Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Wait for more replies, but that letter to me can be interpreted as a letter before action. Ignoring it can have consequences. The court to impose sanctions for failure in responding to a letter of claim.
    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
  • 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 1609 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...