Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Claiming For A Breach Of Contract Where You Are Not A Direct Contracting Partner The contract is private to the contracting parties – “Privity” The general rule is that only the direct parties to a contract are allowed to claim if there is a breach. This is a very old rule and it is called “privity of contract” which means that a contract is private to the contracting partners. “Privity”can cause injustice This has caused some difficulties and even some injustice where a third party expecting to benefit from the contract might be expecting to receive something, if one of the parties to the main contract doesn’t fulfil their side of the bargain, you, the third party beneficiary can’t do anything about it - and the contracting party who did keep their promise is the only person who can sue and maybe they simply don’t want to. This could be even more unjust if you are the third party who funded the entire arrangement between the parcel broker and the delivery agent. The parcel was lost. Both the parcel broker and the delivery agent are not out of pocket – only you are out of pocket– but under the “Privity of Contract” rule you are not allowed to make a claim against the delivery company which lost or damaged your parcel. The Law Commission Report on Privity Of Contract And Third Party Rights In 1996 there was a report from the Law commission which recommended that in some circumstances third parties should be able to sue under contract even though they were part of the contract. In particular, the Law commission highlighted this injustice:   [The Person Who Has Suffered the Loss Cannot Sue, While the Person Who Has Suffered No Loss Can Sue]: In a standard situation, the third-party [privity] rule produces the perverse, and unjust, result that the person who has suffered the loss … cannot sue, while the person who has suffered no loss can sue.   As a result, Parliament passed a law called the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 This gives a third party in some circumstances the right to sue for a breach of contract even though they were not a direct contracting party. As a third party, are replacing one of the main parties When the third party uses this third party right, then they have to sue as if they were one of the direct parties to the contract and this means that they are bound by the same terms and conditions of that contract. This means that if it was a consumer contract then they can sue as the consumer with consumer rights. If it was a commercial contract, for instance between a broker and a delivery company, then you have to rely on your commercial rights. Most parcel delivery brokers are in the UK so you can sue the broker directly and this is always the best thing to do. However, there are one or two which are not in the UK. They are outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts and so if you arrange your parcel delivery through a one of those brokers and if your parcel is lost or damaged and if they refuse to reimburse you, suing the broker can be a difficult business and probably impossible. The only thing you can do is to sue the delivery company which lost the parcel but as you didn’t contract directly with them, you will have to rely on your “third party rights”. What the delivery company will say If the delivery company tries to defend the claim, they will probably say that although they did lose the parcel, you don’t have a right to sue them. They will say that you must sue the parcel broker because you made your contract directly with them – but of course we know that that is impossible because your parcel broker isn’t in the UK. You will have to state in your claim form and also explain to the judge that you are entitled under the 1999 Act because it was clear to the broker and to the delivery company that the delivery contract was made specifically for your benefit as the sender of the parcel and also for the benefit of the addressee – who is also a third party – and that it was even you who paid for the delivery anyway. What rights will you use? In a contract where you organised with Packlink, for example, to send a parcel using Evri, Packlink are based in Spain, you would have to sue Evri using the same commercial rights as enjoyed by Packlink. So in a commercial contract instead of relying on the Consumer Rights Act 2015, you would rely on the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 which also requires that a company selling a service must exercise reasonable care and skill and if they don’t then they are in breach. Also, in a commercial contract you would rely on the unfair terms provisions in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and which includes as an unfair term any attempt to restrict or limit liability without any good reason. If you are using your third party rights to sue on a consumer contract then you would be able to rely on