Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
  • 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

Data processing by second hand dealer


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1523 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 bought a car a year ago for cash from a second hand car dealer who has passed my address and details on to a 'legal' firm (akin to ambulance chasers) in order to get me to remove an online review, with the usual threats of defamation etc.

 

Are they legally allowed to process my data on this basis without informing me or seeking my permission ?

 

Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much a question of data – it's a question really of whether what you published was defamatory.

To be defamatory, the statement must be untrue. There are other requirements but I expect in your case this would be the most important element.

I think the important thing here is whether you have evidence to substantiate what you have written. Maybe you would like to post a link to your review and then we can have a look to begin with.

Also, who are the dealers – and who is the "legal firm"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks, I have no issues with the threats this company has made as they've quoted a number of statements within their letter which they state are damaging to their clients business and which are false and malicious, none of which actually appear in my review! 

 

They are just taking a punt in a bid to try and scare me into withdrawing a legitimate 1* review.

 

I do not like that my address has been supplied to a third party without my consent though especially as there is no reasonable justification for that action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you sign anything allowing them to share your address with third parties?

Once again, who is the dealer, who are the legal company – and the link to the review please

Link to post
Share on other sites

No nothing signed apart from bill of sale , transfer on the log book, I paid cash, no reason to have any such inclusion.

 

I want to hang off posting the details at the moment, I am in the first instance interested in whether their use of my data is lawful and I am aware that these firms are visitors to CAG. I have not decided what to do about it yet.

 

I am confident that the review that I gave was honest and the truth and in any case the 2 quotes that this so called legal firm use within their letter which they say are damaging to their clients business do not appear in my review whatsoever.

 

They are either using scare tactics or they've got the wrong person completely, either way I am not happy that my data has been shared to a third party without my consent and it is that that I am enquiring about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you have been here long enough to know that we don't play Secret Squirrel here and there is almost never any reason to withhold details of who you are dealing with - as long as you are straight dealing. The quicker that these people are named, the better. If they are acting wrongly then people will take notice. If they are within their rights then they have nothing to worry about.

I would say that if they have instructed solicitors to chase you for an alleged debt or some other legitimate legal reason – then they are entitled to pass your details on to those lawyers because they are a client. I can't imagine that somebody could have a legitimate legal complaint against another person and be prevented from instructing solicitors to pursue the matter.

So even though the firm you are talking about are apparently "ambulance chasers" – there may be legitimate interest.

As I started out at the beginning, the real question is one of defamation.

I don't see what you are so frightened are worried about that you can't identify the review and identify the company you are dealing with. You not doing yourself any favours – and you're not doing favours to other people who might also be in the same boat.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.

 

The firms involved are Autopoint in York and the letter came from Legal solutions4u, the review is the latest Google review on Autopoint.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=autopoint+york&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB842GB842&oq=au&aqs=chrome.1.69i60j35i39j69i57j69i59j69i60j69i61l2j69i60.2471j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#lrd=0x487931034e872a7f:0xeef26ee63d0e66e2,1,,,

 

Legal Solutions 4u state that I've made false statements and that they expect costs and injunctive relief to be in the region of £7000-10000, all pretty much standard threatening stuff.

 

They have asked me to remove the post.

They go on to state and this is a direct quote from their letter "

Quote

You state in your google review ' one star is far to much bought a car from these and my god what a heap of absolute s***!...' This defamatory statement is damaging to our clients reputation. These comments are false and malicious. You further go on to state ' never buy a car from these absolute cowboys!' This is also a defamatory statement. The comments are damaging our clients business. The comments which you made are false and malicious"

 

Read my review and you will see that neither of these statements appear in it.

 

In regard to a legitimate interest on the basis this firm has stated they would not appear to have any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know which review is yours.

I hope you have taken screenshots of the review – not just copied the text.

I see that they apparently have 101 reviews of which 17 are only one star and then almost all of the rest are four-star or five star.

Link to post
Share on other sites

one of these?

image.png.01d0dd75466238817d670fd0969b2302.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake this one;

 

just whenyouthought

2 months ago-Edit
Steer clear of these cowboys, avoid at all costs. I'm not the most versed car buyer and should know better but you expect a garage to be helpful not exploitative. I saw an advert on Ebay for a 55 plate silver Honda Civic 1.6 from these and went and test drove it, it appeared to be OK a reasonable silver Honda Civic 55 plate so thought I would go ahead. The sales guy asked what I would be willing to spend (A question you should never answer!) so based on my research on the same model with that mileage I offered a price which they accepted. They MOT'd it and it had an advisory of rusted brake pipes which their guy said would have been done so a week later I picked it up. My wife organised the insurance. Well I found out later 4 things. 1. They had used the just washed/water beading method to cover up marks to the body work. 2. It was not a 1.6 it was a 1.4 a model that was worth considerably less than I paid. 3. It is now January nearly a year after I bought it so MOT time, you know with the years MOT that they gave it and the printed copy that they gave to me.....well guess what ? Since October I have been driving that car illegally as there was NO MOT DONE despite the 'certificate' that they gave me. The work on the advisory number 4 was not carried out! So in summary they mislead and exploited an inexperienced buyer sold a deficient car with a potentially dangerous fault and lied about MOT work.
Trading standards next! Do your research, see all the 1 star reviews, google their past history and avoid like the plague!

Weird those reviews don't show up on mine ???

Edited by hsbclinkdcms
Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of "Steer clear of these cowboys"

 

Also, I think this story is getting more interesting in terms of the condition of the vehicle. Why didn't you come to us for help on this?

Can I suggest that you start a new thread and tell us the story of the vehicle and then we will help you. I think you have a basis for legal action against them and if it is unroadworthy in the way that you said is then there could be an offence contrary to the Road traffic act

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...