Upload this document Customer service Paid by bank transfer

This is another test thread

BMW test forum

BMW test

Big motoring world topic test

Upload Customer services guide

http://cagtest.co.uk/parcel_delivery/test.html http://cagtest.co.uk/parcel_delivery/

This is the new topic described

Blah blah blah

blah blah

Can you please just clarify one thing – was the lost item sent by you or intended to be received by you?

That all sounds very decent and noble – but the people are paid by John Lewis to carry the message and to promote the attitude which you are having to deal with and which is causing you all of these problems, using up scarce public resources in the County Court and also taken up our time as a volunteer advice group. If these people's names are known they will then think a little bit more about what they are doing and maybe they will speak their line managers and maybe somebody will feel sufficiently uncomfortable to reflect on the way they are treating you and other customers. I'm afraid that protecting these frontline staff in this way simply protects management who prefer to hide behind the skirts of customer-facing fodder, and provides no encouragement or motivation to change anything. I'm quite sure that you know people who go to a restaurant, get an unsatisfactory meal or unsatisfactory service and still leave a tip when they leave. I'm sure you know people who go to a restaurant, get an unsatisfactory meal or unsatisfactory service and still pay the 10% or 15% "optional" service charge which is added to the bill because they are simply too embarrassed to quibble. It's up to you but you aren't helping anybody – and in fact you are causing problems for the majority.

Thank you. Yes as soon as you get the date then please let us know. In the meantime, if you have done your reading you will know that one of our Caggers won a case precisely on the issue of third party rights. We have been trying to get a transcript for some time but there seems to be some difficulty. If you would be prepared to apply for the transcript on your own behalf then we would reimburse you if you succeeded. If you're happy to do that then please let me know and I will send the information needed to you at your email address. Additionally, someone managed to find some interesting documents about Packlink's relationship to the delivery agents that they are working for. I will try to get you the link to that thread – but you would probably find if you had a look for yourself. I think it would be very useful for you if you had a very close look around the EVRi website and also the Packlink website in order to discover information about how they view their relationship. In the DPD one – I think it was DPD (if not it was UPS) on this site, our Cagger @StoneCross found some interesting references where it seemed that the arrangement between Packlink and DPD was that DPD would actually be responsible and their contract was directly with the sender. It's a been involved in I haven't checked it out very fully yet – but maybe you could look around for this.

Well post their names please. I have no idea why you want to protect these people

Started off well but then you reverted to generalisations . You should particularize the breaches : Failed to do xxx contrary to the requirements of licence paragraph X sub paragraph y Failed to do ZZ country to the requirements of licence paragraph z sub paragraph w Etc These should all be sub paragraphs For instance Paragraph 3A Paragraph 3B 3c 3D Etc The paragraph letters should be in lowercase

Who is the Partner & Director Relations Case Manager? Did they give their name – and in which case, why have you omitted it from here

every paragraph. It should start off: the claimant agreed to buy a XXX animal from XXX defendant, a professional breeder for £XXX The defendant is a licensed breeder – licensed by XXX organisation and therefore as a condition of the licence, has agreed to abide by XXX rules. The claimant relied on the fact that the defendant was a licensed breeder and relied on the fact that the XXX rules would be respected by the defendant. Blah blah blah the defendant breached the terms of the contract in that she failed to observe the licensing rules and failed to conduct her breeding operation in compliance with the rules and failed to conduct the sale in compliance with those rules. Blah blah blah and so on

The cause of action in your case would be a breach of contract. The contract would be whatever is written in the agreement between you – and also terms which might be implied either because it represents the reasonable expectations of both parties or because there are outside regulations such as possibly breeding rules or licence rules et cetera that are automatically incorporated into a contract for an animal. You will know this better than we do. Why don't you start off by assembling all the bills you have incurred so far and also the professional opinions and quotations of veterinary experts. How many pages as that run to – before I asked you to post it up in PDF format