the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Making a small claim as a third party is pretty straightforward The the process for bring a small claim as an entitled third-party is the same as any other small claim and pretty straightforward. The arguments are slightly different – but that’s all             Some examples of people who might be excluded by the “Privity” rule but are saved by their third party rights ·        Your friend takes you on holiday. They organise it and pay for it. Your friend’s holiday is great but your room is damp and rat infested. Your friend doesn’t want to claim against the holiday company. You took time off work for this holiday which you won’t get back but you didn’t have a contract with the holiday company.             You would sue the holiday company as third party consumer and rely on your consumer rights.   ·       Your friend uses a parcel broker based abroad to send you a mobile phone with £500. And the parcel arrives, it contains shoes. Your friend has moved to Australia permanently.           You don’t have a contract with the parcel broker so you would sue them as a third party to a consumer contract and                 rely on your consumer rights   ·        You get taken out for an expensive meal. Your host the table and pays for the meal but you get food poisoning. Your host had a great time and hasn’t actually lost anything.              They have no loss to claim but you don’t have a contract with the restaurant.You would sue as a third party to a                         consumer contract and rely on your consumer rights.   ·        You sell a mobile telephone on eBay and send it to your purchaser using an overseas parcel broker to organise the delivery through a UK delivery company. When the parcel arrives the purchaser finds that it contains some books.                 You sue the parcel delivery company as a third party to a commercial contract and rely on your commercial rights  
    • new subheading under paragraph 25 – The defendant is fully aware of third party beneficiaries new paragraph 26 Any denial by the defendant that they are unaware of the existence of third party beneficiaries to their contract with Packlink would be quite untrue. The defendant routinely sends out notifications to parcel recipients informing them the parcel which they are carrying on behalf of the broker is about to be delivered. Please find examples at – bundle X X X, X X X 26. 1) In the absence of any explanation the defendant’s denial should be disregarded.  but in any event,   If you have a look at the pinned thread at the top of this sub- forum relating to third-party rights, you will find several examples of notifications which have been sent by EVRi to the recipients of parcels warning them that their parcel which is being carried on behalf of QVC, Packlink – et cetera is due to be delivered. I suggest that you use a couple of these as examples of how EVRi is completely aware that there are third-party beneficiaries involved. If EVRi tried to say – "yes, we knew that there was a recipient that we had no idea that there was a sender…" Well, could they really be that stupid? I suggest you incorporate that, make the tweaks which have been suggested by @jk2054 and that's it. That would probably be the final version. You've worked hard on it – but hopefully the constant repetition will mean that you are absolutely fluent if it actually goes to court. EVRi are watching this of course and I don't really expect they are looking forward to having a judgement on this against them so I can imagine that they might reach out to you before the trial and make an offer. Have you paid the hearing fee yet? I don't think you have. I can imagine that they are waiting to see if you pay the hearing fee so they know that you are serious. Of course is not guaranteed but I would expect that they will try to prevent this going to trial. You should hold out for every penny. And if they want to make an offer to you under conditions of confidentiality then you should refuse. Confidentiality is not part of the claim. That something extra. If they try to impose a condition of confidentiality then you should tell them that this would cost them extra. I would say thousand pounds is probably cheap for the trouble that a judgement against them will cause them. Keep us updated of any approaches by EVRi – either on the forum – or by email if you prefer to admin email address. Let's see your final version
    • Hello I’m also going through the same at the moment for £300. Icon went quiet for a month or so but just received another text this morning to say “Notice of likely CCJ/Enforcement due to non-payment”. I’m still ignoring as per all of the threads on this but every time I get a text I still like to have a read up just to check advice hasn’t changed so good to read this thread! Thanks
    • They have now closed the account.
  • 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

