Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just a little something for consideration When a card is compromised, the replacements can be set up to automatically allow or manually re-add, old recurring transactions. The card issuer may ask you to confirm legitimate transactions which they would effectively 'migrate' to the new card Some do - some don't. Some staff on some cards seem to be entirely unaware/uncaring about this. Some card issuers expect you to sort it all out manually.   BUT if the leak is an ongoing lyca leakas it seems - as soon as you or your CC supplier give it to lyca/the leak source - compromised again     A note on security DONT use the same email or phone number for your banking as you do for sims etc. Although a bank eg santander leak would compromise this Infp seems to suggest that single/compromised multi factor authentication customers are priority targets, with more robustly secure cards being hit by 0.00 tests first Consider that the email address is one of the OTP recieving options AND one of the OTP security checks prior to sending the OTP - with the phone number being another So if they've got your card and email (same email for banking and end contact) - and you aren't forcing a phone OTP - you are compromised.  
    • Thanks for posting up the back of the NTK. The good news s that as it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act, it means that you are not liable for the charge as the keeper as I explained in a previous post.  The PC fails for two reasons. The first is that it does not specify the period of parking. All it does is list the arrival and departure times of your car. Obviously that does not include the time taken to drive to the car parking space, manoeuvre the car into the space and later drive from the space to the exit. Nor does their times include things like getting kids disabled people out of and into the car as well as things like returning the trolley whilst still being parked. All of which can add a fair bit of time to the parking period which can then be subtracted from their ANPR times and makes your actual parking time a lot shorter than 118 minutes they seem to think it is. The second reason is that they failed to ask the keeper to pay Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][e]  (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges You as keeper are now in the clear which is a good reason for you to contact Sainsbury  stating that you are being pursued as the keeper when you are not liable under the Act as well as the oher things I suggested in my previous post. If you don't get it cancelled with Sainsbury this could drag on for months with endless letters unlawfully pushing the price up to scare you into paying.  
    • Brilliant! That's great to hear and honestly pleased I'm wrong, my advice was out of concern. I checked some of your previous posts last night and you've been giving great advice to others at times. Bringing a claim can be serious (counter-claims etc) and it didn't appear you were knowledgeable based on posts so far. Far from an expert myself, just interested and will try to help. I'll sit on the sidelines, best of luck with the claim!
    • Thank you so much for the advice  I will try and up my savings to £500 for the next 6 months. Although I do still have an uphill battle, I feel more able to deal with it.  I hope my experience with the cifas marker helps someone else who finds themselves in that quite horrible situation. It is a huge weight off my shoulders getting it removed.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Arrow Global Vanquis and GDPR


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1658 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

If you haven't renewed Vanquis's permission to discuss your account with third parties since 25th May 2018, then it's not allowed meaning Vanquis and Arrow Global have both breached GDPR by transferring your account. Give both 48 hours to resolve this, and raise a GDPR breach with the ICO if they don't agree.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry that's not true

the original agreement T&C's allow the exchange of information upon and after the sale

there is no time limit other the p'haps the statute of limitations.

 

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you haven't renewed Vanquis's permission to discuss your account with third parties since 25th May 2018, then it's not allowed meaning Vanquis and Arrow Global have both breached GDPR by transferring your account. Give both 48 hours to resolve this, and raise a GDPR breach with the ICO if they don't agree.

 

I received the same notice, Arrow Global didn't really care but Vanquis pooped themselves bigtime when I said I was going to ICO if they didn't get the account back in 48 hours, it was sorted by making a complaint and getting it escalated immediately highlighting the threat of legal action if it wasn't sorted in time.

 

Please if you have received a notice or receive one in future, do the same as me. Vanquis need to stop this practice immediately, as too many complaints to the ICO will land them in the courtroom with threat of heavy fine or complete closure of their company. It is the same for all organisations in regard to your data, so challenge every chance you get, and stop your data being freely passed around.

 

Email sent to Arrow Global with subject: GDPR Breach (Ref:{as they quoted})

Apparently Vanquis sold my account to you. I am seeing this as a breach of GDPR as my details are not allowed to be given to third parties by Vanquis. Return the account to Vanquis by end of business Friday, and NEVER contact me. Any contact from you will be seen as you breaching GDPR too, and it's content will be ignored, this includes any response to this e-mail.  

 

Email sent to Vanquis with subject: GDPR Breach (Ref:{account number})

Apparently, you have sold my account to Arrow Global, I am seeing this as a GDPR breach, as you do not have my permission to pass my details to any third party.

 
While my contract with you started in YEAR, any permissions would have been removed on 25th May 2018 when GDPR came into force, and since that date I have not given my permission for my details to be passed to any third party.
 
Please ensure my account is back under your control by end of business (2 days time), and I have instructed Arrow Global to do the same. I will not deal with Arrow Global, and if my account is not back with you in time, then Vanquis will be reported to all necessary authorities, with aim of getting you closed down completely, or at least heavily fined at a minimum.
Link to post
Share on other sites

please post the proof of what you are claiming.

there is no such clause within GDPR that we've seen to date.

that prevents this practice, its in the T&C's you signed upto.

 

it was probably due to another issue if this recall ever did happen.

 

dx

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you it is true,

Vanquis did not send me the letter/email requesting to be allowed to continue communicating after 25th May 2018 (when GDPR came into force) and that removed all permissions, and effectively makes their T&Cs void.

 

Yes, you give permission on original agreement, but the introduction of GDPR on 25th May 2018 means they need to have your consent to discuss your account with a third party.

 

It means they have to write to you requesting that you give your consent to them 'selling' or 'discussing' your account to a third party.

 

One thing they could have done was send out updated T&Cs for you to sign and return but if you didn't return them you were not agreeing to them, that's the loophole, returning them meant you agreed and third party permission was granted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

new one upon us

the notice of assignment cover that as it tranfers all rights and title to the new owners.

 

now if vanquis or the debt buyer didn't sent a NOA then that explains the success.

but its not a new rule introduced under GDPR, but a rule that's always existed under the law of properties act.

 

can you scan up the letter you received from vanquis as a PDF after reading upload

or the email suitable redacted.

 

own thread created.

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I agree this is more than likely they forgot to sent a NOA.

 

Since you say it is True as per GDPR could you please inform us of exactly which Article you are referring to in the GDPR?

 

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

The GDPR have very little to do with contractual issues, look at article 6.

 

If you sign to say the information may be shared until the agreement is settled, then that is that, I am afraid. I know it sounds barmy that a contractual provision can still bind even after the contract is terminated, however it is the case.

 

You can require post termination interest for instance, or post judgement if both sides agree.

You are right in saying that they do depend on that clause in the contract however.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...