In my opinion , your refusal to discuss matters on the phone would have absolutely No bearing or inference on any court proceedings . In fact if you have refused to answer any 'security ' questions , How could they show it was you refusing anyway, third parties often answer my phone and will only respond to questions in Anglo-Saxon . I really would not worry about it , the phone calls and lying letters stating Your"refusal to communicate" are deliberately designed to undermine and intimidate you on a low tap dripping level . if you are communicating with them in writing , what more is there to say , and what advantage to you to say it . A written letter demands a written reply to address the issues in the letter . Keep your chin up .

Can you find out who stole the data and how much they stole ? I also have a very long piece of string , can anyone please tell me how long it is ?

No I am childless , but I did get £300 plus from a financial firm for a similar breach where an employee had sold on details in a similar fashion , I cannot say any more about that as the walls have ears . A CIfas flag would only be good for 12 months , this information cannot be put back into Pandorras box and therefore will still be toxic in and after the expiration of any flag . Also reading an interesting post by Busby where , it is stated that a Cifas flag does not differentiate between a Fraud to and fraud by , unless manually done , therby branding in the majority of automated applications etc , the credit file holder a potential fraudster . Nice first you get your details nicked and then in compensation you are royally messed up . Insult to Injury methinks .

Surprise surprise T mobile have not specified what data has been stolen , if I recall any application includes name ,time at and address , telephone nos, date of birth, perhaps employment details , bank acct . What else does an identity thief need ? With all due respect , I note from your previous threads that you are a para legal with a telecoms corp , i do hope that there is no conflict of interest here .

Thank you for your reply , I was thinking along the lines of the Government child database fiasco . An approximate sum of £300 was suggested then , on the grounds that one had to continuously review one's security arrangements as the breach is ongoing , who knows where that info is or will end up . There is enough given to a mobile phone provider to enable identity theft and this ongoing threat more than the annoying phone calls is the real distress . As to proof that my data was sold the third party phone calls before the expiration of the contract , the initial reason for the sale of details is suggestive that they were sold .

Well here we go , as reported on the news T mobile employees have been selling our data , so it seems according to the News and the ICO . That explains all the annoying selling calls and I presume that all data can be sold on again and again ad infinitum , cant put the egg back in the shell now . Can we sue T mobile for this obvious breach of The Data protection Act , and if so how ?

I am not sure under the circumstances if you are obliged to give them ANY information , what is the benefit to you , in my opinion ,

Send them a data access request for all information pertaining to you , give their data controller reference to the bank letter , i have always found council FOi / data protection officers helpful in my parking wars .

I second this question and also wonder where one stands if instead of taking you to court they sell-on the account to a third party , would the original dodgy default notice /termination be a defence against the third party taking court action ?

Sorry I am a bit lazy , Information commissioners Office .

Oh well they got it though . The day count starts from the date of the letter now, so if they want to mess about its their time , persist like any bully they will back down when challenged . Same letter as Cca but ammended may want to mention the clock is ticking , I C O etc.

Give it a few days to flush through the system , count the 40 days from when it is delivered from the destination post office , although I sometimes go from the letter date itself . In my experience Sar requests are handled o.k , as it is a seperate dept, However if no reply is forthcoming post delivery after 40 Total days , not work days , you can get militant on them .Patience !

If you used the Standard template from this site , the Dca s should have been obliged to produce a CCa , therefore no need to ask the bank , although you could. As you have not had a cca produced , well within your rights to stop paying them ,that should increase your negotiating position .

Can you prove the forgery ? Re. the taxwise analysis I would cynically agree , In mammonism everything is justifiable to the digit .

Do you have Proof of the link between the initial cheque and revised F&F . i.e photocopy in situ . ? Have you seen any cca agreement re. this card ?

Not to worry , you are just requesting Your information , this is your legal right , you are not doing any thing wrong . Bear in mind triton and Rbs are one and the same , See the bottom of triton letter , part of RBs . If they wrong you for standing on your rights , you are doubly right . Their wrongs and mistakes can be made to haunt them .

"Dunk a banker" with a graphic of a dunking stool

A live cow produces more milk than beef .

As I understand it , and i could be wrong , if you had a potentially unenforcable credit card , by changing it to a loan they could then have have an enforcable agreement if pushed comes to shove .

"Dunk a banker "

Very good G&M

I am neither my brothers keeper , nor his judge , everyone knows who drove in the bus lane, they have his address , its not for me to ask him for the money , I am not the one who wants it . By the way G&M , Are you Ken Livingstone ? I promise not to tell .

Do listen to your logic , I did not permit anything , I was not in the car , I was not aware of the infraction , You cannot passively permit anything , the driver admitted in writing that it was down to him , this was shown to the adjudicator who accepted it was true , yet said I was still liable . You love regulations so much obviously you lack a mind or sense of your own identity unless it is proscribed by someone else. You have a sad outlook my friend , I wish you would acknowledge to us your interest to the parking industry as you are so very knowledgable , i suspect you work in local govt and your livelihood depends on people swallowing your illiberal illegitimate regulatory nonsense and playing by your rules . Your world did not exist before the early 1990s remember that . I really hope the green in your name does not mean that you actually beleive all this is for the enviroment , and not for revenue , because despite our differences , I respect your knowledge of the law surrounding this and the helpfull advice you can give .

With respect Local Authorities do outsource to private companies , and they are profit driven .I too have paid plenty of LA tickets and as a result have modified my behavior , i have not had a ticket for 2 years .Not one of the tickets i paid had anything to do with traffic flow though , its always been revenue driven , and have been hunted by predatory warden 1 minute over etc. and successfully appealed many a spiteful ticket . Despite the bigger picture it is a matter of principle I will not pay for what I have not done , simples.

I suppose it was , but I did not mean to confront the input of my fellow caggers , just the illiberal attitude of some who revel in regulation and illegitimate interpretation of the common law .