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V halifax please help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1862 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

Hi there good people

 

I have asked the HAlifax for my DPA request on 27th April and they replied with a list of charges amounting to £148, I both phoned them and emailed them asking for a full disclosure and recieved today another list of charges amounting to £349 and they offering £200 as a good will jesture I still have not recieved a set of statements from them, do I wait for the remaining time (6th june) to inform the information commissioner that they have failed to deliver my request under the dpa or can I write to the commissioner now?

 

this is an abstract from their letter what a laugh

 

quote "You have requested information on how we calculate our costs for dealing with these transactions. Please note that we are not obliged to under the data protection act to supply this information, and as it is commercially sensitive ,I regret to inform you that I am unable to comply with your request "quote

 

Signed Damian Robershaw

 

:D He also went on to say if I didnt manage the account properly they have the right to close it ........he can try ,,,,,,,,it was closed 3 or 4 years ago :D

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could i have an oppinion on this email I want to send to the Halifax please

 

Dear Mr Robertshaw,

 

Roll Number xxxxxxxxxxxx

Reference number xxxxxxxxxx

 

Thank you for your letter dated the 22nd May 2006.

 

However, I am unable to accept the offer of £200.00 from Halifax in full and final settlement of our complaint(s) regarding bank charges made on any of our Halifax accounts until I have received the full disclosure as I have requested. Of course if you wish to send a cheque in the name of mr mechs for the sum of £200.00 in partial payment then that is fine.

 

I would like to draw to your attention your statement in your letter which is and I quote "Turning to your request for an exhaustive list of charges . Whilst I acknowledge it is your legal right to apply formally under the Data Protection Act for all the records we hold on you, your request is very specific".

I have requested this information three times now twice by email and by telephone to one of your colleagues

 

In your last comunication you gave me a so called print out with £146.00 in charges, today I have recieved a print out with £349.00 in charges, Please explain the £203 descrepency.

 

My legal rights under the Data protection act is to RECIEVE the information asked for not a partial disclosure from yourself, you have broken the law by witholding information and unless I recieve the revelant information by the 6th of June 2006 I shall have no option but to start legal proceedings without further notice to make the Halifax comply with the Data Protection Act. Also I repeat my request about manual intervention

Perhaps this extract from the Data protection act will help clarify your position

Originally Posted by Data Protection Act 1998

7. - (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 8 and 9, an individual is entitled-

 

© to have communicated to him in an intelligible form-

 

(i) the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject, and

 

(ii) any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data, and

(d) where the processing by automatic means of personal data of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct, has constituted or is likely to constitute the sole basis for any decision significantly affecting him, to be informed by the data controller of the logic involved in that decision-taking.

 

You can take the £10 fee for the information from this bank account that I have with my wife

SORT CODE: xxxxxxACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxx

NAME(S) mr and mrs mechs

 

Kind regards, mr mechs

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems perfectly reasonable, mechs.

 

I'm a picky so-and-so and have noticed a couple of grammatical erors, so have altered this letter slightly for you below.

 

********************************************************

 

 

Thank you for your letter dated the 22nd May 2006.

I respectfully decline your offer of £200.00 in full and final settlement of my 'complaint' regarding bank charges until I have received the full disclosure I have requested. Of course, if you wish to send a cheque in the name of mr mechs for the sum of £200.00 as partial payment then that will be acceptable.

 

I would like to draw to your attention to the statement in your letter - (quote) "Turning to your request for an exhaustive list of charges . Whilst I acknowledge it is your legal right to apply formally under the Data Protection Act for all the records we hold on you, your request is very specific".

I have requested this information three times now, twice by email and once by telephone to one of your colleagues.

 

In your recent communication you supplied a print out with £146.00 in charges listed, yet today I have received a print out with £349.00 in charges listed. With such large discrepancies, I think it wise to await an exhaustive list of charges before we discuss a settlement fee.

 

My legal right under the Data Protection Act is to receive the information requested, not a partial disclosure. You will have broken the law by witholding this information unless I receive such by the 6th June 2006, at which point I shall have no option but to start legal proceedings, without further notice, to make the Halifax comply with the Data Protection Act.

 

Also, I repeat my request for evidence of manual intervention.

 

Perhaps the following extract from the Data protection act will help you to focus on the issue.

