Announcements
-
-
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. -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
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. -
By Badtimes123 · Posted
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! -
.thumb.jpg.bf2f59e5260173230834ce3ad8015900.jpg)
Itll feel better as time goes on and you are paying it off -
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.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
charleyfarley v abbey ***WON***
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 6114 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts