Car Parking charges and false information from Ipserv Ltd

Fruitcake

Nicely done. You will accept their terms but require them to act first. Perhaps you could cheekily add a one liner about you making a gesture of goodwill towards them. 

Cardriver45

This is the reply from the csa re my complaint about trace


Thank you for your email. In reference to the complaint response from Trace, my understanding is that this has been issued in the post to you and so you should expect to receive that in the coming days. With regards to the eight week timeframe, whilst ordinarily we would raise this issue with the member as part of our outcomes, in this instance there was a delay from our end in providing a response to Trace when they approached us for some information and that ultimately led to them not being able to provide their final response. As such I cannot say that they have acted outside of our guidelines.

When considering the complaint as a whole, whilst I cannot agree with all of the assertions of Trace acting in breach of the Code of Practice, I will uphold the complaint for the areas of failing that have been identified.

Firstly in the letter of demand dated 24 September 2021 wording was included that inferred if the case proceeded to litigation then a CCJ would be issued. From our standpoint the language used should have resented the CCJ as a possible consequence of the legal action, not a formality, and so on those grounds that area of the complaint has been upheld.

Furthermore I am not satisfied that the complaint response dated 17 November 2021 provided an adequate explanation as to the investigation and reasoning for the outcome reached, and so did not meet our expectations. As such that area of the complaint has been upheld also.

In light of the failings identified we will record the complaint as upheld and provide feedback to our member. As part of that dialogue we discuss our expectations of appropriate remedial action, which I note has been addressed as Trace have provided evidence of a new letter template with amended wording included.

We will continue to monitor Trace through our formal complaints procedure. Should we receive complaints of a similar nature, your complaint will be given due regard when determining whether further action is required.

I would like to thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. All complaint feedback regarding our members is greatly appreciated, as it is key to monitoring member companies’ adherence to our Code of Practice.

Yours sincerely

Fruitcake

That's a good reply. They don't agree with every point, but agree that Trace have failed on enough points for them to uphold your complaint as a whole, and Trace have had their dance card marked as a result.

Well done on all your hard work.
I hope you will be able to stick around to help others.

Cardriver45

Fruitcake said:

That's a good reply. They don't agree with every point, but agree that Trace have failed on enough points for them to uphold your complaint as a whole, and Trace have had their dance card marked as a result.

Well done on all your hard work.
I hope you will be able to stick around to help others.

Sure I'll stick around. I'll put up a separate post about the CSA ruling about Trace so then if anyone else has letters from debt collectors threatening similar things they can also complain to the CSA if the collectors are members.

patient_dream

Well done. One must assume that TRACE have learned a valuable lesson and will behave themselves in future

Cardriver45

I have received a ruling from the ICO re my complaint about the University of Suffolk's refusal to provide me with the contract with Ipserv unredacted. 

Fruitcake

Nicely done! I admire your tenacity.

Umkomaas

Good resilience in pushing this forward. 

I'm a bit puzzled as to what the ICO is saying in 'He also considers that the University holds no information about the tendering process'. Is this a criticism of or an escape route for the University?  Or is it something I've misunderstood?

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

Good resilience in pushing this forward. 

I'm a bit puzzled as to what the ICO is saying in 'He also considers that the University holds no information about the tendering process'. Is this a criticism of or an escape route for the University?  Or is it something I've misunderstood?

I was wondering that as well. I suspect their was either no tendering process at all, or the details of it have been binned and the person who did the tendering process has left. I cannot see how else the uni would not know who or how the tendering/contract process took place.

OP, once you have the names of the uni signatories who signed the contract, you might be able to determine if they still work there such that you could send them an FOI request about the process. This may then flag up whether the uni did/does have the requested information. 

Castle

Umkomaas said:

Good resilience in pushing this forward. 

I'm a bit puzzled as to what the ICO is saying in 'He also considers that the University holds no information about the tendering process'. Is this a criticism of or an escape route for the University?  Or is it something I've misunderstood?

Or maybe there was no tendering process!!