 

(DPA bla bla bla is fine)

 

I authorise you to withdraw the £10 fee for this information, should you wish, from my account number XXXXXXXX

 

*************************************************

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jonni you are not as bad as your name suggests ROFL :D

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: the wife is very happy that you amended my letter :lol:

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI again just an update

 

I really do not trust the Halifax why? you ask

 

My first computer read out lists charges as below

 

2001-10-31 30.00dr

2001-11-30 30.00dr

2001-11-30 30.00dr

2001-11-30 28.00dr

2002-01-31 28.00dr

---------

146.00dr

the second printout recieved yesterday reads

 

2000-02-01 75.00dr

2000-03-01 75.00dr

2000=09-01 25.00dr

2001-03-01 28.00dr

2001-12-01 28.00dr

2002-02-01 28.00dr

2002-11-01 30.00dr

2002-12-02 60.00dr

--------

349.00dr

 

So as you can see two different so called print outs, two different lists of charges £349+ 146 equals £495 or least it did when i went to school,

what worries me is do I now trust another print out from them, and also how many others in here have relied on a print out rather than statement copies

 

If admin want these printouts to look at they are welcome, just pm me with an email addy

 

I am so angry at the moment I am sitting on my hands to hold back yet another email to mr Robertshaw telling him what I think of him.

 

Perhaps I ought to inform the banking ombudsman, or just leave it untill june 5th when the time is up for them to comply with my dpa

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I have recieved two lots of computer prinouts supposedly under a DPA subject access request and both printouts are for different amounts one for £146 and one for £349, the one for £349 does not include the charges in the printout for £146.

Just to warn you all, be careful of computer printouts

You can follow the story under mechs and mother (deceased)v Halifax

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I better merge these two...

good luck

Lou x

 

Hi Lou,

 

I put it in under a different thread because I wanted people to be aware that the Halifax sent me a computer print out rather than copy statements and the fact that they were incomplete, so if I had gone by the first printout I would have been over £200 pounds short

 

Thanks for the good luck xx

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Lueeze

yep alot of us are having problems, I today got a print out from Woolwich with bits missing, it seems par of the course! They are all incompetant!

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep alot of us are having problems, I today got a print out from Woolwich with bits missing, it seems par of the course! They are all incompetant!

 

Awwww best of luck Lou.

 

:mad: I recieved a big brown envelope today with a load of statements shame it was for another account with them (that was my fault thoughI didnt put the details in, only an account number where they could take the £10 from) I phoned them up and by the time we had finished talking I felt like I was the guilty one the exscuses she made for her colleagues incompetence .......my second lot of charges are not on their system how strange ...is it a different account number .......no .......well £146 is all thats showing up .....and the charges are not unlawful you want to look on the oft website they say we can make a charge ...and we have offered 6 moinths of charges back ....so its now left if I dont recieve my dpa request in full by june 6th I am taking them to court. and if they dont cough up my charges I am taking them to court ....fed up yes .........giving up NO :mad:

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got to love 'em :p

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got to love 'em :p

 

what like a dog loves fleas :razz: LOL

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys and Gals just an update and some advice please.I have today had copy statements in the post on adding them up it amounts to £424 on the print outs which they sent me previously the amount was for £495 yet when I add them up it amounts to £514 (as they dont all tally up together) do I now go for the £514. Their time for giving me a sar runs out on June 6th Any advice would be greatfully recieved

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: DPA non-compliance

 

Have a peek HERE for letters you can send

 

Re: Charges total- if you think the higher amount is correct, and you have not duplicated any charges, then go for that.

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: DPA non-compliance

 

Have a peek HERE for letters you can send

 

Re: Charges total- if you think the higher amount is correct, and you have not duplicated any charges, then go for that.

 

Thanks Johnny I am not sure even now if they have supplied all the details because why are there charges missing from my statements yet on my print outs neither an explination to me asking why there is a difference so am going to go for a non compliance I think :D

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I have sent

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

Section 7 – Data Protection Act 1998

 

Dear Mr Robertshaw

Account: xxxxxxx Your reference xxxxxxxxx.

