? Have you got the advertisement for the vehicle? Does it make claims for the vehicle which are clearly untrue? And by the way, four hours away from you is what kind of distance? Have you read our used car guide? Have you looked at the video?
    • there's one in this thread.. i wonder if its the same, they seem to be identical regardless each time we have a thread with one Vehicle Control Services Privacy Notice, Brooke Retail Car Park, HA4 0LN - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group  
  • 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

DPA Sec 7.1(c)


Glenn UK
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6391 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

Dear All

 

I have several accounts under the control of GE Money (three store cards and a loan for some furniture) all not closed. Searchng the register of data controllers it appears that GE money only have one.

 

I served a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) for the furniture account I originally knew this as 1st National.

 

I subsequently served a Second SAR for two of the store cards.

 

The third store card I have as yet not served a SAR on GE Money.

 

(I know that i could have done the lot on one SAR but i didint realise that the accounts were all GE money until after I served the 1st SAR)

 

Now the point/question.

 

SEc 7. 1 © says 'to have communicated to him in an intelligble form

 

i)the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject, and

 

ii)any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data, and

 

Now it seems to me that despite the fact that we might request data under a single account number that the Act implies that in fact the Data Controller should supply all data held.

 

Does anyone esle think Im right or am i barking?

 

Glenn

 

 


Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you're right Glenn (you're probably barking, too, after the stress & grief you seem to be getting !!) - but I doubt if any staff at the Data Controllers' offices have ever been told to make themselves familar & conversant with the DPA. (Correction - they were probably told - once, and very quietly) The only active training they probably get is how to fob punters like us off with the old story "We know what we're doing because WE'RE the professionals - not you lot."

 

Corporate arrogance - it's only when the likes of you or I actually NEED to know about the Act that it ever gets read. Still - it gives you the upper hand, as they are effectively demonstrating their ignorance of it. What do they know - they haven't needed to research their position before, have they ?

 

I belive Einstein's view was that it's not what you know or can hold in your head - it's whether you know where to find the info, and whether you know what to do with it. I think he said summat like "You can pick your friends, but you can't pick your relatives." Never did get that. As for imposing a blanket speed limit of 186,000 miles per second, I think he saw too much Star Trek. 70mph is fine by me. Barking...moi ? it's relative, innit ?

 

Kirk - out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Glenn,

I have just received a bunch of SAR statements for just ONE account, and only going back to 1999. Although I only gave them one account number on my SAR, I used the BAG template requesting ALL info held for us both. We have had several accounts, all at our current address.

They also said this: "With regard to your request for information relating to manual intervention on your account, CrapBank plc is under no statutory obligation to record this information and therefore I am unable to assist further with your request."

I am about to send them this:

" Dear [Fellow Idiot]

Thank you for finally providing some information concerning our banking history with your organisation. Unfortunately, it is woefully inadequate and falls far short of your obligations under the above Act.

I requested a COMPLETE list of transactions and charges relating to our banking history with your organisation. So far, you have provided a PARTIAL list, which pertains only to one account which we have held. There are other accounts, which we have jointly or separately held over recent years, and which we require COMPLETE records of.

We also require this information to cover the ENTIRE periods for which these accounts were held, and would remind you that there is no stipulation that your obligation under the Act extends no further back than 1999, neither is there an option under the Act to conceal information which you consider that you are not obliged to record. If it is recorded, then you must disclose it. If it is not recorded, then you must confirm that there is no record of it.

Consequently, we require FULL DISCLOSURE of ALL information held, including any record of manual intervention. If there is no record of manual intervention, then we require your clear confirmation that there are no such records of such available.

Please be aware that failure to adequately do so will be considered a contravention of the Act, and will be pursued in law by us.

Yours faithfully,

 

bill-k "

 

 

 

Does that seem OK ?

 

(yes...I'm back...sorry !! :D )

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...