Hello, Thank you for your reply. From your reply, I can see that you have a database and that the marketing email I have received is a result of my email being on your database. I had thought that as you were using a third party company icptrack.com, then they had obtained my email from somewhere. However, you have confirmed in your reply that you use a database. Please will you let me know where you obtained my email address from? Please will you let me know when I have given yourselves permission to send me email? As I have never been a Brighthouse customer I am perplexed as to where you have obtained my email and my permission for you to send me marketing emails. Thank you.

i cant see how they advertise it as being both halal and vegan

lol i wonder if i will get any answer would be interesting to know where they found my email details and why they think that they can spam my inbox

Have you added animal bones to your coffee or teas? Maybe a sprinkling of animal bones over your cornflakes? Tate & Lyle website, FAQs state: Q. Are Tate & Lyle sugars and syrups suitable for vegans? A. All of our sugars and syrups are suitable for vegans, except Tate & Lyle Traditional Royal Icing Sugar, which contains egg white. All good so far? Until you read this: Q. Are your products Halal? A. We currently hold Halal Certification for: Tate & Lyle Granulated Sugar Tate & Lyle Caster Sugar Tate & Lyle Preserving Sugar Tate & Lyle Icing Sugar Lyle’s Golden Syrup Lyle’s Squeezys all flavours Lyle’s Black Treacle Lyle’s Maple Pouring Syrup How can a large company state that their sugar is suitable for vegans, then state that the sugar is halal certified? Tate & lyle website is here: http://www.tasteandsmile.com/faq The same page says it is halal certified and vegan edit: animal bones are used in the cleaning / refining of the sugar

Hello Brighthouse rep, Today I received email, spam email. The email advertises Brighthouse. The email says it is sent from: contact@toner-shop.ro via podcasall.advisoryideas.com I have never been a customer of Brighthouse. I do not ever intend in being a customer of Brighthouse. I did not request that you send me your junk mail, neither did I give yourselves permission to send me junk mail. It seems your junk email which I received is part of your email marketing campaign as it uses icptrack.com within the clickable links for Brighthouse. Please will you review your email marketing campaign? And perhaps contact only those who have given yourselves permission to contact? Thank you.

hi, Your question about EU may make it more complicated! He is a non citizen, with a non citizen passport. Im not sure what country they were in when he won the money.

hi stefob, as you can see from peopod thread, if i remember rightly, vodafone ignored the complaint and continued to ignore it up until the time where potential media spotlight appeared on them. your phone is like a bank card. it can cost you a lot of money. your bank protects you against theft / fraud, the phone network doesn't. similar to peopod thread, - calls made to premium rate numbers and vodafone did nothing to prevent this.

Hello, A friend who lives outside UK has been using a well known UK gambling site. He has won a lot of money but the website says that as he is outside UK they have suspended his account and will not pay him the money. So, website is quite happy to take all money from him when he is losing, but then use an excuse when he has won to avoid paying the money. Any advice please?

thanks again! i will update thread with outcome from ICO and FOS as well as any other outcome.

Sorry, I have made a mistake, I have received SAR documents from the start of the claim. However, the concern above does still stand - ie, I have not received all data. Examples of data which I have not yet received: 1. I can not see anywhere within the SAR documents you sent me details of the 14 calls you stated I had made. You said you could provide me with the exact time and dates, yet they do not appear within the SAR documents. 2. Neither has any transcribing or details of the phone calls are shown within the SAR documents. 3. Copies of letters / documents received are not within the SAR documents. 4. Telephone recordings are not included, apart from one phone call in 2014. You state you can provide me with the exact time and date of all 14 telephone conversations and you state that this has been provided. I can not see this document, neither can I find any details within the SAR screenshots. 5. Since you can provide the exact date and time of all 14 telephone conversations, using these parameters you are easily able to retrieve the calls from your system, however you state this system is disused so therefore you can't provide.

I thought this thread was a joke. Teaching kids the reality of if they don't attend a certain % of school then a PCN is issued is almost certainly bad education.

