silverfox1961
-
Posts
21,068 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by silverfox1961
-
Primark RLP Help
silverfox1961 replied to charliej55555's topic in Retail loss Prevention/Other shoplifting allegations.
Hi and welcome to CAG Until we know more about what Primark and RLP will do in regard of whether you will get the begging letters or not depends on Primark. Personally, I wouldn't bother with a couple of quids worth when a store ban is punishment enough however, I can't see what goes on the minds of security. It's a case of wait and see what happens. As they were not clear about the store ban, I would go into other branches and stay away from that one (or put on fake glasses and a funny nose) No point really going over why you did it just don't do it again, mistake/choice or not -
I disagree. The person was not named in the complaint and her children were not obscured. It's very likely following the ruling that C5 will not show that episode again. The information provided is from the ruling and is being fleshed out by BA to include more information not considered by OFCOM (not being required to) How can a person who isn't named be protected from GDPR? As I didn't see the program (My TV would have got broken) I assume her name was also not given. The ruling states that she wasn't given enough information to make an 'informed' consent therefore it would treat the case as having no consent and on this ground, I agree. C5 stated that they submitted everything to their lawyers before transmission. I have to say that the lawyers were not up to the task or were given conflicting information by C5 (my opinion) As it stands, the complainant now has the route to seek damages from C5 for breaches of the GDPR. (Again, my opinion)
-
This is exactly the reason that OFCOM have started upholding complaints. The agents are told to say, if asked, they the cameras were for security and training. If DCBL had used their own cameras, GDPR or even the old DPA would have meant that any images recorded were protected and permission would have to be sought from the individuals concerned and if they had no permission, no program. Also, as DCBL would have held the copyright there would need to be an agreement between them and C5 for the images. In some of the earlier cases which were not upheld I asked OFCOM (on Twitter) whether they would revisit any of the prior complaints to see if the cameras worn belonged to DCBL or the production company. No response!
-
There is no requirement for anyone to use VFs SAR form nor should they insist that anyone do so. VF are very strict when it comes to ID verification so when applying for a SAR, it is best to include as much verification as possible. By doing this, it will deny VF the opportunity to delay sending out the data. The last time I used a SAR with VF, they sent the data on a CD but also sent the password in the same envelope. Great security VF!
-
OOH! Final demand Yeah right! What they fail to mention is that the extra £60 cannot be claimed for but they will try and include it. The extra costs are fixed so even if you lost a case, you would end up paying less than £200 but that isn't going to happen. If you work in the financial sector and didn't pay a judgement then and only then it may affect employment or future employment. What they don't say is that IF you lost (again-won't happen) you still have time to pay the judgement and if done so, no record is included on your credit file. Misleading by omission is still misleading
-
You just couldn't make it up, could you! They should have read everything you sent before but I bet they didn't read your letter, just relied on the form instead. A home visit should be a matter of routine rather than a problem for them. Assuming they have assessors that have certain knowledge of certain conditions should dictate who comes to assess you. By the way, ICE have said they will listen to my recording and read the transcript so ATOS should get a severe slapped wrist over my case.
-
This is the second case from the OFCOM bulletin and starts at page 78 http://tinyurl.com/ycwlnaev This case is (in my opinion) more serious than case 1 in that NO consent was obtained. Also it has disclosed that the Body Worn Cameras transmitted live audio/video to the film crew. The BWC were supplied by the production company so all copyright material belonged to Channel 5 rather than DCBL.
-
OFCOM have upheld a case against Channel 5 regarding the TV series Can't pay, we'll take it away. This case starts at page 41 of the OFCOM bulletin http://tinyurl.com/ycwlnaev In this case it would appear that although consent was given, OFCOM found that there was no 'Informed Consent' meaning that the complainant had not been given sufficient information to make a concious decision.
-
Sorry. Missed that you had already done so Having now read the second case, it would be worth (in my opinion) to separate them into two separate threads for a more detailed discussion. I will get onto that today.
