Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can agree to differ.   My concern is only that the letter to the OP from Aviva has clearly been sent without knowledge of any SARs made and appears to be suggesting that the CEO wants to take an interest (Ha!) in whatever substantive complaint they think the OP sent them on 9 April.   I would not want to encourage Aviva any further to get distracted from dealing with my substantive complaint by starting off my response to them by referring to SARs which the recipient in all probability will have no knowledge of.     I think the emphasis of the response ought to be on the CEO acquainting herself with the facts of the case (which their letter appears to suggest she wants to do) and for her to agree to cease pursuing the OP for what is an entirely spurious debt, rather than reminding Aviva that they are legally obliged to respond to SARs.  By all means include a reference to the SARs at the end of the letter (and complain about how they have handled them to date), but they should not, in my view, be the opening focus of the response.   At the end of the day, the OP isn't really bothered about whether Aviva respond to an SAR or not, she simply wants them off her back.   But as I say, we can agree to differ.   (And I still don't understand what is happening here.  What the OP ideally wants now is for the CEO to take an interest (Ha! again... ) in the case, look into it and come to the right decision from the OP's point of view - but without realising that the FOS has already ruled in Aviva's favour.  It's crazy).   And the OP must remember to meet the FOS extended rejection deadline whatever else happens.    
    • I think the starting point is that Aviva have no idea what they're doing. They can't tell their arse from their elbow. I don't see anything wrong with constantly reminding them of the fact that they have an SAR to deal with and that so far they have demonstrated unlawful and unobstructed behaviour. The more that it is said to them – the more unfair their behaviour will be if they don't deal with it. I think the letter that has been sent by Aviva is poly just a standard piece of rubbish. The fact that they are treating it as a formal complaint and requiring eight weeks to deal with it shows that it is simply an procedure and has nothing to do with any personal interest or attention whatsoever.  
    • Ok, so pushing their luck procedurally again then as the hearing is Wednesday PM and no agreement to add from me.   what is your recommendation to deal with this please Andy?
    • Ah - OK!  There was no explanation in #207 who that message was from - I thought BF was referencing something you had previously sent to Aviva.   I still don't understand why Aviva are still corresponding with you about a complaint where the Ombudsman has already made a final report?   They are obviously even more incompetent than your experiences already tend to suggest.   (I think something has gone seriously wrong here at Aviva and/or the FOS.  I can't believe Aviva even contemplated pursuing you in relation to the alleged debt, and I'm even more incredulous that the FOS did not uphold your complaint.  I think you'll end up making more complaints to both of them!)   Could I perhaps suggest tweaking the proposed response to Aviva?   What Aviva have sent to the OP today is clearly not connected to any SAR that has been made.  So rather than having several opening paragraphs referring to the SARs and their obligation to respond to them, might it be better for the main part of the proposed response to start with the para that begins: "If Amanda wants to demonstrate her personal interest etc etc... " and continue from there?   By all means mention the SARs at the end of the response, but by beginning with them rather than beginning with the substantive complaint (which is why did they let Z take out insurance in the first place and why are they now pursuing the OP) I'd be concerned that the response is detracting from the fundamental matter the OP wants addressing (which is not a response to any SAR).
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2601 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,


I am a bit of a newbie and I am trying to clean up some old debts that are haunting me. The usual story really, serious illness, made redundant on medical ground in 2010, I won't bore you or wait for the violins to come out.

So here is the debt - I owe £853 to a Marks and Spencer credit card which I think I took out in 2004. I raised a SAR last year as I wanted to check for PPI. They sent me back some weird computer print outs that were not very clear but I could decipher enough to see that there was no PPI on it. That was all they sent me, there was no credit agreement (but I didn't specifically ask for one). Should I raise another SAR and ask for a copy of the credit agreement? The account has been in default since February 2011 and a default notice was issued in 2011. I currently have an arrangement to pay them £5 pcm. So my question is, what can I do about this debt? What would you do? All suggestions welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...