Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
    • If it doesn’t sell easily : what they can get at an auction becomes fair market price, which may not realise what you are hoping.
    • Thank you. The receiver issue is a rabbit hole I don't think I'm going to enjoy going down. These people seem so protected. And I don't understand how or why?  Fair market value seems to be ever shifting and contentious.
  • 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

Raising a claim for incomplete SAR disclosure. How to punish them?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1774 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

Done a couple of these recently where companies have failed to send the DSAR info, the first paid me the £75 and sent the info within days and the second one have paid the £100 i claimed but haven’t yet supplied the info so I haven’t cashed the cheque yet and requested judgement based on them not settling fully. They will rogue that the fee charged has been paid by sending me they cheque but i am happy to go to court and make them explain to a judge why i am claiming damages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They where estimates of the time taken to prepare the requests and then prepare the court papers, much like when they charge me £50 a month in additional admin fees just for pressing send on a keyboard.

 

I could have asked for more but as each company has a cost threshold before they decide to contest I didn't want to incur any further charges by being greedy unlike the companies we have to deal with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, craigten said:

Oh I didn’t know that. Any idea what those thresholds are?

Also, what could they contest - the amount you’re claiming for?(as they couldn’t contest that they have infringed GDPR)

The threshold will vary from company to company but I have worked on the estimate of £1000 and less as to instruct a solicitor to defend would cost more than this, but it depends how serious they are and how sure they feel about not giving out info.

 

Its all about putting them on the spot legally to show that their procedures are flawed and how can we be satisfied they are going to adhere to GDPR rules if they cant even supply the info. Not sure how seriously the ICO would take the fact that any company had a ccj based on their non compliance but am certain it would't do any harm to their investigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We haven't won anything yet, and sadly a lot of people don't know what to look for when they get the documents from the SAR. That's why we all need people like Bankfodder and dx on here.

 

Very important is not to give up and keep asking rather than letting things go as that's what all these companies want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, king12345 said:

Judge considering unreasonable taking a company to court for £25 without giving them a chance to settle out of court.

 

If it ever gets to a judge then every effort would have been made to settle prior to court, all pre application protocols will have been done and before that all evidence of non compliance from properly formulated requests.

 

Not sure you are understanding the process, no one would got straight to court without months of work which is what the claim is for. The £25 fee applies to all cases under a certain amount and its the costs of preparing the months of requests that we claim for. In reality based on what many of these companies charge us, £50 for a letter !, we should be claiming much more but its hard to quantify from an evidential point hence why I keep mine under £100. 

 

If all these so called reputable companies did what they claim they do such as help customers then none of this would be necessary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly dont under any circumstances go into this as an act of punishment as a judge will pick up on it and most likely rule against you.

 

You are not applying for a CCJ, you are asking for the costs incurred in making the disclosure requests to be reimbursed and if they don't pay and don't defend then you can request judgement. Even then they can ask for it to be stayed so don't go thinking its a done deal.

 

As I have explained, work out your costs, I have kept mine low so that it doesn't suggest to a judge that anything actually costs £50 for a letter for example, as the main purpose is to get it in the system and potentially to a judgement. If they do pay up, and many will, my advice is not to cash the cheque until they send the info from the SAR and then only if your happy. If you don't get it then seek judgement and even if it goes to court you can ask the judge to increase the costs due to the extra work.

 

This will not be a case about GDPR etc as the judge will not make a decision on that, but it is great evidence of non compliance to take to the ICO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

An award is not case law and doesn’t set a precedent over other courts, it can be used during summing up of a case but any judge can choose to ignore what another had done, look at the bank charge cases from years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, craigten said:

Thank you, and I'm not doubting you but does this case not have much 'sway' if one was to make a similar claim:

 

The claimant was awarded £750 for distress for what the court held to be a minor breach. 

 

https://www.hempsons.co.uk/news-articles/damages-distress-awarded-breach-data-protection-act/

Of course it can be used in legal argument but it isn’t case law 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...