Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Phil and Alison v The Co-op ***WON***


phatram
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5863 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

Does anyone know if the CO-OP stores info on microfiche?

This is very important, 'cos the ICO is investigating the Coop on my behalf, as they have taken 9 months to comply with my SAR and still its incomplete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

phatram,

Is the loan with the Co-op ? I f not the you might have problems proving what you are trying to achieve. Good luck.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good then you have an easier case to prove. Good luck.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Information Commissioner's Office

Promoting public access to official information and protecting your personal information

 

 

4th July 2007 Reference XXXXXXX

Dear Mr XXXXXXXX

Thank you for your correspondence regarding The Cooperative Bank.

I understand that in response to your request for a complete list of transactions and charges relating to your banking history Co-Op has informed you that you that they are able to provide any statements older than 6 years on your account for £5 per copy.

However in further telephone conversations with Co-Op they have advised that this information is inaccurate and that all information is only held for 6 years and they are unable to obtain any statements prior to this date.

I also note that your wife was provided with 7 years worth of statements.

With this in mind the decision has now been taken to refer this case to our Regulatory Action Division for further investigation.

You will be contacted by on of our Remedies Officers in due course. Yours sincerely

 

Laura Hennessy

Casework and Advice Officer

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF t: 01625 545700 f: 01625 524510 e: [email protected] w: ico.gov.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if the CO-OP stores info on microfiche?

This is very important, 'cos the Information Commissioners Office is investigating the Co-Op on my behalf, as they have taken 9 months to comply with my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and still its incomplete.

 

Why does it matter if they store info on microfiche? Barclaycard and Abbey were using that argument a year ago. The ICO investigated and decided it was still a structured filing system and therefore they still had to provide the information for a subject access request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the banks hold data beyond the 6 year period. They are very reluctant to reveal any of it. I am battling with Lloyds at the moment. They even had the front to state that

"If you require statements to claim back bank charges, I am afraid this would not be possible as banks are only required to consider the last 6 year period."

 

I have sent them this reply

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTIONFinal notification

Section 7 – Data Protection Act 1998

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

You have failed to comply with my Data Protection Act Subject Access Request dated 8th April 2007.

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated 20 July 2007 marked as being from Adrian Morris. I am quite frankly shocked by the deliberate misinformation contained within this letter. The content of this letter is a wholly unacceptable response.

I am not aware of there being any time limit to the information to be disclosed upon receipt of a Subject Access Request. If you hold information you are required to disclose it, if you do not hold any data as requested you are required to state that. You have done neither. You state that banks are only required to consider the last 6 year period. This is a deliberate inaccuracy, as no doubt you are aware. I make the following observations in regards to the The Limitation Act 1980, which of course only applies to an actual claim not to Subject Access Requests:-

The period of limitation should start from the date of the initial demand for repayment of the proposed unlawful penalty charges, this runs from the date of my preliminary request for your repayment of unlawful charges applied to my account. I have not of course made any such preliminary claim as yet. This is based upon Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation [1921] 3 KB 110, where In his judgement Atkin LJ pointed out:-

‘The practical bearing of this decision [as to the necessity for a demand] is on the question of the Statute of Limitations … The result of this decision will be that for the future bankers may have to face legal claims for balances on accounts that have remained dormant for more than six years.’

 

Alternatively at the time that you debited unlawful penalty charges from my account, I was under the mistaken belief that you were entitled under English Law to take that money.

If I had known that the charges were penalties under English Law I would not have paid those charges. In fact I made a mistake in paying those charges believing that you applied those charges in accordance with common and statue law, therefore section 32 © applies and the period of limitation does not begin until the time when I discovered this mistake, that being April 2006, the date of the OFT report into Credit Card Charges.

 

You have received a Subject Access Request from me and have accepted the £10.00 fee. You should carefully consider the following:-

  • You have not complied with your responsibilities under the Data Protection Act.
  • You have failed to disclose any data to me, be it statements printed from electronic data, archived microfiche files or any other structured filing system format you may variably use.
  • Your letter dated 20 July 2007 states that in the case of statements to claim back bank charges you refuse to supply any data held in excess of your arbitrary 6 year period. This amounts to a deliberate and unlawful failure to disclose on your behalf.

If you do not hold any data what so ever in regards to my above stated account, I require you to state so in writing and return my £10.00 forthwith.

To clarify:-

  • You have not provided a complete list of transactions and charges, or indeed any record of transactions and charges at all, nor have you stated that you do not hold any such data.
  • You have provided no notes, or documents relating to the running of my account or any legal action between you and myself, nor have you stated that you do not hold any such data.
    You have provided no notes or documents relating to instances of manual intervention nor have you stated that you do not hold any such data.
  • You have provided no information regarding my account held with yourself what so ever, such as copies of Consumer Credit Act agreements, account opening applications, overdraft/loan applications or agreements, nor database entries (or archived copies of) concerning such records, nor have you stated that you do not hold any such data.

This is not an exhaustive list of the data I have previously required you to disclose, it is just an example of some of the data you have not provided to me.

 

I am frankly shocked at Lloyds TSB apparent dishonesty in this regard. A matter that I will refer to the OFT Regulatory Section, Consumer Credit Licensing regarding your fitness to hold a Consumer Credit Licence.

If you do not comply within the next 7 days I shall seek a Court order obliging you to do so together with damages at the discretion of the Court and without any further notice. Secondly I will make a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

There is no such thing as impossible; only the degree of difficulty required to achieve the desired outcome.

Read through the

FAQ Section.... Use these links :grin:

 

Like what I say show - add to my reputation (click the scales!)

My advice & opinions are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

Halicrap - Full settlement 12/06 £408.34

Crapitol 1 - Settled in Full 27/04/07 £15808-)

All & Pester - Claim served £5695 4/09, Stayed

Woolsnitch mortgage accounts - Claim served £2995 4/09, application to strike out 06/09

Lloybles - No CCA, CPR disclosure notices served.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

hi phatram recieved my statments going back to august 2000 when i opened my account wow really suprised sent two threatening letters then recieved them al:ol how r u going with yours? do you think i should make two claim or just one? as its over 6 yrs:wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...