Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • One of the things that we will need to discover through a statutory subject access request is how they verified the identity of this mystery person. Presumably that person couldn't actually give any ID so does that mean that the inspectors simply took her word for it? It will be useful to know the answers to these questions because all of these companies have duties to process your personal data accurately. If they failed to do that then they could be liable to you for the distress caused as well as any other damage. I'm just trying to envisage a scenario where a ticket inspector stops a young woman who then says that she's been travelling without a ticket. The inspector asks her her name and address and she gives the false name and address. The inspector then asks her to verify this by identification. The woman then says that she is not carrying anything with her. What happens at that point? How does it work? Does the inspector then have to take your word for it and warn her that she will be contacted with a possible sanction? If that's as far as it goes, then it seems a bit ridiculous to me that you stop somebody for travelling without a ticket – evident dishonesty. Then they give the controller their name and address which can't be verified and so the controller has to accept that and on that basis a procedure is started against the named person on the basis that the contact details which were given at the time must be true – even though that person has already demonstrated their dishonesty by travelling without a ticket. Or, are we going to find – if there is a statutory disclosure, that this person is travelling around with some documentation which identifies her as you, your husband or one of your two daughters? Which of course would be very much more serious. This is why we want a list of the rail companies – as much information as possible so that we can start forcing them to disclose information about how this all occurred. I will also be interested in sending an SAR to action fraud to see what they have done with your allegation which you made some time ago and about which you never heard anything further.
    • Evening all,   Right, just spoke to my SIL at length.....................   In response to Andy's question regarding T's & C's, that answer remains the same. The staff MORE cards and general public's cards both had the same T's & C's.   As for when he started the unofficial swiping practice, his best guesstimate is around September 2015.   Another development during our conversation, I asked him if he ever asked customers for their permission to swipe his card to claim their unclaimed points. He said he never actually asked but some regulars would forget their cards sometimes and tell him to take the points. Also, Stonegate would sometimes have promotions like half price food and drinks etc. However to claim the offer you had to have a MORE card. Again, if regulars had forgotten their MORE card he would use his for them to get the offers. I know this doesn't help his cause but in case its relevant I thought I'd offer it up.   I have impressed upon him the urgency of this now so if any more info is required just ask and I will get it.   Cheers
    • The company is called Robinson Way, it was a Barclaycard credit card.   I  moved about 12 months after Barclaycard stopped replying to my letters (re the charges, 2013) - so I did not tell them about my moving, but at the time of the original debt I was living back with my folks; so this most recent letter was sent to there, and my folks forwarded it to me - and likewise, if they had sent me anything in the interim it would have been forwarded to me.
    • I do agree with you.How sad I am right now . I wish I could go back. Mg7  
    • No way I will be doing this again. The way I’m feeling now. stealing doesn’t pay what I’m going through right now , it’s really hard. I wish I could have learned the first time. thank you for your help.   mg7  
  • Our picks

Polish pair punished for operating fake online pharmacy


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 953 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

Polish pair punished for operating fake online pharmacy

 

A couple from Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, were sentenced at Northampton Crown Court yesterday for possession with intent to supply unlicensed medicinal products and Class C controlled drugs in the UK.

 

Following a guilty plea, Mr Jakub Woźniak, 36, was sentenced to a total of 18 months immediate custody while Ms Izabela Wojceichowska, 37, received an eight-month sentence suspended for two years, in addition to 180 hours of unpaid work. The pair were also ordered to pay £3,000 in related costs.

 

READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/polish-pair-punished-for-operating-fake-online-pharmacy

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a problem that is seen in a lot of immigrant communities esp when people dont speak english so rely on advice from others in their community. Even well educated people fall for quackery and put themseves at risk by using unlicenced sources.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...