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

Lowell Portfolio Data Protection breach


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3897 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

I have been communicating with Lowell Portfolio regarding them processing my data incorrectly.

 

A SAR was submitted and then a complaint was lodged with the Information Commissioner

as I believed the SAR had not been dealt with in time.

 

The SAR was sent to them at the beginning of April,

requesting they notify me of a charge,

however after the expiration of 40 days I sent in a £10 postal order.

 

During this period Lowell wrote to me confirming they had rectified the incorrect entry

and offered me £250 compensation.

 

As the complaint was still being investigated by the ICO,

I declined the offer of compensation until I received the adjudication from the ICO.

 

I have now received a response from the ICO confirming that

"on the basis of all of the information provided by you and Lowell Portfolio Ltd,

we have decided that it is unlikely that Lowell Portfolio Ltd

has complied with the requirements of the DPA in this case".

 

The ICO have indicated that they believe the SAR was dealt with as in their opinion

"Lowell Portfolio Ltd have explained that on 8 April 2013 they received a letter from you dated 2 April 2013

in which you stated you were making a subject access request under the provisions of the DPA.

 

In this letter you also asked Lowell Portfolio Ltd to inform you if there was a fee that should accompany your request.

 

However, before Lowell Portfolio Ltd could respond and make you aware of the required fee to comply with this request

they received your further letter dated 14 May 2013 which included the requisite £10.00 fee".

 

Lowell sent the information on the 24th June, bang on the 40 days.

 

Now I may be biased, but I can't help feeling aggrieved at the ICO adjudication in respect of the SAR compliance,

especially as Lowell had my address, email address and mobile telephone number

and made no attempt to contact me to advise of the fee

and the ICO think that over a month is a sufficient time for them not to reply!!!

 

A situation I will have to deal with I suppose, but leads me to the point of my question.

 

As Lowell have breached the 4th and 6th principle, what legal recourse do I have?

 

Unfortunately I am not in the financial position to employ a solicitor at this stage.

 

I understand that I can lodge a claim in the County Court but my dilemma is the level of compensation I should be seeking.

 

I don't want to be greedy, however I don't want the company to get away with it either.

 

Suffice to say the ICO have indicated that they won't be taking any further action against Lowell at this time.

 

Any help/advice/guidance will be greatly received.

Edited by Andyorch
Paragraphs added
Link to post
Share on other sites

take it!

 

I cant see they have actually done wrong

the SAR starts ticking from when you paid the fee.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

take it!

 

I cant see they have actually done wrong

the SAR starts ticking from when you paid the fee.

 

dx

 

Thanks for reply dx,

 

just to clarify as my post probably waffles on,

 

my issue is not with the SAR but with how much I should be looking at for the DPA breaches in connection with processing incorrect data,

for in excess of a year and taking around six months to correct it when notified.

 

The ICO have confirmed the breaches

 

my first step is to negotiate with the company and see what they say.

 

...was just looking at a ball park figure

 

I know when to snap their hand off,

 

hold out for more or go through the courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

right it did waffle....

 

so what was the data breech and did it effect any credit int rates or cause refusal?

 

we need to know what they did wrong

and over that time

what impact it had on your finances

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...