 

 

I am in receipt of the documents that you have supplied in response to my Data Protection Act information request dated 27th April 2006 Despite several requests for this information the disclosure of personal data is incomplete in that at least the following documents are missing.

 

1) You have failed to provide a complete list of transactions and charges. (for instance there is a charge you sent to me on a print out on 31/10 01 for £30 and another two on 30/11/01 for £30 each ) these charges do not appear on my statements

3) You have provided no notes, or documents relating to instances of manual intervention

 

This is not an exhaustive list by any means, it is just an example of some of the information I am missing.

As you previously withheld the information requested, in as much you sent me originally a printout for £146 of charges

 

Accordingly, I have to tell you that you have not yet complied with your obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

 

As the original Subject Access Request runs out on the 6th June and it is now the weekend I will give you a further seven days to comply.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Mechs

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well guess what no reply from the Halifax, the thing is do I send another letter threatening court action (already sent the prelim one) for partial non compliance of the data protection act or do i go for the throat? and take out a court order ( its been 48 days now since my first Data Protection Act application) the details on a print out and on the subsequent statements dont correspond, see above can i also ask for a copy of my original contract that they keep on about, after all I cant let jonni have all the fun I want some as well :D

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's court action now - the letter you send was LETTER BEFORE ACTION so no further time is necessary.

 

If you start a court action for non-compliance, there is nothing stopping you from a separate claim now for monies, using an estimated amount until they are prepared to give the full details.

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonni, originally they sent printouts, then further to an email from me, they then sent statements ... but the statements don't tally with the printout. So I'm at a loss of what to do.

 

mechs

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question - I need to take further advice on that, let me get back to you.

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ta Jonni

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a duty of care and a fiduciary relation to you. IMO, that covers the whole relationship, not just the financial side. They have failed rather spectacularly in this instance.

 

I would suggest that you hit them with an N1 for both non-compliance and estimated costs, after all, you know that your estimate is not that far out, one way or another. Furthermore, once they comply with SAR correctly, you can then alter your numbers on claims form. It will cost £35 to alter your form, but you should be able to get that back from the bank, as it is THEIR f***-up that caused the mistake.

 

I have a copy of the one I had drafted for B/Card, I can send it to you for reference if you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D Thank you and yes please Bookworm, that would be very much appreciated.

 

mechs

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update they sent a letter today stateing I refused their kind offer ........so I just had to put them right this is what i am thinking of sending back any thoughts would be great

 

Dear Kim Hollyoak

 

Your reference xxxxxxxxxx

Thankyou for your letter dated 22/6/06

 

I would like to point out a few discrepences in your letter.

 

1/ you state "As a gesture of goodwill I offered to refund six months worth of charges to your account, which you refused to accept"

 

I respectfully ask you to reread this email as if you look it states and I quote from the afore mentioned email

 

"I respectfully decline your offer of £200.00 in full and final settlement of my 'complaint' regarding bank charges until I have received the full disclosure I have requested. Of course, if you wish to send a cheque in the name of Alan Griffiths for the sum of £200.00 as partial payment then that will be acceptable."

 

2/ I respectfully remind you also that my mother died 2 years ago .....which you have already been informed of and have had a copy of her death certificate.

 

3/ This account was closed in 2002 so you cannot refund the money into it

 

4/ My request for my Subject Acess Request under The Data Protection Act has still not been resolved and the 40 days allowed for you to comply RAN out on the 6th June, regarding the same Data Protection Act request you have repeatedly blocked my attempt to gain access to it, by giving me partial disclosures and sending me print outs and statements that have the same account number and yet do not correspond with each other, as has been previously stated to you, yet you still wont comply, I have also asked you for a copy of the original agreement I signed with you when opening my account ...again you have declined to supply it.

 

As a gesture of goodwill I will give you a further 7 days to comply otherwise I will report you to the Information Commissioner, the Office of Fair Trading and take out a Court action to make you comply.

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1862 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...