Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've spoken with a number of others who have confirmed their issues MUST be from new leaks from lyca, not the october '23 leak. That the regulator is NOT on this is shameful  
    • We dont expect a minimum in donation - Anything you can offer helps us to run the site and keep it free for others in need similar to you.  The fact that you have is amazing! ❤️ thank you so much! 
    • I absolutely will, I cannot thank you all enough for always being on hand with sound advice. I couldn't have done any of this without you, genuinely.  I cannot afford to donate much right now, so please do not think the amount I have donated is in any way reflective of what I feel is right because it isn't. I don't have a million pounds to donate right now, nor will I ever most probably, but I do promise that when I am back on my feet a bit more, I will donate again x
    • Sorry - Spoke to soon...    So great news!  - They should remove it in 28 days. Hopefully it should be enough to ward off any further issues with account closure etc  What you need to do is keep this letter and use it should any further account be closed from this further point. You can actually challenge it and provide the evidence - Should give the provider course to reconsider. May even beable to take it to your old bank etc     Also ask for confirmation from MCB that they will not be placing another CIFAS marker going forward to cover all bases.    Also one more thing,  - Please consider a donation when you get a chance Glad we could have been some help  
    • There has been a development Submitted the N225 application yesterday.   MCOL now states: A Bar has been put in place?? (Take it that means cannot enforce judgement) A defence has been filed with the court This has all happened on the 34 day, so a day late the defendant's submission.??? Options???   Please note that the defendant can still reply to your claim until the court has processed your request. If the defendant’s reply is late but arrives before or even on the same day as your request, it will have priority.  
  • 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 
        • 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

SAR Request


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4421 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

There is much argument about this I recently asked the ICO for a definitive

answer to this and there is not one.

It depends on the view of the data controller as

to what is personal data, the can supply, they

may not supply it and may direct you sect 77/78 of CCA 1974.

I suggest doing both.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Thanks

I should of mentioned that this is now with a DCA, but after reading some threads it seems if you send a CCA to the DCA ( lol i think there could be a song there) they usualy write back saying they will ask the originator for it.

 

Do you think its better to send the CCA to the credit company or the DCA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always the CCA goes to the DCA, the SAR to the original creditor,

when debts are sold it is with the minimum of data so if the agreement

has not been included then they must pass the request on.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

my view is that an original agreement would be personal data as defined as ordinarily it would be a document in a relevant filing system etc with a persons name/address etc on it, ie identifiable+related. as the ico say themselves; post #193 here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?305755-Robinson-Way-\-Harwich-Farrelly-issue&p=3586658#post3586658

personal_data_flowchart_v1_with_preface001.pdf

ironically, a cca request does not now require that an actual copy of an original agreement be provided even if there is one (whereas a sar would!). a reconstitution would suffice provided it is accurate. (although it would seem unreasonable under a cca request not to send an actual copy if they have one. and they usually do if there is one. and under a sar there would not be the same effect following non compliance) but, yes one should be sent if there is one.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ICOs reply for a ''definitive'' answer was basically there is not one.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So would a SAR to a DCA only be of use to show harassment/dates/ownership/who sold to them?

Or are there any other uses?

Would I also be right in saying given the nature of DCAs they would be very economic with details in their reply?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ICOs reply for a ''definitive'' answer was basically there is not one.

 

yes, you said.

 

seems clear to me that it would be p data, following the ICO's own technical guidance/flow chart re 'personal data' linked above. (of course, if a particular original 'agreement' is not 'identifiable' eg (which is unlikely), then it would not be data as defined subject to a sar! not much odds though, as if there is one it will usually be sent at some point in either case)

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...