Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

How reliable and independent is the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4215 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

Sometime ago I complained to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) when Vodafone refused to remove the unwarranted default from my credit file. I proved that there was no default but a dispute; I also proved that no default notice was received by me.

 

Vodafone told ICO that it sent default notice to my previous address.

 

Vodafone confirmed that I communicated my new address before it sent its claimed default notice to a previous address, and of course before it filed the unwarranted default with credit referencing agencies (I proved all that; Vodafone wouldn’t have admitted to it).

 

Vodafone eventually told ICO it was an 'administrative error' (on its various databases that were not 'synced'). Would anyone believe that Vodafone would not have updated or synced their various databases for over 2 years that the default had been filed?

 

Information Commissioner' Office ruled that Vodafone did not comply with the forth principle that requires customer personal details to be accurate and where necessary kept up to date.

 

Despite having been refused credit as a result of the default on my file, proving that the matter was a dispute, and proving that no notice was received by me, ICO did not ask Vodafone to remove the default.

 

Any company that is found to have not complied with the forth principle would have processed customer personal data in way that caused substantial damage or distress to the customer. In my case I have been refused credit which I would not have been refused had Vodafone not filed unwarranted default which I was not aware of.

 

Any excuse of 'administrative error' for a bogus default notice sent to a previous address is untenable. The fact remains that I did not receive any default notice because there was no default.

 

Information Commissioner's Office did not consider the first principle of data protection that requires personal data to be processed in a fair, lawful and transparent manner. ICO overlooked Vodafone's failure to comply with first principle of data protection (i.e. fairness, lawful and transparency), and refuse to honour my objection to processing my personal data (i.e. the default) with credit referencing agencies, which is causing me damage and distress.

 

It doesn't matter to the ICO if the matter was a dispute or a default; It doesnt matter to the ICO if I did not receive a default notice.

 

Vodafone also wrote to me saying, 'Vodafone have now amended your account and no further correspondence will be sent to your previous address'.

 

Did I complain to the ICO that any correspondence was sent to my previous address? Did I complain that I received any correspondence in my previous address? Obviously I did not. Can an unlawful default in an invalid address (previous address) at the time of filing such an unlawful default be updated (or be 'amended' as ICO and Vodafone put it) and be brought into a current address?

 

In fact it appeared to me that Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) covers for Vodafone as many things didn't look right about how the ICO dealt with my complaint.

 

I keep all that didn’t look right for my fight if Vodafone and Information Commissioner's office didn't do the right thing as soon as possible.

 

Anyone with similar experience?

Edited by LovelyMan
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many comments about the ICO being toothless.

 

If you have a judgement from the ICO then you might want to write to vodaphone with a copy of the judgement and ask them how they are going to correct this and compensate you.

 

They have been found to have registered a default due to their errors causing documents to be sent to the wrong address.

Did you have any credit applications turned down because of this?

 

I would ask for the removal of the defaults and compensation for the libel and any lost credit

Link to post
Share on other sites

2Grumpy, thanks.

 

Can anyone please direct me to the template/example letter that I can use in drafting my letter. I have come across some template letters on this site before. Thanks in advance.

Edited by LovelyMan
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could try something like ...

Dear Sir I attach a copy of the Information Commissioner's determination that Vodaphone has processed my personal data unfairly.

 

By failing to ensure that the address held in its IT system was accurate, despite being informed of the correct address, Vodaphone sent communications to the wrong address and because I did not receive your final bill and associated correspondence, registered a default against my record at a Credit Reference Agency. Your actions have caused me to incur a number of losses entirely because of your negligent actions:

 

Higher interest rate on credit - £xxx

Loss of purchase of xxx - £xxxxx

 

Your publishing untrue information about me at the Credit Reference agency is also libelous, for which I would be entitled to claim damages for, probably in the amount of £7,000.

 

I now require:

Payment of the amount of £xxxxxxx to cover these losses and damages

 

Yours faithfully

But before sending, post up what affect this has had on you so that we can suggest what you might claim for
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again LovelyMan,

 

Whilst I'm unable to guarantee that our position will change I'm happy to get your case looked into further.

 

To enable me to do this could you email me with the relevant details via the Contact us form here quoting the code WRT135 - CAG Forum in the subject line?