-
Sorry guys (&gals) I'll try again https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/broadcast-bulletins That link takes you to the website page and the link is a little further down the page. Issue 03/1218
-
Just re-read the letters sent so far and GXS just don't have a clue. In the first letter from June, they state that after 28 days and not having the details of the driver, they can then pass the charge on to the keeper. That would be true if GXS followed PoFA but they don't so keeper liability could never arise. Misleading at best. As for Trace Legal. They have only been around for a couple of years and they appear to be a one man band with absolutely no power over you. If you feel that the letters are misleading, copy them to Trading Standards. They may do nothing but they will add them to a file for the future.
-
In today's OFCOM fortnightly bulletin there are two cases featured, both upheld. I haven't looked at the second one yet as I have to go out. The first case involves a single mum who has depression and a daughter with medical problems. I don't watch Can' Pay but from reading the details of this case, my thoughts are that the HCEA's should have withdrawn as it was patently obvious this woman was vulnerable. Read it for yourself and then comment if you want. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/129050/Issue-367-of-Ofcoms-Broadcast-and-On-Demand-Bulletin.pdf The first judgement starts at page 41 but I do find the entire bulletin a great insight into the role of the media.
-
This alleged database (no one knows if it actually exists) cannot be seen by anyone without your permission. You have no need to worry about anyone seeing this information. In general, banks tend to keep your data for as long as they need to so if you have been a customer of a bank for 20 odd years, that is how long they have held your data. Data should only be held for as long as needed. This could be 6 months or 6 years. If RLP decided to no longer pursue you, they would have no grounds for holding on to your data and then it should be deleted. I would suspect they would hold your data for no more than 6 years but as no one can see it, there is no need to worry about it. After all that waffle, don't stress over this database. It cannot harm you.
-
I have hidden the attachments for you. Nobody (except site team) can see them. carry on posting as normal. If you want your username changed as well, let us know
-
Whilst RLP are a 'legitimate' company, the practices they follow have no legal nor lawful basis. Under UK law, a retailer can only claim for actual losses and not to profit from any act so as they have suffered no loss, there cannot be any claim. RLP circumvent this 'grey area' by making assumptions that what they are claiming is legal. Since the 2012 case, no court cases have been undertaken by any retailer. IF RLP were so sure of their standing, they would encourage more stores to sue. This does not happen. You also are dealing with CIVIL law and not CRIMINAL law. Only criminal law can fine you and cause you to have a criminal record. Civil law can do nothing as mentioned above. Stop beating yourself up, read what others have said and done then ignore RLP and any toothless debt collector. They can do nothing to you irrespective of what their letters 'may' claim.
-
Well it is coming up to Christmas and the poor darlings need their bonus so they can go out and party. Usually DR+ write the begging letters and add the extra 60 notes but of course they have less power that EPS. When that happens just add it to the pile of future toilet paper.
-
I would. The only time to respond is if a Letter Before Action/Claim comes in the post
-
That letter has just shot themselves in the foot. As lookingforinfo has mentioned, the letter states that a notice to driver was affixed to the car. For that to be true, the NTK shouldn't have reached your doorstep until after 28 days have passed (29-56 days) As the NTK arrived in a couple of days, the NTK is non compliant as is the fact that the keeper is unable to appeal as IPC members only accept appeals from drivers, not keepers. Another thing to note and another string to your bow is that they breached your data by getting your details from the DVLA. You couldn't make up just how bad that letter is!
-
Primark fine?!
silverfox1961 replied to Helppp00's topic in Retail loss Prevention/Other shoplifting allegations.
