Adrian flux

[Northern isf]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

More generally, just to explain you what is going on with your debt and where you stand..

So Adrian Flux incorrectly charged you which has created a debt, as you haven't paid they have sold your debt to Debt Collectors - that is common practice which annoys me. Basically, companies often does that by mistake like in your case and it is effectively you data breach - they share to third party it without valid reason.

Then you get letter from debt collector... always very intimidating, but never really meaning anything. The thing is - Debt collector needs to take you to the court privately which costs a lot of money (~£1000 to start with), so if you debt is less than that the most you get is just abuse by the letters. They send few and if there are no response the sold your information on to another Debt Collector company at discounted rate. I once had letter from like 6th different collector to pay £6 out of my £60 parking charge, he probably picked up my info for £1. Basically, that is why there are periods when they drop you letter every other day and then go quiet for a month.

If you debt above or close to £1000, they could actually take you to the court... which is great (especially in your case), but even in cases where you have debt it is usually hard to prove in court, so most of the cases are settled "out of court" at discounted rate. Most important not to miss or ignore the summons because when bush court makes whatever misinformed decisions you get a lot of very nasty people on your back and it is very difficult and expensive to put the judgement aside. 

Now with Adrian Flux you kind of too late to complain to Financial Ombudsman (3 months), but there is workaround - because you recently received new demand from debt collectors it could be considered as new case. What you need to do is to e-mail formal complaint to Adrian Flux, just do no quote previous case - make complaint about current situation. They have 30 days to reply with final response i.e. make it right for you or reply with what is called "final written answer". They should as well advise you to go to Ombudsman, because if they don't that is breach in itself. When you have "final written answer", then you start the case with Ombudsman.

As already mentioned in mean time get all the copies of all your data from everyone as it could massively help your case. These above are all free things - no need to spend any money for lawyers unless you want.

Superb advice I'll draft an email up in the morning,thanks you've been a big help 👍

[Linas.P]

No problem.

As well don't forget to make it clear what you asking for e.g. if you simply complain about their work and tell them how upset they make you feel - they can turn back and say "thank you for your feedback" ( they did it to me couple of times)... "Oiii that ain't feedback!". So instead you need to make demands clear:

- issue statement confirming that my insurance policy has been cancelled, before accident 

- confirm that I do not own any money to you

- recall debt collectors

- compensate me for time lost and discomfort

- issue apology for mishandling my data

- and note deadline

This will allow them to put it right and work towards deadline or in turn decline your request which then counts as "final written answer". Above are just random examples, so see what is fit for your case.

[Malc]

13 hours ago, Linas.P said:

When you have "final written answer", then you start the case with Ombudsman.

in my case they ( AF and Trinity's Claims guys Hadleigh ) have told me 6 months to refer it to the Financial Ombudsman

Malc

[Linas.P]

54 minutes ago, Malc said:

in my case they ( AF and Trinity's Claims guys Hadleigh ) have told me 6 months to refer it to the Financial Ombudsman

Malc

That is correct - 6 month, I think I have confused that with Employment Tribunal... another friends of mine 😄

Either way, I think what I said above is still relevant, because if I count correctly it is between 11/12 months since initial cancellation and 6/7 months since issue started with first debt collectors. What helps is that you have six month after final written response to refer case to financial ombudsman, so the only thing needed is force Adrian F hand in responding to the latest complaint and you can refer it.

Further, in this case I believe it falls into Ombudsman exception cases (obviously I cannot comment if they would agree with that or not), because of nature of the issue - when cancelling the policy consumer could not know that 5 month down the line respondent going to mess up the papers, or that 6 months after that debt collectors going to be hired, or again 6 month later when debt was sold to second debt collectors. At least this would be my interpretation - each time new debt collector contacts you, the new case can be started. Even in case where this time around FO going to rule in your favour and AF going to issue statement, compensation etc. There are no guarantee that 6 month later you not going to be contacted by yet another bunch of fraudsters who bought your information asking to pay-up again. It is just how debt collector works selling on information (which they should not do!).

[Bluesman]

On 5/30/2019 at 6:07 PM, Womble72 said:

lol, the “pond scum” wasn’t directed at u personally 😉.......it’s the only industry that never looses money, I’ve had many an argument with insurance companies over my premium rises when I’ve not claimed, no one has claimed against me and I still have my cars n bike!.......we have to have insurance and insurance companies know that and can charge what they like as by law “we have to pay it”........it definitely needs some sort of regulations put in force......btw all my family were underwriters from American companies to Lloyd’s of London and they passed these views down 😉🤪🤪

Motor insurance should be supplied by the government just like Road Tax.

