West 28th Street Limited

[eek]

'having taken advice from the ICO' does not mean that the ICO has approved the refusal. I'd be requesting this so called 'evidence'. SRA Principles of the code of conduct takes misleading statements very seriously:

Integrity (SRA Principle 2):Solicitors must act with integrity at all times. This means maintaining ethical standards, even when it relates to things that aren't legally classified as "fraud" but are still misleading

Not Misleading Anyone (Code of Conduct Rule 1.4): Solicitors must not attempt to deceive or mislead the court, clients, or anyone else. This covers false statements in litigation, fabricating facts, or creating false evidence.

Is this now going to be a copy/paste blanket refusal from them? Or does the refusal equate to the amount of paperwork involved on their part?

Thinking about it overnight I was wondering if there is something incriminating within the documentation that they would need to send because an SAR really shouldn't be that difficult to deal with once you know the client. It's really just here is the paperwork we've already sent being sent again and whatever additional covering material exists (and I'm saying that from experience having built the SAR systems for a large bank and a rather large housebuilder).

So I would be appealing to the ICO with:

on April xth 2026 Trethowans, sent me, out of the blue, a letter with documentation referencing a debt for £x,000 supposedly subject to the Consumer Credit Act of 1974 on behalf of a firm that I had never heard . This supposed debt is one that I've been disputing for over 10 years that has gone through numerous firms none of whom are registered by the FCA and where the paperwork seems to have been lost and (magically) reappeared as it's moved those firms. As such my SAR request is not frivolous as Trethowans claimed but an attempt to:-

1) to confirm what information has the client provide to Trethowans given the implied threats contained within the letter and the letter's references to the CCA Act.
2) to confirm what documents Trethowans have, given the habit of previous owners of this supposed debt to miraculously find long lost paperwork.

[shampoo]

This would be good content for the blackbelt barrister!

[Lemmiwinks]

It all seems to have gone very quiet on this front.

[clause out]

Unless the company can prove that the SAR request goes beyond simply exercising data privacy rights it cannot refuse legitimate personal data requests.

[MrO666]

I wonder (without anything to base it on at all) whether Trethowans are trying to distance themselves from all of this.

That's approaching two months now since those letters were sent out. I'd like to think they've been spooked by events, but the cynic in me doesn't think that's likely.

A few options spring to mind:

1) The info that Dan hit them with has genuinely made them sit up and take note - possible, but who knows.

2) Maybe it is just another shake of the tree to see who contacts them asking to settle. Some people will have been quite alarmed by the wording of those letters and the official nature of them (even if the contents was utter lies).

3) Things are progressing exactly as W28 planned and they're getting ready to make their next move.

I would genuinely love to know what if any response both Trethowans and W28 gave to Dan, but understandably that's unlikely to be shared. I can see W28 just ignoring him, but I would be very surprised if a registered law firm tried that approach, especially as at some point there will be a publication linking Trethowans being complicit in trying to legitimise alleged loans in vary dubious circumstances, along with their name then being publicly associated with "Tax Avoidance Schemes".......which we know no genuine company wants.

Time will tell I guess.

[Alphacom]

Its a bit of a double edged sword sadly. This thread is exceptionally useful and Im truly grateful we have the input we have. The downside is, W28 and Trethowans get to see nearly all of our cards, and we see none of theirs.
They're definitely planning the next move, I hope Dan hasn't given them the answers in a weird convoluted way.

[Wtaf]

How do you know they are 'definitely planning their next move?' This forum has demonstrated to them that we are ready to fight and are aware of the limitations on their part. HMRC and the FCA have them on their radar, so I would be very cautious if I was them. We knew from the start they would be snooping, that is no surprise here.

[looperevil]

How do you know they are 'definitely planning their next move?' This forum has demonstrated to them that we are ready to fight and are aware of the limitations on their part. HMRC and the FCA have them on their radar, so I would be very cautious if I was them. We knew from the start they would be snooping, that is no surprise here.

It's a public forum. They will be viewing this thread daily like we are. I also know for sure Elysium are monitoring this too. The people on boarded to Elysium will know if these crooks are planning a next step. My suspicion is the email from Dan has rattled them

[looperevil]

Its a bit of a double edged sword sadly. This thread is exceptionally useful and Im truly grateful we have the input we have. The downside is, W28 and Trethowans get to see nearly all of our cards, and we see none of theirs.
They're definitely planning the next move, I hope Dan hasn't given them the answers in a weird convoluted way.

And this is the thing. Elysium have given them ideas. Some really have worked in our favour. They can plan their next move which will continue to be their undoing as it stinks of desperation the more avenues they try. The "judge" working on this should it ever go to court will see through it in an instant

Good luck Trethowans...I know you are the ones who are pushing this as a very reliable source has told me so. Also, I am going to be escalating this to the SRA. These schemes were endorsed by John Venables and look what has just happened to him...

[NickLeeson2]

This is why I want Elysium to go after them aggressively, to close it out once and for all.