As you gave a false address, RLP will direct all letters there. You have more important things to do. Don't stress out over this; you are better than that. As mentioned by the others, RLP can do sod all to you and if you consider that RLP have zero power over you and a debt collector has even less power if you can think of a level below zero. It comes across to me that you may be struggling with the thoughts that you will get found out so I do recommend that you visit your GP. Having someone to physically talk to may just help and a GP has to treat what you say in confidence. Talking to your GP may just uncover the reasons why you chose to steal in the first place. -
Hi and welcome to CAG Have a look at some other threads to see wht happened in those cases Here's one https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?468641-Gemini-Parking-Solutions-PCN-Queen-Elizabeth-Olympic-Park-On-a-motorbike&p=4938261&viewfull=1#post4938261 and another https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?460534-Gemini-Parking-Solutiobs&p=4866552&viewfull=1#post4866552 plenty of others too. Gemini are members of the BPA and must follow the codes of practice. Once we have your images (pdf file please) we can advise better
-
HI I will alert Bankfodder to this case. He 'loves' P2G I am pretty useless at court claims but to me it seems a reasonable POC
-
Primark fine?!
silverfox1961 replied to Helppp00's topic in Retail loss Prevention/Other shoplifting allegations.
Hi and welcome to CAG DX and the imp have spelled out quite clearly our position in regard to RLP. They are reluctant to spend money they don't have to employing a tracing firm to find your real address so that is one reason they won't find you. The other reason is your age. RLP use civil law rather than criminal law meaning that even if they did find your address, they couldn't do anything until you are 18 however since there have been no civil recovery cases since 2012 when a certain company who tried it on (with the encouragement of RLP) lost the case. No other cases since then. IF by chance RLP do trace you, ignore the letters but it may come to you fessing up to your parents and if that happens refer them to CAG and these threads to reassure them that nothing will come of any threats by RLP. For now, try to get on with your life and STOP STEALING. Carrying on will get the attention of the police and makes us on CAG look like fools. -
Totally agree with you. I still think the police should be called in every theft case. I don't really like the word 'shoplifting' as it (to me) minimises the effect. Theft, stealing are better words (IMO) I would have no problem with imposing a small charge to thieves but this would only have a limited effect on first timers but for the hardened criminal, nothing anybody does will make any difference. I have no problem with restorative justice but I do have a major problem with companies who tag on and make unlawful demands from them for profit. RLP made a reasonable profit this year so that indicates that some people have paid up. What we don't know is how many of them were first timers or someone with mental health issues. Security staff on the front end of this should get some training to help them spot those who may have issues that may lead to stealing, In the current financial climate and the growing use of food banks maybe we should be aware of the difficulties in society at large??
-
Of course not. It is perfectly reasonable to ask a person questions just as it's perfectly reasonable to refuse to talk to security. You know this and I am detecting a hint of sarcasm. Many people will happily stop when an alarm goes off to prove they have paid but the RF tag hasn't been deactivated properly (I have-many times) but there is no obligation to do so and if security staff manhandle a person who refuses to comply but is perfectly innocent, security would be in trouble. A complaint would be wending its way to the store head office at the very least. It is not illegal to refuse to engage.
-
Santander demanding mobile phone for One Time Password
silverfox1961 replied to gabljabr's topic in Santander
I have to say that I use the mobile banking far more than online banking as it is so easy to use but more importantly, the account is secured using their software. I appreciate that it is easy for some people will try and divert your phone number elsewhere or create a clone of your phone and then change it on the Santander website. This is not that easy online as the website shows an image and a phrase that has been set up when registering for online banking. The drawback to that is that with mobile banking, the image nor phrase are used. I have not had any attempts on my account in all the years I have been with them (20+ years) I agree that the OTP is sent by text message and I suppose that can be intercepted but the text itself will be of no use to anyone if they don't have your log in details already. The unusual activity recognition used by Santander does work as it has happened to me except the unusual activity was me making four transactions in a very short time. My home phone and my mobile went off and asked me questions about my transactions where if I had said no to any question, my account would have been locked and I would have been diverted to the fraud team. What I don't like about Santander (and other banks) is the Rapport software which is supposed to make your PC more secure. It screwed my PC up badly and I had to remove it and revert the PC to a previous state for it to work. In essence, if you are uncomfortable about using the technology available to you, the only option I can see is that you visit your local branch and do it manually. All banks have different security for online banking. Card readers for Barclays. Other banks use voice recognition or facial recognition. It would be worth asking what help is available for people who have difficulty using online/mobile banking.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS