Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

steveod

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    251

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by steveod

  1. steveod
    Maybe, but then you know what the delivery zone is before you conclude the contract. They cannot come after the fact and say this is how we define the zone and tough luck that’s the end of the matter. If you know before because it’s defined in the terms or on their website then fine.
  2. steveod
    It has been modified but is faulty as not operating in accordance with the manufacturer specs or legislation. For example, if I bought a tumble dryer that the retailer had “modified” and due to that “modification” the drum was only spinning at 1rpm then the item is faulty. Just because it’s modified doesn’t make it not faulty. If it was mofified in some way that was still legal and within the manufacturer specs then that is different ie not faulty
  3. steveod
    Put a directions from London to Reading in google maps and see if it gives you the distance in radials. I think not. The only time I see radials on a map is the blast zone of a nuclear bomb, never seen it on any map relating to traffic, insurance, telematics etc anyway as they haven’t defined it then it must be defined to the benefit of the consumer
  4. steveod
    Sorry but I think the goods are faulty. The silencer is part of the vehicle and is not “working” or operating within the manufacturers specifications and as described to the OP and thus the exhaust system itself is faulty
  5. steveod
    They haven’t provided any definition Of how they calculate the distance in their terms? Then any interpretation will be in your favour and as per what a reasonable person/consumer would think which is by road I.e M, A, B, unnamed roads and not by plane/drone/pigeon
  6. steveod
    Umm, I fail to see how they could prove the intent to steal. The OP maybe went in to buy something but then decided to shoplift. No intent, well not beyond reasonable doubt anyway.
  7. steveod
    A CJEU ruling last month stated that when a debt is assigned, then all relevant consumer law applies to the company that has been assigned the debt in addition to the original creditor so when they chasing the debt they have to conform with all relevant consumer law as well.
  8. steveod
    Then the LA should ensure the ECHR rights at all times during term time as the education of the child is paramount. Therefore if a school gives a day off because of teacher training or administration or allows children to go on organised overseas trips or allows teachers to strike then the ECHR rights of the children have been breached by the school and the LA or head should be held liable? Or maybe these should be banned in the best interest of the children? Teachers shouldn't be allowed to strike if stopping a child getting 1 day education is so critical as spouted by the schools and education minister. Seems very one sided.
  9. steveod
    2 millions UK expats were not able to vote. so if they had of, which is one of the most important principles of a democracy, then the referdum would have had a different result.
  10. steveod
    lies. not misinformation. We all know the big liars of that referendum. lets call it what it was.
  11. steveod
    what democratic vote? hoodwinked by the brexit politicians - or should that be liars with their big red bus! if it had of been a real democratic vote then like in normal elections, UK expats and citizens overseas at the time of the referendum would have been allowed a vote. they weren't. not really a vote for the will of ALL THE people then.
  12. steveod
    and they should be made to pay an annual license fee of £400 per bike to cover the costs of the millions of miles of cycle paths around the country that it cost the taxpayer to build that they can't be bothered to use.
  13. steveod
    Tesco mobile
  14. steveod
    Querying the experts as regards a mobile contract. If a person signs up to a mobile service that provides a SIM (airtime, data, calls, etc) under a service agreement, and the mobile handset is provided under a consumer credit agreement, for a 24 month period, and then 18 months into the contract the person wants to terminate the service agreement but keep paying for the handset under the CCA: a)can the mobile operator insist both agreements are tied together so that its not possible to only terminate the one agreement and not the other? b) if the full amount outstanding under the service agreement is settled i.e all remaining months is paid in full, but the CCA is to be continued to be paid monthly, can the mobile provider then insist that the CCA needs to be paid in full at same time as the service agreement or they will prevent the porting of the number and mark the CCA The service agreement only has in the terms that in event of early termination the servcie agreement that the CCA needs to be checked to see the early termination terms for the handset itself.
  15. steveod
    It's nothing to do with the hidden charges. Ericsbrother is correct in that they had no right to the charge due to not relevant land as covered by byelaw and they would have got a spanking in court and you could have counterclaimed for data protection act breach. IF, as an example, it was relevant land and covered by POFA and if all other elements of contract law, penalties, etc were held to be lawful and valid, then the hidden SMS charges would not apply to the contract under the CRA but that in itself wouldn't make the entire contract void.
  16. steveod
    Well, I have applied the same reasoning to my latest letter to ICO so will wait and see how they respond.
  17. steveod
    why? in what sections are they right? did you look at 56 and 57 of the SC case? I don' think they are right. the DVLA can only provide private data to persons that have a statutory right to process the data eg police, council, NHS etc. In 56, The test imposed by condition 5(b) in Schedule 2 and condition 7(1)(b) in Schedule 3 to the DPA requires that disclosure must be “necessary” for the exercise of statutory functions (which must again refer to the functions of the person to whom the disclosure is made,..... It does not refer to the statutory function of the dvla but of to whom they release the data. That is where the ico is making the error. In 57, Condition 3 in Schedule 2 is not satisfied, since the disclosure does not have to be necessary for compliance with any legal obligation imposed on the data controller. Condition 5(b) in Schedule 2, and condition 7(1)(b) in Schedule 3, are not satisfied, since the processing does not have to be necessary for the exercise of any of the named person functions Condition 3 - since there is no obligation under the road vehicle regulations for the dvla to release data except in their own interpretation of reasonable cause, then condition 3 is not met. Condition 5 - processing is not required for any of the statutory functions of the ppc - they don't have any Of course all above only my opinion and I could be wrong. So welcome comments
  18. steveod
    I agree I am litigating against them now. but the amount of £400 is for the damages I suffered (which I have a full breakdown of) as a direct result of them unlawfully using my private data prior to the POPLA decision and for procssing my data after the POPLA decision even. I am not claiming for the time preparing my litigation at all. that I will leave for the court to decide if entitled to LIP costs. As you state, if they hadn't unlawfully obtained my data from the DVLA, hadn't continued to process my data when i requested them to stop as they had no right to it, then I wouldnt have had all the expense of the petrol, parking, envelopes, stamps, electricity and my time(which was not time spent in any sort of litigation but in obtaining and providing information to dispute their right to invoice me). maybe I wont get all the £400 but I have a detailed breakdown so even if i get them to settle for half its a result.
  19. steveod
    I can including costs of postage, envelopes, petrol travelling to the parking site, electricity usage on computer for the time researching and compiling the letters re the PCN and the DPA compliance, etc They were not litigating against me, they just sent a PCN so none of the writing or appeals had anything to do with litigation, and POPLA is not even a valid ADR entity. Wouldn't lose anyway but court may award a lesser figure. Not going for damages for harassment, purely damages under the DPA and their breach thereof. I have a number of cases where it is stated that there is no requirement to provide an assessment of the distress caused, it is for the court to decide the damages based on the breach by the party that unlawfully processed the data. @ericsbrother, yes, that is why I referred to Section 35(1) of the DPA. and the Supreme Court case. And when a court interprets any UK law it must be interpreted in a way that gives effect to the provisions of the EU law. well for next 2 years anyway lol.
  20. steveod
    Schedule 2(2)(a) states: The processing is necessary— (a)for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or as above, I did not enter into a contract with the PPC as simply the RK. PoFA does not make the RK a party to any contract, it just holds the keeper liable in the event all of the conditions of PoFA are met and the driver hasn't paid the parking charge. In my opinion the DPA, the Eu Directive on Data Protection and private rights under the HRA & ECHR all take precedence or must be complied with first, before the conditions under PoFA are available.