The Subject access request has not been fully completed. I have data from 2014 and nothing else. In relation to the phone calls, you state that you can not supply them as it is on a disused system making phone calls difficult to retrieve, yet you can supply me with the exact times and dates of phone calls. Using the parameters of the exact time and dates of phone calls would in my opinion make the phone calls easy to retrieve. I see no reason why you haven't provided SAR documents showing the start of the claim.

Especially as this very old vulnerability is now public knowledge!

Hello Hastings, I have several complaints against your company and its course of action in processing my claim for theft of my car. The complaints are detailed below for your information. Complaints you have not upheld: 1. Length of time (several years) in which it took to you to process my car theft claim (Not upheld) 2. Loss of my no claims bonus due to length of time it took you to process my claim (Not upheld) 3. Why you required scanned document instead of photo of document (Unanswered) Complaints you have upheld: 4. Incorrect lower payment paid to me (Complaint upheld) 5. Failure to provide me with a Subject Access Request within legal time permittied (Complaint upheld) In relation to the Subject Access Request, your letter states: In answer to this, it is my view that there has been several 'mix ups' of yourselves transferring requests to the correct departments. My view is that such mix ups can be seen from the length of time it has taken to process a simple claim for car theft (several years). Even when the claim had been processed there was an additional mix up in you actually paying the correct amount, you firstly paid a lower amount. You have recognised that there is a mix up within the SAR and you have stated that you have revised your processes to ensure that this does not happen again. However, even after your letter stating that you have revised your processes, there still is an error in your already revised processes. The error is - Whilst you have sent me data as part of the Subject Access Request, this does seem to be incomplete. The only data I have is from 2014. Whilst I have previously asked yourselves for all data, I also specifically asked for data at the start of the claim. This data has not been provided to me. Your letter states the following: Is this a written refusal notice as required by ICO? Your letter states the following: My response to this is: 1. If you are able to see the exact time and dates for my calls, then using such parameters you are easily able to retrieve the calls which you say are extremely difficult to identify. 2. I have not received any information as to the times and dates of the 14 calls despite in your letter you said you enclosed this. Please send again (along with all other information). 3. I have not received prints of all notes relating to my claim. For example, I can only see notes from recent times - all are within the year 2014. My claim goes back several years and as such I require the data from the start of the claim. Whilst I have informed you that I require all the data you hold about me, I have also tried to be helpful in making a specific request for data covering the start of the claim from several years ago. In your letter, you stated that there had been a mix up in my Subject Access Request being transferred to the correct department and you have revised your processes to ensure that this does not happen again. Despite you revising your processes, there still seems to be an error in that you have not sent me any information which covers the start of the claim. From the start of the claim to the claim being paid out, my own opinion is that errors were made. From after the time the claim was paid out, further errors were made. Even when the claim had been paid additional further errors are still being made in the fact that you have failed to provide me with a Subject Access Request despite the fact that you have stated you have revised your process to ensure that this does not happen again. To reiterate: I require a Subject Access Request. This is to include ALL data about myself. To be more clear, I require a Subject Access Request that provides me with data which includes absolutely everything you have! Not only from the year 2014, but everything from the start of taking out this insurance policy with yourselves. In addition to my Subject Access Request requirements as above, I would also appreciate it if this complaint can be sent to anyone within your company other than the current claims handler. I request that since in my own opinion the current claims handler has made errors, then this complaint should be dealt with by someone else. In addition to this, to clarify further, I am also requesting that my previous complaints which the current claims handler had not upheld are also dealt with by another person within your company. Preferably the CEO? To make it absolutely clear to yourselves, I require a Subject Access Request which includes ALL data held about myself. Thank you.

Hi Uncle Bulgaria, Thank you again for your help!

