Hillards v JD WIlliams

[hillards]

I think this is going to be an interesting one. Over the years my wife has had various accounts with mail order catalogues and we recently did a SAR for Ambrose Wilson. JD Williams replied today to say they can confirm "...there has never been any payment protection insurance on your account...". It goes on to say they are sorting out the accountn info.

 

The SAR said, as we always do, that she wanted details of ANY account she had had with their company. The Ambrose Wilson account was paid off in 2003 but I know she had Simply Be after that, and that one ended up with charges she disagreed with.

 

I can remember having issues with (un)Reliable Collections.

[hillards]

That was a bit of a let-down - loads of sections to the SAR, all filled by a sheet declaring 'No Details Available'

 

However, they have included a 2-part CCA for the wife to fill in and return as they note they didn't have one on file !

 

They have also failed to provide what the SAR requested - they have looked ONLY at one sample account they were given details of, not ALL accounts my wife may have held at any time, and we know there were others. Failed SAR letter to send, we asked for copies of everything they had on any account.

[hillards]

So we wrote to them again and said they had not supplied anything on the wife's other account for Simply Be, JDW have written back to say they have supplied everything they had on record...?

 

Do they really 'lose' accounts, or are they aware that there were charges and they are side-stepping on purpose ?

 

Another letter will be sent to tell them to look again. If they still come back empty handed then I guess a complaint to the data registrars office would be needed. Although we cannot supply an account number or dates between which the account operated, we know she had this account as we had lots of hassle with (un)reliable collections about it.

[havinastella]

Are the accounts still active?

[hillards]

Are the accounts still active?

No, we would have had the account number and payment details if it had been. They responded to the SAR with detailes of an Ambrose Wilson account we had given them the account number for, but wife also had Simply Be after that one was paid off. Think that would have been 6-7 years at least since she last used that account as we realised what a price hike they had applied to the items they sold.

[havinastella]

Ahhhhh. The money laundering regs call for paperwork to be kept for 6 yrs after closing the account.

 

We all know they have your paperwork, but it would be impossible for you to get it as they will hide behind the 6yrs rule.

[hillards]

Ahhhhh. The money laundering regs call for paperwork to be kept for 6 yrs after closing the account.

 

We all know they have your paperwork, but it would be impossible for you to get it as they will hide behind the 6yrs rule.

 

But they've happily sent info on the older account ? That was paid off and closed in 2003. It's a much newer account they say they are unable to trace... I have a feeling it went into default, probably about 2006-7-ish.

[ericsbrother]

claim it back anyway and let them prove that it wasnt levied. If you believe that it may be difficult hand the job over to one of these otherweise untrustworthy carpetbaggers that advertise their services in that field.

[hillards]

claim it back anyway and let them prove that it wasnt levied. If you believe that it may be difficult hand the job over to one of these otherweise untrustworthy carpetbaggers that advertise their services in that field.

How can you claim back an unknown quantity? Without the account details and accurate information on what charges were made the case would not stand a chance in court, which would be the next step when they turn down such a claim. A claim for refund of charges needs to be reasonably accurate, otherwise anyone could send in a claim and take them to court, even if they had never had an account. I can't see that working somehow.

[hillards]

JD Williams have replied to our letter telling them they had not complied with the SAR.

 

They say they have looked again but can not find any other account... ? They say if we can send they our statements - which is why we did the SRA of course, we wanted details of the account to reclaim charges and/or any type of PPI.

 

Without any details of the account we can't really push this with the ICO, they'll get no further than we did - http://ico.org.uk/concerns/getting - but I'll give them a call and ask, just to make sure.