  21. steveod
    Hi Bankfodder I understand perfectly what you say - and you are probably correct. But, I have read many cases(read over 30), both UK and EU data protection related and in the majority where 1000s have been claimed, I have seen numerous where eventual judgement of +-£750 has been ruled as reasonable even though the distress would be similar to mine. therefore, I feel £400 for the PPC total lack of regard for the distress I have had to incur in their threats of legal action and demanding money they were not entitled to all because they unlawfully obtained and processed my data. I dont have to provide a breakdown of the distress I have suffered, it is sufficient I have suffered distress. Even if the court awards a slightly smaller sum at least it will go some way to rectify this. Is it not too late now to reduce the amount I want to claim anyway as I have listed it on the PoC? "I'm not at all sure that "reasonable cause" is grounds for accessing or processing your personal data." this is not what the PPC and the ICO have told me - they state reasonable cause( Reg 27(1)(e) is an exemption under the DPA Section 35. I have numerous correspondence with ICO in regards this matter and I am busy preparing case for the GPR to take the ICO to as I believe the ICO are not interpreting the DPA correctly and seem to have the belief that the DVLA are always correct and can do what they want with RK details. "and would have to amount to "lawful authority" which would include authorisation by you as a result of some contract." as simply the RK I did not agree to any contract and so did not give any lawful authority and it is not within the drivers lawful authority to allow someone else access to my private data.
  22. steveod
    any advise welcome. I received a PCN from a PPC. I appealed to them and got standard "get lost" template response In this appeal I told the PPC to stop processing my private data as they had obtained it unlawfully from the DVLA due to the non compliance of POFA, BPA CoP and DVLA contract. I appealed on fact that PCN not PoFA compliant, not BPA CoP compliant and single sign with t&cs was not visible. then Appealed to POPLA on above points and many others such as no contract, etc, etc POPLA upheld my appeal without addressing any of the points except the first one of not PoFa compliant. wrote to PPC and told them again to stop processing my data and confirm within 21 days removed from their systems. no response from them. I have now issued small claims for the damages I suffered - petrol to go visit the site to photograph the sign and layout, stamps, envelopes, parking to post, electricity usage on computer, etc in amount to £400. plus £400 damages for distress under DPA. They are defending saying they had "reasonable cause" to obtain my private data and that Section 35(1) of the DPA applies which allows the DVLA and the PPC to process the data due to the Road Vehicles Regulations Act 2002 27(1)(e). Besides the fact that I think that the definition of reasonable cause by the DVLA is arbitary as they change the definition whenever they see fit and its not defined in legislation and therefore does not meet the requirements of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights(another whole story ongoing with the ICO for 4 months now!), I believe the PPC is not allowed to process my private data under the Section 35(1) exemption of the DPA, in my opinion, taking the Supreme Court case in The Christian Institute and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) into account: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/51.html&query=("section+35") Paragraphs 56 and 57 are the most relevant. the reasonable cause provision under Road Vehicles Regulations Act 2002 27(1)(e) is not a statutory obligation and so does not meet the DPA Schedule 2 requirements.(para 57) And paras 3 and 5 of Schedule 2 of the DPA also do not allow the release of private data to the PPC due to the fact that the PPC is not processing the data as a function of a statutory duty. This is also subject of a complaint with the ICO. (para 56) any other thoughts or points I can use to ensure judgement goes my way?
  23. steveod
    And tell him that he is in breach of data protection act for even discussing your sons debt with you. Tell him to get lost and you will be reporting it to the ICO.
  24. steveod
    Wouldn't worry about going to take pics unless they start small claims action. I doubt they will have sufficient pictures of the locations of the signs and the terms of the signs from the time, and even if they do there is no way for you or a court to know that those are the actual signs that were present, and even then their signs wouldn't be capable of forming a contract most probably. And you could get a copy of the PCN from them either through DPA request, or better still wait until you received their evidence pack if they decided to go the court route as the PCN almost certainly wouldn't be correct to sufficiently form a contract.
  25. steveod
    Do you still have the PCN you originally received? if so blank out personal details and post. also do you have any pictures of the signs at the site from the time? i would be almost certain that their signs and PCN from the time would not be sufficient to form a contract.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...