Jump to content


Virgin, mystery extra line: 2 judgments for Data Protection breaches - so far!!


Recommended Posts

Okay. Here is my view as to what has happened.

There was a rogue employee who accessed your personal details – and maybe the personal details of other people to set up fake accounts and to steal the telephones.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 235
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You're going to love this-letter from Oxford County Court confirming a cheque for £302 has been received from Virgin Media in response to the first warrant. That's a payment made on a case they c

Letter sent recorded delivery. Today I will be registering on Moneyclaim and start preparing- the last 2 days have been getting the shop shut down for lockdown so now that's dealt with I have plenty m

Small update-confirmation letter from Reading Court that the first warrant(that we initially tried to execute in Sunderland) has been transferred and was issued on 4 May.Hopefully a cheque for the amo

Posted Images

Presumably this is in response to the DQ – but I wasn't aware that you have to file a reply to a defence in a DQ

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sent over the details requested but I'm having another issue that I can't seem to get my brain around.

 

Having deciding to reissue the original warrant that was unable to be served in Sunderland as 'the address did not exist' I checked with the county court as to why they couldn't seize any goods when there was clearly a building at the site.

 

Apparently,this problem is well known to them.It transpires:

* The physical building on the site belongs to Virgin and contains their goods and property-this is an SR4 address.

*The registered address for service of documents and letters,including court papers is an SR43 address. This is just a mailroom within the building.

*Since the warrant was issued for the SR43 address, they were only allowed to take goods from that specific address(the mailroom)-which contains nothing except a very large mail cabinet.

 

How is it possible to have this address-within-an-address? Surely I couldn't give my address as being 1a and then when bailiffs turn up, tell them 1a only refers to the mailbox in the porch and the rest of the house is actually No.1?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many large companies have a postal address that purely relates to mail room and not their actual offices. One reason for this , is that it separates customer post from post about the running of the building/company.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Virgin have submitted their DQ answers and interestingly have said they are not willing for the case to go to mediation. They have also said that they will be calling only one witness. If that's not the person who received the SAR requests and processed them they can't comment on that surely? And if it's not the person who actually signed me up and set up the contract then they can't comment on that either?

 

And l was aware that they use a separate room for post-what l was querying was that if bailiffs turn up they can claim the mail room as a separate address so only goods from in that room can be taken.

Edited by lemon_martini2
Adding bits
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

Have you submitted your directions questionnaire?

The next step will be that a date will be set for a hearing and there must be an exchange of documents about 21 days before then. When we know the hearing date then we can start to prepare.

Of course based on their defence, they are trying to introduce issues which aren't all included in your claim. Quite frankly their defence is a lot of nonsense and as far as I can make out the only thing which refers to your claim is their last paragraph which disputes and puts you to proof as to the amount of money you are claiming. Other than that, their defence seems to relate to the substantive dispute – which of course you have not started to litigate on at all yet.

You will need to make sure that you start bringing together all of your documents. Identifying what you have – also identifying what you don't have an yet you believe exists. Have a look at the advice we give on preparing your court bundle.

Also, although it shouldn't come up at this point because it is not the SAR issue, I've already pointed out to you that we will need to get some very good documentary evidence of your signature changes and your practice of changing your signature every year. I'm sure you realise that this is an extremely unusual thing to do and although this issue should not come up at all in the forthcoming hearing, it may be referred to at some point and we will have to decide whether to address it or simply say that this is not one of the issues which has been raised in your claim. I favour the latter

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Small update-confirmation letter from Reading Court that the first warrant(that we initially tried to execute in Sunderland) has been transferred and was issued on 4 May.Hopefully a cheque for the amount of £300 will again be winging its way to me soon...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Luvly jubbly

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're going to love this-letter from Oxford County Court confirming a cheque for £302 has been received from Virgin Media in response to the first warrant.

That's a payment made on a case they claim in their defence has no merit and they want thrown out, not to mention that they've now paid £600(so far!) for a £200 handset claim

 

So far we have

Claim 1 for failed SAR requests: Not defended, judgment issued, warrant executed, £302 paid.

Claim 2 for failed SAR requests: Not defended, judgment issued, warrant executed, £302 received by court.

Claim 3 for failed SAR requests: Defended.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

They will probably say in relation to this latest SAR claim, that you have been sufficiently recompensed because of the previous two.

They will try to merge the three actions together as if they were one. In exactly the same way that they are trying to merge this latest SAR claim with the whole problem of the mystery handset.

It will be very important not to allow them to stray into that territory.

It's essential to keep to your agenda which is their breach of this SAR and the distress that you are suffering as a result of this particular breach. Distress caused by anything else including the setting up of the mystery handset account are completely different and they mustn't be allowed to try and bring them into the equation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...