made an offergreenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
After months of letter writing and following all the instructions on this brilliant site, I recieved most of the docs I asked for apart from the allusive MIG docs (same excuses - not mine to see 3rd party etc.,) I have been getting inundated with requests to come to an arrangement. Lately they have been writing nearly every week, the last letter being last weekend (lovely so close to Christmas!). In this last letter they reduced the amount they want by almost £25,000.....W.O.W I had ran out of documents to requests and questions that I wanted answering and decided to make them an offer ( an affordable one) I stated that although I do not agree that their is any debt, as a goodwill gesture and to close the matter etc., would they accept £small amount? So I will let you all know what happens. I don't suppose that they will accept this but I will continue to haggle until I feel the amount is reasonable or tell them to take me to court as the amount is totally unreasonable. Keep you posted.
-- --- (email@example.com), December 17, 2001
This is not really a reply to your question, sorry.
I had an intersting little chat with the Information Commissioners office today which I feel add's something to this missing MIG policy question.
My daughter lost her mobile phone some months back. The kind person who found the mobile made several hours of calls to premium rate £1 a minute sex lines and landed me with a £300 bill. I managed to identify the culprit, and even a witness, but the police are reluctant to take any action. Then I saw an article in the newspaper which stated that all mobile phone companies have location records for all calls made. I served a SARN on the mobile phone company and asked for the location records which I beleive would identify and confirm the culprit as the person making the sex calls. The mobile phone company refused to supply the location records, they said they never supply location records. But, the Information Commissioners office advised myself today that; "If I'm paying for the calls then I'm fully entitled to all data concerning the calls, including the location records". The mobile phone company has to either supply me with the location records or refund the sex line calls.
Now I think that exactly the same concept applies to MIG policies. If you (the data subject) are paying for the MIG policy, or are liable for the MIG policy, then you have a right under the Data Protection Act to see the MIG policy document, and all communications/data concerning the MIG policy.
I would therefore suggest that somebody who is having problems seeing/obtaining all details of their MIG policy applies for an assessment to the Information Commissioner. If you have served a SARN on the bank & Insurance company, and if you are being held responsable for the insurance policy then they must provide you with all data about the policy, or cancel the liability.
It makes perfect sense to me, but of course the Information Commissioners office will have to rule on this concept.
Hope this helps, sorry I rabbit so much.
-- anon (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 17, 2001.
A-ha! That's a really useful bit of analogical thinking! I have found the IC to be very amenable to logic (though unfortunately lenders aren't!!) so will mention the parallel you have pointed out when I write this week to complain (again). Sorry, citibank, old chap, but I fear you'll get ANOTHER unfavourable assessment over this one! Do you have anything written from the IC regarding this? If not, maybe you could get something? It would be good if I could give the IC a paper trail so they can see the advice they gave you re the phone calls and compare it themselves with the MIG situation. Thanks anyway,
-- Melody (email@example.com), December 18, 2001.
Sorry no, I'm now waiting for a letter from the mobile phone company refusing to send the location records. When I receive this letter the IC want me to submit an assessment request so they can rule that I am entitled to all data concerning something which I am paying for/responsable for.
Will keep you posted but the mobile phone company have another two weeks to reply and the IC can take months to complete an assessment request. And, in the meantime the mobile phone company may decide to refund the all calls to prevent me getting hold of the location records anyway.
I think there is a valid basis for you to complain to the IC;
You are paying for, or you are held responsable for, the MIG policy. You are therefore entitled to see the MIG policy and all data concerning it.
I think the secret is to phrase the requirement in DPA terms, then the IC will support you.
-- anon (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 18, 2001.
Hmm. Like the sound of this approach Anon. This is one tactic I never used, as the DPA, IC etc were not really available to me as tools way back when. However, since I know my luvverly Lender's goons are searching for me again (they are soooo thick, Mr.Bean would have found me with the trail I left) I will watch your progress with interest. Incidentally when my mobile was stolen, I was refunded all the call charges after months of arguing. All it took was the police report reference # and a nasty letter, as their Helpline typically had no record of my call reporting the loss, despite me knowing the name of the person I spoke to, date and time!!
-- Too scared to say (email@example.com), December 18, 2001.
Anon - you're right that the phone co will probably take their full amount of time to answer, but the IC seem to be getting pretty quick in their assessments just from my experience over the past few months. If you do get a letter from the IC stating the principle that you're entitled to data on something you paid for...post it up here double quick, as it could be very valuable in forcing lenders to hand over MIG details. In the meantime, I'm requesting a THIRD assessment of citibank from the IC, this one based on exactly this argument. Hopefully I can make it a hat trick of unfavourable assessments:-)
-- Melody (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 28, 2001.