First of all, we are aware of the cognitive et cetera problems that you are experiencing. However, apart from the fact that we are simply volunteers and our time is stretched anyway, I'm afraid that your personal predicament will not cut a lot of ice with the court – and certainly not with the defendant. Also, if this goes to trial – and based on the nature of your claim and the amount you are claiming, it probably will – then you are going to have to do address the court, present a cohesive and convincing case – deal with a defendant and may be a defendant's lawyer if she decides to instruct one and I'm afraid that if you are finding it difficult already at this stage, then you really need to consider what you are doing. I see that you have got all the motivation and all the enthusiasm that is needed – in spades. However you need a well structured and ordered mindset and you need to be to present your case in that way. The document which you have posted above seems to be extremely incomplete. It doesn't set out any cause of action. It also makes allegation such as a breach of licensing conditions but you don't explain how that has happened. You seem to be making claims for sums of money without any supportive evidence that those sums of money you are claiming is reasonable. And you may not like what I'm going to say now – but I can imagine that at some point the court might consider that you are wasting money and that the animal should be put down. And before you rise up in shock and horror – don't forget that courts deal with exactly the same questions in relation to the withdrawal or otherwise of life-support systems not only from elderly patients or people who have suffered trauma – but even from young children and babies. When they make these decisions, the judges are taking a pragmatic view in terms of life expectancy, quality-of-life – and also the economic cost of maintaining a life throughout whatever limited expectancy that person might have. Here we are dealing with an animal – which, like it or not, is simply a chattel – "goods". Although the judge would not be able to order its destruction, I'm quite sure that the judge should have at the back of their mind the economic's involved and the practicality and the common sense of what you are asking. At some point, the question might arise as to whether or not it is a better decision to award you the cost of a new animal rather than simply maintaining this one. Once again, you may not like it – but in effect you have bought the animal equivalent of a used car and to use an insurance term, it may well be "beyond economical repair". Being awarded damages to cover the cost of care for the life of a permanently injured person is one thing. Asking the court to make a similar kind of award to cover the cost of care for the life of a permanently sick animal is totally different – and I would rate your chances of success on that heading is pretty well Zero. There is no point in beginning a claim with unrealistic expectations. It will simply cost you money, embarrassment, it will hand a victory to the other side for absolutely no reason at all. You have probably gathered already from things that I have said earlier on in this thread – that I consider that the breeding of specialist pedigree animals is a kind of eugenics. I find the whole thing deplorable. As far as it continues, it is clear that it is not properly regulated and that it is an industry where cowboys get involved in the cowboys only exist because there are customers around who want to own an animal simply on its looks and not some other animal because it looks different. We are happy to help you – but you had better start being realistic about your claim. If we consider the interests of the animal – is it really reasonable to maintain a sick animal in this way with all the trauma of medical attention and operations et cetera throughout its life? I know that this is going to make difficult reading. Once again, there are lots of lonely animals desperately need of love and homes which are simply waiting in rescue accommodation all over the country. Presumably they aren't good enough for you?

I suspect also that many judges would want real evidence of the distress that you say you have suffered. I suspect that many judges might see it simply as a money grab and aren't altogether in agreement with the principal that distress needs to be linked to some physical loss. Without prejudice is poorly understood. It simply means that an offer that you make can't be disclosed to a judge or use as a sign of some kind of admission. Particularly as you are the claimant, I don't really have any purpose but if you have some purpose then fine. Don't forget that it prevents you then from disclosing your information to the judge unless it comes to a question of costs

I'm not sure that you told us before that they had sent you bank statements very shortly before your SAR request to the same name and address. This is significant. Did you tell the judge? Now that they have admitted on paper that they were satisfied as to your identity on 21 April – then you certainly have a slamdunk case for a breach of the 30 day deadline. However, as I've suggested, I envisage you winning and being awarded a small amount of damages is still being required to pay the costs so that you are out of pocket. I'm not sure what their attitude is to having a DPA judgement. You can certainly call their bluff and it will be very interesting to see. Why are you proposing to send your letter "without prejudice"? What advantage do you think it is to you to do this?

If you want some help then you had better produce your proposed particulars of claim laid out in an orderly way – one point per paragraph and numbered paragraphs.

