Ifonic Claims Ltd Swansea - 86yrs old apparently £990 out of pocket!

[Cliff Stanford]

@Cliff: I turst this will be a full refund? As really it shouldn't of been taken in the first place.

Yes it should have been charged in the first place. It was taken in accordance with our terms of business.

 

Also going forward Cliff, I would like to ask that you make sure that people are of sound mind before pursuing with any claim.

We are not doctors. We do what we can within the guidelines on dementia issued by the Ministry of Justice.

 

All this could of been avoided had you of dealt with me in a proper manner in the first place.

I don't need to deal with you; you are not a customer. You are someone who is prepared to defame our company and its officers whilst hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. As far as I am concerned, we have dealt with your parents-in-law in a totally reasonable manner and we will be providing all information as may be required to the MoJ.

[citizenB]

It wasn't automatically visible, but when you looked closely your edit was transparent. All sorted now.

 

I sound like I know what I am talking about with the edits n stuff, but truly I don't. I am instructed by those who do indeed know what they are talking about

 

Thank you that is very kind of you. I will let CAG Admin know to be aware so they can send you a thank you note.

[CerberusSco]

Oh dear Cliff, a bit touchy are we? I haven't defamed your company or yourself, regardless of what you think. I can call on a number of people that were party to this and will happily back me up in any court of law. I merely pointed out that your company had apparently taken money wrongly from my vulnerable in laws. Also, you won't be dealing with them directly, you'll be dealing with me. As of tomorrow I will be given authority to deal with this on their behalf.

 

Finally, it shouldn't of been charged as it's against the guidelines as set by your beloved Ministry of Justice.

[citizenB]

Mr Stanford, could you please confirm that you record all calls with your potential clients ? And for what period of time do you retain these recordings.

[Cliff Stanford]

Mr Stanford, could you please confirm that you record all calls with your potential clients ? And for what period of time do you retain these recordings.

Yes, confirmed. All calls into and out of our call centre are recorded, as well as customer service calls. The only calls that may not be recorded are calls on lines not directly related to PPI.

 

We retain call recordings at least six months. In practice, I'm not sure we've ever deleted a call.

[citizenB]

Thank you for your swift response.

[CerberusSco]

Just wondering if a SAR would help to see exactly what was said during that call?

[Cliff Stanford]

Just wondering if a SAR would help to see exactly what was said during that call?

I have absolutely no idea whether a SAR covers recordings that have not been transcribed. I'd have to take advice. Also, as SARs are usually responded to on paper, I'm not sure how we would provide the information.

[CerberusSco]

Well I'm pretty sure that a Subject Access Request will cover recordings of calls. I'm fairly sure that you're obliged to give me a copy of the recording and not a transcript.

 

If Ifonics have got copies of the reocrdings then I am are entitled under the Data Protection Act to be provided with them and this covers recorded information in any format (including written, computer or even recorded).

 

Are you calls recorded on drives or DVD's Cliff?

Edited May 16, 2013 by CerberusSco

[citizenB]

I have absolutely no idea whether a SAR covers recordings that have not been transcribed. I'd have to take advice. Also, as SARs are usually responded to on paper, I'm not sure how we would provide the information.

 

http://www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/PERSONAL_DATA_FLOWCHART_V1_WITH_PREFACE001.ashx

 

It is my understanding, if an individual can be identified by the call, then that is covered by the DPA and yes you will almost certainly be holding it in an identifiable filing system.

[citizenB]

Mr Stanford I am responding to some of the questions you have replied to.. but in another scenario.

 

This is a real life situation as happened to one of our members.

 

 

 

The banks and FOS confirm that using a CMC is totally unnecessary.

 

FOS and banks advise that NO preferential treatment is given to CMC's

 

The only difference is that a CMC will charge a hefty fee.

 

We have a member who wrote for a SAR (cost£10). Put in a claim and got an offer of £30K first hit.

 

Checked figs and accepted.

 

So 1 x SAR for £10, a claim letter, generously £1, and an acceptance letter, again generously £1. Let's say time taken £100. Total cost £112.

To have instructed your company..

 

At 22% plus VAT that would have cost £7,920 (plus the £99" verification fee") which totals to £8,019 to have your company deal with that claim.

 

That is nearly 27% of the refund for just a SAR, filling in a questionnaire (30 minutes maybe?), typing a letter (5 minutes maybe?) and accepting (5 minute letter maybe?)

 

 

 

Is that value for money?

I think not

 

I am sure you can understand in the situation above, it would have been very wrong of us to have directed the member to a CMC. The Bank that was involved in this claim are not a particularly easy company to deal with. But faced with a well constructed complaint form based on facts from the Subject Access request, they had no choice. Even a DIYer could do it.. for free !!

 

 

[dx100uk]

many sar's are done on cd/dvd including the actual unedited call recordings.

 

dx

[BazzaS]

Yes, confirmed. All calls into and out of our call centre are recorded, as well as customer service calls. The only calls that may not be recorded are calls on lines not directly related to PPI.

 

We retain call recordings at least six months. In practice, I'm not sure we've ever deleted a call.

 

Has your Data Controller decided on a data retention period? (given that you don't believe you've ever deleted a call recording).