 

[Malc]

On 5/30/2019 at 6:55 PM, royoftherovers said:

Whatever happened to this then?

uberrimae fidei

when the western world's bankers decided they ran the world and it all went pear shaped with greed and being all toooooo clever, and the insurance companies decided the customer was a nuisance rather than an asset to have and to cherish .....  and the police ( Govt funding ) decided criminality was too expensive to bring to heel .......  that's when Uberrimae Fidei lost it's way sadly 

Malc

[Bluesman]

On 5/30/2019 at 10:44 PM, Linas.P said:

What would I do.... obviously sue every drop of life out of them... just purely on principal - insurance is total and open fraud and how they dear to even contact you! If they would send me SMS wishing happy birthday I would sue them, never-mind something negative.... Ohhh boy!

Definitely sue!

Few pointers...

1. get them to provide all the data they hold about you using GDPR. All of them  - Adrian ...., all debt collectors etc. They have 30 days to comply or could face fines up to £20millions or inexpensive up to 18% of their turnover whichever is greater. Be sure they comply... done it times and times again and they always comply. It costs them great deal of money because information they have to provide is extensive and missing one piece can land them multi-million fines.

2. when you get all the data they hold about you.. surely there going to be mistakes.. plenty of them. I have seen data DRP and O2 has about me and it is horrible quality. It opens so much questions that you can make 10 valid legal cases only on the data they hold. So use the data they hold about you against them. You next point of all is Financial Ombudsman, make complaint to them and ask for apologies, compensations, legal costs, official explanation etc. Basically, everything they need to do to put it right and above for... the very reason why you getting these debt collectors is because Adrian .... had messed-up big time. Only for this mismanagement of data they could easily land thousands of £ fines.

3. the compensations from Ombudsman usually are very low. I got few letters with apologies, from O2 I got £30 compensation, from DRP I got £280 fine cancelled + apology + £25 compensation (for stationary... believe it or not), from LBG I got nearly £400 compensation, because of poor handling of my account when TSB split out (but that was before GDPR kicked)... anyway you got the point - peanuts. BUT it makes very straight private case. So when you get favourable Ombudsman decision I would advise on suing directly with large but reasonable compensation claim... say £20,000... they never going to pay more than half so ask bit more than you think it is right. Obviously, if you sue them for a million you will likely to get nothing at all.

... further:

if they do not provide your data or you feel it is incomplete sue them... 

if they missed the deadline by a second sue them..

tried to pull some exception out of the back side sue them (Information Commissioner first for good measure).. 

sue all the debt collector who ever dears to contact you with this case and ask all of them to show all the data they have about you..

I have sued O2 for £12 bill and won, I have sued DRP for parking on private land charge (which was actually valid) and won... now I am on the case of eSure for unclear T&C and they are in progress of turning-up my data in 17 days... 

sue sue sue those It's

 

 

16

You make me laugh Linus with your "sue sue sue those ....... "It's not an inexpensive thing to do and with solicitors charging as much as £500 per hour and should you require a barrister represent you in court well you will need to win the lottery with fees in excess of a £1000 an hour plus expenses, so suing is for people with deep pockets.

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Bluesman said:

You make me laugh Linus with your "sue sue sue those ....... "It's not an inexpensive thing to do and with solicitors charging as much as £500 per hour and should you require a barrister represent you in court well you will need to win the lottery with fees in excess of a £1000 an hour plus expenses, so suing is for people with deep pockets.

In general I agree, but there are a lot of steps which you can take for free...

Secondly, it is "sue or be sued"... if they planning on to take you to court and you know you are right then let them do it. The worse decision would be to pay-up even when you not own it, just to get rid of them.

And as for insurance provided by goverment, my opinion is the same. Third party should be supplied by government so you can use your car. If you wan't fancy cover, fire and theft, windscreen, legal  protection, missfuelling then private companies could provided those services, but they should be optional. Now the system is set-up for abuse - it is legal requirement so you have no choice to pay whatever they ask and be happy that they even care to insure you.... total fraud.

3 hours ago, Malc said:

 and the insurance companies decided the customer was a nuisance rather than an asset to have and to cherish .....  and the police ( Govt funding ) decided criminality was too expensive to bring to heel .....

Very true.. every-time I report something to police they say that I should claim it from insurance and not interested even remotely to investigate. And as for insurers, that is easy to see why they think that - when it is literally illegal not to buy your service you could get spoiled.

 

[royoftherovers]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

In general I agree, but there are a lot of steps which you can take for free...