And if you want to cause some trouble for Monzo or anyone else that has gotten under your skin, then this is how it is done: You can make a valid request for an SAR over the telephone. A verbal request is perfectly acceptable. Very few people seem to realise this – and in particular bank staff don't. Their staff development such as it is has been to advise customers to make request in writing or to fill out particular forms et cetera blah blah blah. Wait for all this hassle to die down. Having read our customer services guide so that you record the conversation Telephone Monzo. Satisfy all their ID checks so that they are then prepared to talk to you about your account. Maybe even make some transfer or some request over the telephone so that it is beyond doubt. Make a verbal SAR request. Be prepared for a refusal by the customer service agent to accept the request. Explain to them gently that they are wrong and that they should seek advice from a manager who hopefully will understand that SAR requests may be made verbally over the phone If there is any question of your identity, point out that you have satisfied ID checks to the point where they are prepared to talk to you about your personal banking business and so therefore they must be satisfied that you are who you say you are. If the SAR is not satisfied – you can then start bringing legal actions if you feel that you have the energy for it. If they come back and say that you didn't complete the formalities – then you are home and dry – because no formalities are needed. If they come back and say that although they accept that you can make a verbal SAR, you had not provided sufficient evidence of your identity – then I'm sure that you realise by now that your position is that they were prepared to discuss your account. There are objections to satisfying your SAR are clearly simply an attempt to place obstructions in your way and to stall the process. And of course because you have read our customer services guide, all of this conversation has been fully recorded – hasn't it? But surely there must be more interesting things to do while we are enjoying some nice weather.

Of course Monzo are entitled to verify your identity. Asking for a picture of you next to your drivers license seems a bit extreme it seems to me that somebody at Monzo is upset and decided to try and make life tough. It's ridiculous but on the other hand it does give the impression of being scrupulous and I certainly would expect that the judge would uphold this. I think your opening paragraph number one with references to "nonsense" et cetera is unhelpful and I think that you should reword it so that is more dispassionate. I think your paragraph number three makes an excellent point. It suggests that they have closed your subject access request. I think it might be worth asking what the mechanism for that is – and in particular because they are now apparently satisfied that you are who you say you are they should have been preparing the data release since the date upon which they apparently became satisfied which I understand is 21st of April. I'm afraid that the request for information is only perfected on the date they become satisfied with your identity and so that means the 30 days runs from the 22nd of April I'm afraid I think you are on a hiding to nothing in terms of getting £1000 from them. They have got millions more than you have – and they don't care. They have Face in the game – and their only objective here is not to be humiliated. Similarly, you won't get an apology. It seems to me that you are in jeopardy of £1500 costs. I would suggest that you make the point in para. three that the SAR does not need to be reopened and now that they have accepted your identity it falls to them to satisfy the request without any further delay and that you are now expecting your data to arrive within 30 days of the date upon which they were satisfied as to identity – 21st of April – and therefore their 30 day statutory time limit expires on XXX date. On the basis that on 21 April they accepted your identity and also on the basis that you are accepting their offer to waive costs, you are filing a notice of discontinuance immediately. However, you would remind them once again of the deadline for satisfying the SAR was XXX date May 2023 and so in view of the fact that they acknowledge that your identity was validated on 21 April, they are now seriously the statutory time limit of 30 days. If you decide to push this any further then I think you're going to come out with a bloody nose. If you agree with this approach then I suggest that you post your draft letter here before sending it off. Don't forget, that although it is clear that they were satisfied as to identity in April and therefore they should have complied with your request in May, the matter still has to go to court. There is an order for costs against you and although if you now try to continue your litigation on the basis of the delay from May 2023, it is highly likely that the judge will simply award you a small amount of money – say, £100 – but Monzo will rise up against you and go for the entire 1500 quid costs. This means that you will enjoy a Pyrrhic victory – £100 – which will in fact cost you £1400 after you have reimbursed Monzo their £1500 costs. Of course you will get some satisfaction by being able to wave your willy around on the basis of having received a judgement against them for a data protection breach – but the real victory will go to Monzo.

I hope you that you appreciate that when you leave such a long gap between posts, then we have to work extra hard to go through the thread and to remind ourselves of what has happened. This is generally speaking because we are so involved dealing with other people who engage with this thread rather more fully, that we tend to feel that you have probably given up. Please do remember that we are helping you free of charge and any money that you recover is yours to keep. I think that it is 3 months since you last posted and then disappeared The letter of claim looks fine except that you end up simply saying that you anticipate that you will bring a claim. Truly doesn't sound very certain. If you are going to bring a claim at the end of 14 days then say so. Don't give anybody the idea that you might bring a claim but you haven't fully decided yet. If you really still aren't certain about whether or not you will bring a claim on day 15 then don't send this letter.