I think that the charges and arrears are separate? The possession proceeding is just that, a possession proceeding. Your concerns about the charges and unfair treatment are not relevant to the possession proceeding. You may feel that they are relevant, though the Judge can only deal with the banks claim for repossession and can not deal with your concerns about the charges and unfair treatment. I think it is normal for banks to buy and sell mortgage loans. A paralegal has given you this advice? I would disagree with that advice - the possession hearing can only deal with if the property is being repossessed or not. Your complaints against the mortgage company can not be dealt with at the possession hearing. Whilst you have complaints against the mortgage company, I think you should take these complaints up at a later time and in the meantime you need to concentrate on preparing for tomorrow so you can stop the repossession of your property. The Judge would need to be convinced that you are in a position to pay your arrears over a reasonable amount of time. The maximum time allowed will be the remaining term of your mortgage. I am not a paralegal but I believe the advice you have received from the paralegal is incorrect because the repossession hearing can only deal with the repossession and not your complaints. Although, I could be wrong in this!

Yes you can complain but am not sure if the bet will give you financial help. If the second vet you went to will provide evidence of their diagnosis as well as evidence that expensive surgery would not have been needed if the diagnosis was correctly done with the first vet, then you would have a strong case against the first vet. But from what I see, - the legs are deformed and would have needed surgery and would have needed surgery at the time where you took your dog to the first vet. The first vet didn't correctly diagnose, but had they correctly diagnosed the dog would still need surgery at a cost of what the cost of the surgery is now... if that makes sense?! Or of diagnosed correctly at the first vets, then surgery wouldn't be needed? I hope Bailey is better soon!

Hello Cormac, you have received shocking treatment from Chrysler! I know below quote is not going to help you, but it is similar to your situation. 8 Years ago.. Above quoted from: http://www.automotiveforums.com/t196775-everyone_with_transmission_problems__a_chrysler_secret____read_this__.html

The £150 voucher also seems a good iffer. But I guess that you would pay more than £150 to BT for their service. What I cant understand is that the vouchers from Sky are valued at 20p more than the yearly charge for phone line and broadband. I have learnt that if something seems too good to be true then it usually is untrue. I've looked for the catch in Sky offer and cant see any catches - and I cant understand why they would give vouchers for a retailer and the vouchers are worth more money that what they will receive for phone and broadband. Its not a problem.. I am just curious.

i think it is a full refund less the cost of usage, small amount can be deducted for the actual hire or usage because it is a hp agreement. either way, with the expensive prices that brighthouse charge, there should be enough money in the refund to buy a fridge freezer from a retailer that actually cares about its customers and also have some cash left.

Hopefully Charlottes fridge freezer will be with her soon! As she has already had 2 fridge freezers and both had the same fault, I think that a like for like replacement should not be accepted.

Concerning last post, Hastings are now processing my SAR and have offered £30 compensation for the delay. After waiting several years for this to be sorted, there have been further errors made by Hastings such as incorrect payment paid to me and the delay in SAR. For those errors, I had been offered £25 and £30 compensation. My opinion of the errors is that they are indicative of past experience in trying to claim. My previous complaints (the more serious complaints) have not been upheld by Hastings. What is the best way to deal with this? Do I wait for my SAR and compare the information and then proceed with FOS or legal action?

but it is £185 voucher and not a £100 voucher. i do not understand the deal because the amount in M&S vouchers is 20p more than the cost of phone line and broadband per year

My parents needed help in changing their phone/ broadband provider because their bills are expensive. Today, I signed them to a deal from sky, but this deal seems too good to be true. It is a 12 month contract with phone line and broadband at a cost of £192.00 But they will also receive £192.00 in marks and spencer vouchers. I am just wondering what the catch is? Essentially the phone line and broadband are free for a year because of the vouchers! Is there a catch to this?

You do not need any grounds or reason to inform Brighthouse that they must not call at your home. You do not need any grounds or reasons to stop Brighthouse calling you on your phone. If you confirm with 'Jason at Brighthouse' whether he has received your account details in addition to you removing access to your home, then if anyone from Brighthouse calls at your home I would advise you to call your local police and ask them to attend since you are being harassed. If you can record phone calls and any future visits, this would be of help to you. I have also sent you some interesting information in private message, though when you read that message you will see the reason why I can not write this within a public forum.