Secondly, it is "sue or be sued"... if they planning on to take you to court and you know you are right then let them do it. The worse decision would be to pay-up even when you not own it, just to get rid of them.

And as for insurance provided by goverment, my opinion is the same. Third party should be supplied by government so you can use your car. If you wan't fancy cover, fire and theft, windscreen, legal  protection, missfuelling then private companies could provided those services, but they should be optional. Now the system is set-up for abuse - it is legal requirement so you have no choice to pay whatever they ask and be happy that they even care to insure you.... total fraud.

Very true.. every-time I report something to police they say that I should claim it from insurance and not interested even remotely to investigate. And as for insurers, that is easy to see why they think that - when it is literally illegal not to buy your service you could get spoiled.

 

"If you know you are right"........and can prove it,do not forget my friend Linas .

[Linas.P]

2 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

"If you know you are right"........and can prove it,do not forget my friend Linas .

Our legal systems is based on Presumption of innocence... In cases with debt collectors it is enough they cannot prove you are guilty. From my experience proving somebody guilty is very very very hard.

[royoftherovers]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Our legal systems is based on Presumption of innocence... In cases with debt collectors it is enough they cannot prove you are guilty. From my experience proving somebody guilty is very very very hard.

NOT IF YOU HAVE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK IT IS`N`T.

So advise all of your to do so and do not assume anything whatsoever.

[Linas.P]

Not sure what you are trying to suggest? 

This case is as clear as it gets - administrative error on Adrian Flux side, person didn't have the car nor insurance with them for the case they trying to claim money from him. It has exactly 0% chance of succeeded in in court. If it would have chances they would not sold it, they would sue.

In my case I had video showing guy hitting my car, but court decided "it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he damaged it". He admitted hitting it, but maintained he did not hit it hard enough to bend the panel... That is a bit of a joke decision, but just illustrates how hard is to prove somebody being guilty.

Ohh.. and another thing - if debt collector would do homework and would know they have realistic chances of winning they won't send you 10 intimidating letters, they would simply sue you and win. However, they neither have strong case, nor do home work... that is not their business model. Their business model is to intimidate into submission and work on margins, not individual cases i.e. 80% of people pays-up after first letter and takes advantage of "fake" discount e.g. £60 instead of £100. After that they don't really care is remaining 20% pays, they already have secured their profit. In rare cases just to make example they actually take someone to court like in "ParkingEye Vs Beavis". However, this case doesn't apply here - Beavis was outright at fault and he did not argue his innocence, he only argued that the charge of £85 was "extravagant and excessive" for overstaying on supermarket parking (with which I agree). However, he would have been more successful arguing his innocence and legitimacy of contract e.g. whenever the rules were clear, whenever they were visible, whenever he actually agreed with them etc. I lost the count of times clueless debt collectors have thrown this "ParkingEye Vs Beavis" at me, but it simply did not apply as it is kind of niche case. What they got back in all instances were DPA or later GDPR requests, which allowed me to do "my homework" and see how strong of the case they have - in all instances they had nothing and I just told them to fob-off. That again has nothing to do with this case here.

Just to illustrate how they work, see take out of my data which I received from DPR for parking without permit. So the reason for charge is "not displaying valid permit", but you can see in pictures my permit says "bay 190" and I am parked in 190... so I have valid permit (I know that because it is my bloody land - I own it!)

So do you think they actually "KNOW" what they chasing? no they don't care - they just have an industrial printer for junk letters, that is their "business model".

[Malc]

just a thought here ............. and to be helpful

Adrian Flux could be in deadly serious trouble here supposing they have sent in Debt Collectors ( letters anyway ) and divulged your private detail to this out side party on the premise of what is clearly a wrong'un

They are for sure breaking the GDPR code and if referred to the Authority will no doubt receive a significant fine, maybe £ several 00,000's in fines as the Authority is clearly on a mission right now to make hard examples of even minor style misdemeanours by businesses that must know better.

Dan, I would recommend that your Principals here, AF quite urgently sort this out, just in case it isn't yet too late  ......  I think the Authorities probably scour Media sites like this Forum to collate data to think about prosecutions at this early time in their activities............  to set ground breaking examples and for which they will not lose in Court.

Malc

[royoftherovers]

15 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Our legal systems is based on Presumption of innocence... In cases with debt collectors it is enough they cannot prove you are guilty. From my experience proving somebody guilty is very very very hard.

In the sort of matter we are discussing Linas, it is only necessary to show that the policy Holder is innocent of all that is being stated.

The question of Guilt does not arise in my opinion.

