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

New General Data Protection Regulations 2018


johnjordan
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2288 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've just been glancing through a worksheet provided by my local council on the new GDPR rules. One of the guidance notes states that:

"You must tell people in a concise, easy to understand way how you use their data."

 

It also states that "consent" for your data to be used in different ways must be freely given, pre-ticked boxes will not be sufficient.

i.e. a seperate consent is needed for each type of use the data is intended to be used.

 

So...where the DVLA is concerned I am quite happy to give my consent for a record to be kept of when my car is taxed, insured and MOT'd. However I do not give my consent for any personal details, such as registered keeper, to be given to any third party.

 

I wonder how this would stand up when the new regs become law on 25th May 2018?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong with this one however I think that with the DVLA being a Gov department, i think there are certain exceptions to DPA / GDPR

If I am then please tell me

 

But for what it is worth - Very interesting info i found...

 

Regulation 27 of Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows vehicle keeper details to be disclosed to third parties who can demonstrate that they have a reasonable cause to receive it.

This Regulation provides a legal gateway for the release of information and is not based on the consent of the data subject.

 

So they are saying RVR 2002 overrides GDPR and DPA

Link to post
Share on other sites

They wouldn't care because they make millions from selling datas to parking cowboys.

Even if 10% of affected motorists took them to court and won compensation they would still be on a winner.

Licence to print money!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They wouldn't care because they make millions from selling datas to parking cowboys.

Even if 10% of affected motorists took them to court and won compensation they would still be on a winner.

Licence to print money!

 

It's not the compensation that would be the problem it is the fine, which will be the greater of £17million or 4% of global annual turnover.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the compensation that would be the problem it is the fine, which will be the greater of £17million or 4% of global annual turnover.

 

Well thats Parkingeye done if they get hit...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong with this one however I think that with the DVLA being a Gov department, i think there are certain exceptions to DPA / GDPR

If I am then please tell me

 

But for what it is worth - Very interesting info i found...

 

 

 

So they are saying RVR 2002 overrides GDPR and DPA

what dvla said not long ago (see the attachments there)

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/compliance_with_the_data_protect_3

 

imo, those Regs should at least be reconsidered in consideration of the impending new legislation re. time will tell what they come up with.

 

some general info

https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr

Link to post
Share on other sites

GDPR has the potential to royally screw DVLA and the Parking Cowboys when they wrongfully go after Keeper Details for sure in breach of KADOE.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

if no-one paid the parking cowboys a penny for 2 months they wouild suffer such cashflow problems they would not be able to pay the DVLA and the they wouldnt be able to get the details to send out the next lot of spurious demands. No=one would go to court because the bandits coudnt afford the fees let alone the costs of losing. I'm sure that Will and John will lend them all a few million to tide them over whilst they front the legal fees and still not commit Champerty and Maintenance

People are their own worst enemies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something I didn't know. Are all PPC's members?

 

>

 

Well.... The short answer is no.

 

The long answer is that to get the keeper information electronically (KADOE) they have to be members of one of the two trade associations. But non members can still apply for keeper details using the V888/2 form. Members will definitely get the requested information (even if the grounds for requesting it are dubious at best), non members are just as likely to get the information.

 

Which kind of makes a mockery of the whole system in the first place.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...