Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Served on 16 Feb.   On reviewing the MCOL website today for an updated, I noticed that 1) Hermes has aknowledged the claim, but not yet filed a defence, and 2) that I there was a glitch / error on the form. Essentially, it looks like I had accidentally left the "I will send detailed particulars of claim" box ticke (I thought I had unticked it), with the result that the claim section has been truncated, and some extra text has automatcially been added - in red below):   "...Claimant seeks £XXX, plus I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of..."   This is obviously not ideal. Is it better to try to amend the claim somehow, or to just submit a brief POC that a) clarifies that I am seeking £XXX plus costs (which was automatically truncated), and b) sets out my calculation of the £XXX?  
    • Hi   It amazes me how they pass the buck as they don't want to deal with a private homeowner but if the shoe was on the other foot they would be hammering down on you for breach of tenancy.   As this is council housing you need to make a Formal Complaint in writing to the Council Housing about this (as a social housing landlord they have a complaints process they have to follow). you need to exhaust their complaints process. Make sure and title your letter Formal Complaint.   From what you have posted this tree is not just a nuisance but also a Health & Safety risk:   1. The tree being overgrown is now a danger to the occupants/Guest/Visitors to your property   2. The tree has overgrown into the Council Housings Boundaries your property causing damage/endangerment to the occupants/guest/visitors.   3. As the roots of the tree are also overgrown into your property you have concerns that these may be causing/damaging to any underground pipework that may be within the boundray of the property.   4. So far the Councils actions have been to treat their Council Housing tenant as a third class citizen with a private homeowner aloud to cause endangerment/possible damage due to these overgrown trees which are encroaching on your council house property/bounderies.   You also require clarification why you were sent the Healthy Neighbourhood Information which states I have to pay £375 to make a complaint. (make sure and attach a copy of the response that states this cost)   You also require copies of the following:   1. Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Customer Service Standard (not the leaflet) 3. Health & Safety Policy (not the leaflet) 4. Public Liability Insurance Policy. (not the leaflet) 5. Clarification from you if their is any underground pipeworks running through the bounderies within the garden area (you should have full knowledge of this it being your property/plans) 6. Compensation Policy (not the leaaflet) 7. Equality & Diversity Policy (not the leaflet)   When you get the above policies sit with a pen/pencil/highlighter and take you time reading them and just think to yourself 'DID THEY DO THAT' if not mark it then leave it for a while then do the same again this way you can basically throw/write back stating the haven't followed x policy with which part of that policy and your reason. (you are building evidence to use against them using their own policies. I would also like to refer you to The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1976: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/57/part/I/crossheading/dangerous-trees-and-excavations     You need to remember yes it is the Council but the Council Housing is a separate entity and is a Registered Social Landlord (RSL)   Is the Council Housing classed as a registered Charity? (what is their registration number whether charity or RSL?)   Also have a wee look at this CAG link:     
    • @rocky_sharma   Fame at last!!   Dunno how much help it would be in your case, but I could try digging out the txt of my defence if you think it might be relevant to your defence. We might hafta do this via PM, then e-mail though if ya wanna go down that route.   Good luck with yours anyway mate.
    • The car finance firm, owned by Provident Financial, voluntarily handed the money to all 5,933 customers potentially affected by the breaches, which occurred between April 1, 2014 and October 4, 2017. It was also fined £2.77m by the Financial Conduct Authority for the way it behaved. The FCA said Moneybarn's actions meant more than 1,400 customers, many of whom were vulnerable, defaulted on their loans after entering into 'unsustainable short-term repayment plans'. This meant that they were punished with extra fees and charges, which many could not afford. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-8013573/Moneybarn-pays-30m-customers-failing-treat-fairly.html   dx  
  • Our picks

axtelle

Section 35 of the DPA 1998 Act

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1489 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Group,

 

I’m seeking help / advice on section 35 of the DPA 1998 Act:

 

35. Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.

(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

 

Could someone please advise if sub-section 1 above could be applied as follows ?

 

If a creditor does not respond to an information request made under section 77-79 of the CCA 1974 Act then a SAR could be made for the information and if they continue to withhold the information then a court order could be sought to enforce the SAR which the creditor must comply with or else confirm they do not have the information ?

 

I hope this makes sense – any help / guidance would be appreciated.

 

Many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that you can apply to the Court to force the data controller to provide the requested information. What seems to be the issue?


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that you can apply to the Court to force the data controller to provide the requested information. What seems to be the issue?

 

 

You may also wish to view the PDF from the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) which can be found here >> https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1065/subject-access-code-of-practice.pdf

 

 

Try sections s7- page 30 / s9- page 41 / and s11- page 55 of the PDF...

 

 

s7 If other person named

s9 Could be company reasons

s11 Obtaining a Court order to release the information

 

 

So you will need to read s11 for more information ok?

 

 

Further information here >> https://ico.org.uk//for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Extelle.

 

I am afraid it does not work like that.

A request for a true copy under section 77-79 of the act are entirely different to a subject access request made under section 7 of the DPA.

 

The first is in relation to a true copy of the agreement and other associated documents, the later is in regards to personal data relating to the data subject.

 

The sanction for not supplying a true copy is that any agreement is unenforceable until a compliant copy is supplied.

 

In the case of a breach of section 7 , complaint would be made to the ICO who would investigate and may or may not pursue on your behalf.

The request under section 7 is for data pertaining to the data subject and not far a contract.

It may be that they will supply an agreement under section 7 also it is not unknown that they do not.

 

A great deal can be accomplished by adjusting the way the request is phrased as they have no duty to supply an agreement, the applicant should always refer to personal data.

 

In any case this is not applicable under section 35 which relates to a court case which requires information within proceedings in order to reach a decision regarding another matter.

 

You are better stating wht the problem is and perhaps we will be bale to help.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...