I understand that as far as AF and the policy Holder are concerned in this particular case, we simply do not know all of the facts. Nor do we need to know as we are not  judging the matter.

I would expect that once all of the facts are known to both Parties, then one of the Parties will acknowledge that one or both have erred and due recompense will follow.

Let us hope that the matter is resolved soonest to the satisfaction of both Parties. 

Regardds

John 

[doog442]

On 5/30/2019 at 10:44 PM, Linas.P said:

if they do not provide your data or you feel it is incomplete sue them... 

if they missed the deadline by a second sue them..

tried to pull some exception out of the back side sue them (Information Commissioner first for good measure).. 

sue all the debt collector who ever dears to contact you with this case and ask all of them to show all the data they have about you..

I have sued O2 for £12 bill and won, I have sued DRP for parking on private land charge (which was actually valid) and won... now I am on the case of eSure for unclear T&C and they are in progress of turning-up my data in 17 days... 

sue sue sue those .......

 

 

You don't think you may be bordering on being a Vexatious litigant old chap. ? Suing everyone and everything isn't something I would encourage and can come back to bite you.  

The UK list is here. 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vexatious-litigants

 

 

[Linas.P]

19 minutes ago, doog442 said:

You don't think you may be bordering on being a Vexatious litigant old chap. ? Suing everyone and everything isn't something I would encourage and can come back to bite you.  

The UK list is here. 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vexatious-litigants

I didn't know such list existed, but I would not be ashamed to be on it if that what it takes to protect your legal rights. I am kind of missing all of the debt collectors from this list - most of their claims are clearly vexatious and extravagant. My favourite is this guy, has a matching name for Vexatious litigant:

Anal Sheikh added to list 4 April 2019.

On more serious note - when you make the tiniest mistake or forget to pay £3, or pay your bill few days late etc. etc. big multi-million corporations comes as hard on you as you are proper criminal. However, when they systematically mess-up everyone lives everyday then they try to get away with "We are sorry". Try to say that to bailiffs and see how far your "sorry" going to go. So here I think it is everyone right, even everyone duty to take any such example of corporate mess example all the way. In my case I have only ever lost the case - example with video and the guy damaging my car. But it doesn't fit the conditions for vexatious litigant, because case had merit, just didn't have enough evidence and to be honest it wasn't even me taking the guy to court it was CPS, I have been invited there as "witness".

1 hour ago, royoftherovers said:

we simply do not know all of the facts.

John - we don't know what we don't know. If one party decided not to be fully honest when seeking advise, then they get advise which doesn't really apply - there is nothing we can do about it. My advice is purely on the information available here on the forum. If you think it is incorrect based on whet we know, then I am happy to discuss and admit I was wrong (like 6 vs 3 month deadline). But otherwise I am just taking it on face value, because as you say we might not know all the details and we don't want to know all the details.

2 hours ago, Malc said:

Adrian Flux could be in deadly serious trouble here supposing they have sent in Debt Collectors ( letters anyway ) and divulged your private detail to this out side party on the premise of what is clearly a wrong'un

Sadly, this doesn't happen often enough... I am still waiting for my perfect opportunity to use GDPR hammer to bankrupt one of those crooks. As I have said it is common practice to sold on the data where debt collection is unsuccessful, even where it is clear to debt collector that they pursuing wrong case. Going back to my case with DPR above - do you think showing them that they wrong stopped them? Nooooo. they just sold on the case to another bunch of criminals - I believe it was Gladstone Solicitors who dropped me few welcoming letters a month later.

Currently, I am just wasting their resources and time with GDPR requests, but one day I am sure they going to provide me with some detail they not suppose to even have or collect about me... then you going to read about it in your morning newspaper. 

[royoftherovers]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

 

"John - we don't know what we don't know. If one party decided not to be fully honest when seeking advise, then they get advise which doesn't really apply - there is nothing we can do about it. My advice is purely on the information available here on the forum. If you think it is incorrect based on whet we know, then I am happy to discuss and admit I was wrong (like 6 vs 3 month deadline). But otherwise I am just taking it on face value, because as you say we might not know all the details and we don't want to know all the details"

Linas, I agree in general with what you have said, it is just that I would not wish to offer any comment until I knew the full facts of any case.

Just as an example-----what if the OP`s car had been cloned? The Insurers would not know that and neither would the OP.

Let us hope that in the fullness of time, the OP let`s us all know the outcome of his current dilemma.

Regards

John

[Malc]

Gentlemen, under DPR there were so very few prosecutions, barely any at all BUT WITH GDPR I am very aware that the Authority is making up for lost ground and definitely making examples in often quite trivial cases just to prove the point that businesses really do now have to have total regard for GDPR rather than the usual total disregard for DPR as it was.