 

Is it that you have a retention period for call recordings, that hasn't yet been reached? Or that your retention period is "indefinate"?

 

"Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes."

 

Would you have any reason to retain call recordings past (say) 10 years?

 

Edited to add : likely they will have such a policy, given this is a firm whose staff info page suggests one of their senior staff is the Cliff Stanford who set up Demon Internet

 

http://ifonic.com/about-us/personnel/

 

One can only hope the firm also has a policy on mirroring of e-mails?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4251264.stm

 

Did you appeal, and if so, was it successful?

 

Cliff : you were an icon to me.

I was a fairly early sign up to Demon, who were my main ISP for 10+ years, and its only recently that I've stopped using Turnpike to collect my (Demon hosted) e-mail,

and only then as I've moved to a Mac.

 

Just out of nostalgia : Demon was a firm who offered dial-up access for £10+ VAT a month :

who (when I joined, 1996), offered a variety of 0xxx local access numbers [which would be 01xxxx these days!]

 

They were (one of?) the earliest firm / firms to then offer 0845 dial-up (including the 'COLT ROMPS' as I recall).

 

The firm was innovative, and attractive to the budding geek who couldn't afford the more expensive alternatives.

 

I fear that your recent postings don't instill in me the confidence and admiration for innovation for your current company that I felt towards Demon :

who were innovators & led their market rather than 'we'll hold ourselves to the common standard, no more, no less'

Edited May 17, 2013 by BazzaS

[dazza12]

To the OP - I would strongly suggest putting in a full SAR asking for absolutely everything. Every scrap of information relating to your father in law, every call, every letter and communication. Although it will cost £10, the satisfaction of exposing their wrongdoing will be worth it. And think of the admin it will involve - someone within their company will have to take time away from their advance fee fraud operation to comply in order to avoid a heavy fine.

 

Having a relative with similar health problems I'm sure that anyone who called him would be aware that the person on the phone was vulnerable. However, CMCs aren't at all bothered about that, it just means it's easier to extract money out of them. However, they weren't expecting you to pick up on this and I'm sure Cliff will rue the day he crossed you (and your friends on here).

 

Despite the spin Cliff is putting on this, his company has acted [EDIT]. If he's not happy about me saying this, he can come after me if he wants. I'm up for a good fight, [EDIT]. tend to back down when I take them on.

 

He claims that they want to work within the MoJ rules about advance fees, but chooses not to. He blames the competition. Well, several of their competitors seem to operate without conning people out of nearly £1000 BEFORE a contract is signed. Complete lies from this lowlife, pretending he's acting honourably.

 

Not only has the company broke the DPA on this thread by naming you, but I'm sure further laws have been broken by not treating a vulnerable person correctly. I'd take this all the way. Complain to the ICO, provide as much information as you can to back up the case with Action Fraud, write to your MP, Trading Standards in the area this company operates and to as many newspapers as you can - they love to hear stories like this.

[BazzaS]

 

Despite the spin Cliff is putting on this, his company has acted . If he's not happy about me saying this, he can come after me if he wants. I'm up for a good fight, tend to back down when I take them on.

 

Be careful what you wish for. Godfrey v Demon Internet was a landmark case re: Internet libel law.

I've edited those phrases out of this reply as I'm not sure I could justify those phrases if challenged, so I not happy to use them.

 

Edited to add : they've now been edited out of the OP too : I don't know if this was by the OP or by the site team : since Godfrey v. Demon Internet Service involved the liability of a 3rd party (in that case the ISP) for material held on their server(s) - I could see how the site team might take an interest!

Edited May 17, 2013 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

Duplicate deleted

[CerberusSco]

SAR constructed, printed off & ready to be sent by recorded delivery. Also, sending a letter of authorisation allowing me to deal with matters.

 

With regards to the OP that's been edited, this hasn't been done by me.

 

In terms of Cliff wanting to send me a service of writ for defamation, then he's free to do what he wants to me. As long as he & his company leave my in laws alone, then I'm a happy chappy.

[dx100uk]

there were already and have been since post 64, various edits by various siteteam done to protect CAG .

 

gentlemen

 

watch your P's & Q's.

 

dx

[dazza12]

Sorry guys - the way this company was treating a vulnerable person got my blood boiling. I'll be careful to watch what I post on here in future.

[CerberusSco]

Just to double check, I can leave the SAR unsigned as long as it has my father in laws name, address, d/o/b & reference number to identify or distinguish him?

 

Shame Cliff isn't about, I'd love to know the name of his data controller. I tried calling, but they closed at 3:15pm

[dx100uk]

it will need to be signed by your father

 

dx

[CerberusSco]

Seems they are getting poor reviews everywhere

 

I also noticed that since creating the thread here, that Ifonic Claims Ltd has risen to the very top of the Google search.

[ims21]

I wonder if they are included in this

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391658-Nuisance-calls-from-claims-firms-under-scrutiny

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391645-Whoooooo-what-a-result

 

Another DIY success story where for 2 stamps and a little time, the OP received a very handsome result.

[CerberusSco]

That's the SAR received and signed for. Just to clarify they have 40 days from today to action this, maybe allow 2 more days on top of the 40 days to allow room for manoeuvre?

 

Thanks.