Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Equifax False Advertising Campaign more ammo against CRA!!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5774 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Part of my strategy when approaching my battle with the CRA's is to look at what they offer prospective clients and work backwards. I came across the "Risk Explorer" package recently and I really took exception to the way Equifax advertises this bundle. So much so that I thought I would set the Advertising Standards Authority on to the case. Just can't see what harm is involved getting a regulatory body investigating what goes on in in the seedy relationship between a CRA and a DCA.

Have a look on the Equifax website and see what you think about the "Insight Delinquent" "Insight default" and the "Insight Positive" databases of "Consumer Credit Agreements.

Implies to me that these are accurate and authorative databases of cca's suitable for the purpose intended.

 

Of course if like myself you have information stored in the Insight databases which you know to be untrue then you have valid grounds for complaint to the ASA in the matter.

 

I have and just in case any of you out there feel the same way you'll find a really good form here.

 

 

And just to make it even easier I'll give you some guidance below.

 

Go here.

Complaints Step 1

 

First bits are self explanatory

 

In step 3 enter

Equifax website whilst researching my unmerited problems with them.

 

Todays date. Derrrrr

 

Step 4

Advertisers – Equifax

Product- Risk Navigator

 

Step 5

My complaint centres around these three sub products of the Risk Navigator bundle.

 

Positive Insight* Data

Delinquent Insight* Data

Default Insight* Data

 

I take exception to the following advertising slogan.

*Insight is Equifax’s database of Consumer Credit Agreements.

 

This implies that the “Insight Database” is an accurate and authorative representation of Consumer Credit Agreements and it is clear to me that this product is being sold and advertised on these grounds.

 

This simply is not true.

The Insight database advertised by Equifax is a database to which any customer of Equifax may add information for a fee. There is a vested interest by virtue of the fee for Equifax not to refuse data submissions. Those submitting this information to the Insight database also may at times have a vested interest in so far as this database is used to apply pressure and coerce people into paying sums of money they might not otherwise contrary to the requirements of Section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, contrary to the Office of Fair Trading directive on unfair practice and contrary to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 as defined under Paragraphs 39, 41,42,43 and 44 of the Information Commisioners Office own guidance in the matter.

It is common for incorrect data to be lodged in this database yet since the database controller and the data submitters share a common financial interest it is extremely difficult in practice for those about whom incorrect and damaging information is lodged to have it amended or removed.

This inaccurate information is then published as truth on a monthly basis and made available to any subscriber.

Important decisions affecting the livelihood of the data subject are made on the strength of the data held within the database and much damage can be done unlawfully and very often without either the knowledge or consent of the data subject.

 

I therefore request you investigate my claims and if finding them proven true enforce the company known as Equifax to print the following disclaimer each time they reference the Insight database and to make all their existing customers of this product aware of the inherent inaccuracies within the product.

.

“Warning this database of Consumer Credit Agreements is subject to inaccuracy caused by the failure of the database holder to ensure records within it are legally meritorious or accurate, at any particular time an unknown percentage of records contained within this database are subject to formal legal complaint by the data subject”.

 

 

Step 6 select “yes”

 

Heres the link

Credit Risk Evaluation

Explain to click the “Risk Navigator” button

Edited by Toulose LeDebt
  • Haha 1

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you had a valid cause for complaint to me hme4X4.

ASA unlike the OFT etc do not need hundreds or thousands of complaints before they take action, they are a much more proactive regulatory body. Fingers crossed enough people also have a similarly valid complaint about Equifax's advertising to force the ASA to take action to stop Efx. making money from selling incorrect information on the false basis it's accurate.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...