I can see merit in the Authority dealing with AF in a robust manner even if it is now on the right path ............  divulging data erroneously is simply illegal and now severely punishable.

I am sure that if my business were to blanket emails to UK persons I would receive a mega fine, whereas prior ( had i sent them, which I didn't ) the likelihood of anyone taking notice of any complaints was remote.

The odd event I'm trying to grapple with right now is NatWest discussing in any manner at all my business account with another NatWest personal customer who accused me of being a scam company ( I've banked with them for 50+ years without a single fault ! ) and saying they are prevented under GDPR from telling me what it was they had said..............  about me.

The funds were held in escrow pending a good outcome ....  for whom I'm not sure.

Not quite sure how to handle this one, if at all, as it's all been resolved ( to my financial satisfaction ) without my questioning further the GDPR concepts.........  one for the future though 

Malc

[Northern isf]

Little update if you can call it that I sent a formal complaint to adrian flux a few days ago, no reply.

Yesterday had a letter and email from debt company so doesn't look like their bothered about this and still think I'm going to pay for something I haven't done.

[Bluesman]

I am surprised that AF haven't at least acknowledged receipt of your complaint.

[Linas.P]

7 hours ago, Northern isf said:

Little update if you can call it that I sent a formal complaint to adrian flux a few days ago, no reply.

Yesterday had a letter and email from debt company so doesn't look like their bothered about this and still think I'm going to pay for something I haven't done.

Don't worry... you remember that debt I mentioned... yes that one where I have parked in my own space with valid permit? That one where DRP has sent me my details clearly showing I am right and shows me parked in my bay with my permit. I already mentioned that after DRP were defeated, I got letter from Gladstone Solicitors, they got defeated, I think there were one other company and now guess what:

These are just circular... they have template and routine for every debt, it is automatically printed and sent, I reply them from template as well, because I already know what is going to come. As already mentioned, they should not sell on my details when they fail to secure the debt, especially where it is proven it do not own them anything, but they still do. So CPM sold it to DRP without checking, DRP to somebody else and now when I going to defeat Trace, they going to sell it on.

There are 2 ways to get rid of them - complain against the source in your case Adrian Flux and get Ombudsman to specifically rule for them to go out and pick all your data from all the places around the world where they have scattered it or the the stupid debt collector expose themselves in the court, when court decides that their requests are false that should be enough. 

[Linas.P]

20 minutes ago, Bluesman said:

I am surprised that AF haven't at least acknowledged receipt of your complaint.

They have 14 days to respond, but you right they usually send acknowledged automatically. I guess OP meant - they haven't properly responded with reasonable answer.

[Northern isf]

Funnily enough I've just had a reply not one I wanted their saying that they've been trying to get in contact with me! Strange when I have several emails I've sent unanswered but because I've left them some bad feedback on a few sites they've finally responded. 

Ive told them I will only contact them via email regarding this matter so I have my own records, that and I really wouldn't have patience to be talking to someone down the phone over this as it's not putting me in the best of moods having to plead my case for something I haven't done,it's a waste of precious time that we don't get that long of in the first place!

[Linas.P]

Yes... do not speak with them over the phone. In worst case request that all what was said, they should put in the e-mail straight after the call is finished.

[Northern isf]

30 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Don't worry... you remember that debt I mentioned... yes that one where I have parked in my own space with valid permit? That one where DRP has sent me my details clearly showing I am right and shows me parked in my bay with my permit. I already mentioned that after DRP were defeated, I got letter from Gladstone Solicitors, they got defeated, I think there were one other company and now guess what:

These are just circular... they have template and routine for every debt, it is automatically printed and sent, I reply them from template as well, because I already know what is going to come. As already mentioned, they should not sell on my details when they fail to secure the debt, especially where it is proven it do not own them anything, but they still do. So CPM sold it to DRP without checking, DRP to somebody else and now when I going to defeat Trace, they going to sell it on.

There are 2 ways to get rid of them - complain against the source in your case Adrian Flux and get Ombudsman to specifically rule for them to go out and pick all your data from all the places around the world where they have scattered it or the the stupid debt collector expose themselves in the court, when court decides that their requests are false that should be enough. 

Ridiculous situation your in there, I'm not normally one to escalate stuff like this but these need bending over backwards I don't understand how they can do that when you have proof. They should get life for waste of paper at least I mean theirs innocent trees giving up their lives only to be wasted on drivel like the letter you received its terrible!