 

Once sent you'll receive an automated reply with a reference number. To ensure that it reaches me could you update the thread with this and I'll get back to you as soon as I can?

 

Thanks,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I have provided my MP with a copy of my complaint letter to the Information Commissioner's Office. My complaint clearly states that,

 

'There was no default on my part', and 'Because there was no default, default notice was not communicated to me'.

 

The fact of the matter was that for 3 months Vodafone could not provide me service (3G Mobile broadband) when I moved to a new home (current address). After much frustrations Vodafone admitted that its signal in my current postcode is variable hence network cannot be guaranteed. I informed Vodafone that if unacceptable signal and poor network is responsible for lack of service delivey there is a need to end the contract, quoting Vodafone's terms and conditions of contract. Vodafone insisted that I pay early termination fee of future 18 months (out of 24 months contract) before it can end the contract. I told Vodafone it is unreasonable to ask me to pay for a service that it confirmed it would not be able to provide (for the 18 months).

 

Six months later, Vodafone filed a default against previous address. Credit reference agencies refused to investigate and continued to report the default.

 

I progressed my complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office.

 

After months of frustrations in the hand of the ICO, and I did not give up, Vodafone had to claim that a default notice was sent to previous address (which it lied to be the main address) and that another letter was sent to the billing address (current address) to inform a change of billing address. My address has never been differentiated into main and billing. No doubt no default notice would have been sent to previous address. It was simply a malicious act. Vodafone would need to bring to court (if the matter gets to the court) the letter it claimed it sent to the current address with which it advised a change of 'billing address'.

 

The Information Commissioner's Office also chose to misrepresent mycomplaint as, 'You were concerned that your default notice was sent to your previous address'. By that the ICO allowed Vodafone to (recently) move the default (of 2 years) from previous address to current address in the name of fourth data protection principle i.e. personal data must be accurate and kept up to date when necessary.

 

How could a default notice I was not be aware of be my concern? It was when I was refused a credit I should have been granted that I applied for a credit report and found out that Vodafone filed a default against my previous address (6 months after Vodafone acknowledge my current address and was unable to render service in my current address).

 

When a junior, a senior and the manager at ICO have frustrated me enough, I involved my MP. The head of ICO had no shame in writing to the MP that, 'as I understand it, he is concerned that his default notice was sent to previous address'. The head however advised that I should take Vodafone to court to get what I deserve. What a shame?

 

This is clearly a case in which the ICO aided, abetted and perverted the cause of justice and frustrated me.

 

Some people opined that ‘ICO and FOS are under-resourced and toothless’.

 

Is it the case that ICO is under-resourced and therefore takes side with Vodafone and the likes (the sponsors) and work against the tax payers?

Edited by LovelyMan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the only way out is to get advice about taking vodaphone to court to address this - but make sure that you have a good chance of fixing it first. It's a shame that the ICO can't or won't.

 

You would think that even the ICO would suggest that their failure to contact you was down to their failure to keep accurate information - they made them correct the date, that isn't much of a stretch.

 

Did you do a SAR to vodaphone and did it show them sending letters? If so, then maybe a complaint to vodaphone followed by another complaint (or an appeal to) the ICO would be in order - voda having failed to contact you due to their admitted data accuracy failures, that the default should be removed

Link to post
Share on other sites

@2Grumpy

 

What date did you say ICO made Vodafone to correct?

 

Why is there a need for SAR disclosure from Vodafone? There is no lack of written evidence from Vodafone.

 

Why is there a need (now) to complain to Vodafone and appeal (again) to ICO when all probable steps have been exhausted?

 

Where in my post did you infer that Vodafone admit any data accuracy failure? Does this look like data accuracy failure or a malicious act condoned and aided by ICO that is not fit for purpose?

 

Why dont you simply advise me of the advantage of fixing the default through the backdoor here rather than going to court? We all quite know that backdoor exist to help Vodafone avoid the court, which is not a bad thing in entirety..... at least the backdoor created jobs here.

Edited by LovelyMan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LovelyMan,

 

Thanks for returning to your thread with an update.

 

My offer of assistance remains open to you and if you'd like me to look into matters further could you email me as per the contact details provided in post 5?

 

As stated previously I can't guarantee that our position will change but I'm happy to investigate your concerns further.

 

Kind regards,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...