Final Resolution

[Pere Ubu]

What is a final resolution letter? Abbey said they have sent one to me on 13 March (I never received it) now today they wrote saying that their letter today is their final resolution letter. They have given me 14 days to contact them or they will file papers accordingly.
What does all this mean?
Thanks

[alanfromderby]

What stage are you at?

Have you started the County Court action, or are they responding to a letter?

[Pere Ubu]

I have filed papers and they have acknowleged. They have until the 20th April to file defence.

[comanche]

Well you've gone beyond the Final Resolution stage. Basically that's the last stage of the bank's complaints procedure and you have to either get stuffed or go to the Ombudsman or in your case to court. If it ever gets into the courtroom you can point out that you exhausted the bank's complaints procedure before you issued proceedings.

[alanfromderby]

Does this "final resolution" letter come with an offer?

[Pere Ubu]

No offer. They have refused to communicate throughout dealing with them. They ignored requests for info so reported them to the info comm. Still no info off them so had to estimate claim for the court papers. Estimated it at 4k this is a very conservative estimate. I went through a stage not so long ago of getting charges applied weekly. It use to cause massive arguments between my partner and I.
It's only since filing of papers that they have strated to make contact.

[comanche]

Did you send them the £10 fee for the Data Protection Act enquiry? Did they indicate why they wouldn't comply?

[Pere Ubu]

No I didn't. At the time I didn't know you had to send £10 if they didn't request it as some companies don't ask for it they simply process the request. I know differently now. However, I don't think it makes a huge difference as it is not a compulsory charge and the Abbey have been given ample opportunity to supply info and/or request £10 fee. Reminder letters were sent and a notice before action letter.

[martinwhite]

There is an explicit duty to respond "promptly" to any request under the Data Protection Act. Failure to respond at all because of non-payment would be good grounds for a complaint, I would think.

[alanfromderby]

What Abbey would say is that they are currently snowed under with Data Protection Act requests, and that they have to prioritise the claims which are "correctly" lodged.

I have had an issue with another bank where they refused my Data Protection Act on a technicality (they have since back down), however, it meant contacting the Information Comissioners Office. Their line was that a DPA request need only be actioned when the application and the payment, were received by the bank.

Unfortunately, on that basis, and with the current workload they have, I would not expect that a complaint would be upheld.

[Spiceskull]

Originally Posted by alanfromderby

Unfortunately, on that basis, and with the current workload they have, I would not expect that a complaint would be upheld.

Not so sure on that - 40 days is 40 days. If the bank suddenly has ten times as much work to do, then a £multi-billion global corporation can reasonably be expected to manage the additional workload. If the Information Commissioner offers a lifeline on this basis, then I would imagine there is a good case for taking the Information Commissioner to court...

[Pere Ubu]

I agree if they can get round requests by saying staff shortages, work load etc then it would open flood gates. You can imagin a bank then employing one member of staff to deal with such requests!! Also they have time to apply penalty charges etc and their so called manual interventions but not to deal with Data Protection Act requests, a bit suspect. To allow that sort of argument would be to frustrate the meaning and intention/spirit of the legislation and what parliament wanted to achieve.

[alanfromderby]

At the end of the day they do not have to act on a Data Protection Act request until the correct payment is received. That is clearly stated in the rules, and has been confirmed by the Information Commissioner's Office. Why provide an excuse for the banks?

[martinwhite]

Originally Posted by alanfromderby

What Abbey would say is that they are currently snowed under with Data Protection Act requests, and that they have to prioritise the claims which are "correctly" lodged.

I have had an issue with another bank where they refused my Data Protection Act on a technicality (they have since back down), however, it meant contacting the Information Comissioners Office. Their line was that a DPA request need only be actioned when the application and the payment, were received by the bank.

Unfortunately, on that basis, and with the current workload they have, I would not expect that a complaint would be upheld.

The section of the Data Protection Act actually states "payment as he may require". Thus, if a bank habitually does not charge, then the payment shouldn't come into the timing of the processing. It's a bit of a farce if they can insist on receiving a £10 cheque just so that they can return it to you with the information you requested!

[alanfromderby]

I quite agree - but they are using every obsticle that they can find to delay or block these claims. What we have to do is ensure that we give them the least possible opportunity.

[alanfromderby]

Originally Posted by martinwhite

Thus, if a bank habitually does not charge, then the payment shouldn't come into the timing of the processing.

Unfortunately the Data Protection Act regulations say that it does - and the banks are now using it. "Shouldn't" is a word that really has no legal basis - I know it's a pain but we are having to deal with what the letter of the regulations say. In the end, banks "shouldn't" act unlawfully, but we all know they have, and still do.

[martinwhite]

Hi Alan,

If the actual text of the Data Protection Act says "and such fee as he may require" and no fee is required - how can they use this?

Not trying to be argumentative, I just don't get where you are coming from on this.



Martin