Seminole v Abbey: £10,235 RECEIVED

[Lula]

I rang up and complained today and I was told that 2000 - 2004 copy statements will be in the post to me (second class) tonight, they must work quick!!!!

[comanche]

Originally Posted by Julia Ball

I rang up and complained today and I was told that 2000 - 2004 copy statements will be in the post to me (second class) tonight, they must work quick!!!!

When did you first request them? Was this under the Data Protection Act?

[Lula]

I requested them originally on the 4th May, via the call centre, (abroad) rang up a week later to ask why the money hadnt been taken out of my account (scotland) quoted the Data Protection Act and they got all apologetic and said that I would have them in about 4 weeks.

Rang up Complaints department today and quoted "Data Protection Act" and "40 days" and "escalating complaints" and she said that it would be posted out tonight 2nd class, I will check my account tomorrow to see if they have posted it.

To be honest I will beleive it when i see it, but you never know, perhaps a new directive is to send out copies in a very timely manner

[comanche]

Sorry to press you on this but how far back do your online records go. My Abbey account is now closed and so I can't check how their system works.

[Lula]

Originally Posted by seminole

Sorry to press you on this but how far back do your online records go. My Abbey account is now closed and so I can't check how their system works.

Hey its no problem at all, my online banking only goes back to january, I think that they only let you see a certain amount of transactions.

I thought that my earlier statements (2000-2004) were kept of microfiche "if" I get them in the next few days, it kind of blows away their argument about "it takes alot of time and effort to trawl through and find them" doesnt it?

Hope this helps

Julia

[comanche]

Thanks. It does as it opens an interesting line of questioning for the court case.

[fivelaws]

My first reaction to reading that process was;

"we have designed an historic filing system that makes it very difficult to find sequential data for a single customer. Because of that design fault, we can't comply with the law".

It's an interesting defence...

"Dear employee, I can't send you a copy payslip because I randomly number them and save them into totally random folders on 14-different machines using non-obvious file names. After an arbitary period, I archive these onto DVDs, which I don't label and then store in random draws and cupboards around the office. As such, it would simply take hours, if not days, for me to find your April payslip, sorry..."

Oh yes! I'm sure that would work...

[Lula]

Originally Posted by fivelaws

My first reaction to reading that process was;

"we have designed an historic filing system that makes it very difficult to find sequential data for a single customer. Because of that design fault, we can't comply with the law".

It's an interesting defence...

"Dear employee, I can't send you a copy payslip because I randomly number them and save them into totally random folders on 14-different machines using non-obvious file names. After an arbitary period, I archive these onto DVDs, which I don't label and then store in random draws and cupboards around the office. As such, it would simply take hours, if not days, for me to find your April payslip, sorry..."

Oh yes! I'm sure that would work...

I totally agree a huge financial institution "must" have an adequate records system not only for accountability but for people like the revenue and foresic police to be able to interrogate easily

[comanche]

Yes, but the system isn't nearly as random and unstructured as they're trying to dress it up to be.

This ins't an observation for the court case but I find it remarkable that an organisation that presents itself as having the systems and procedures to safeguard the public's money designs a filing system that they say makes it difficult to find anything.

Either they're incompetent and unfit to be trusted with the public's money or they're lying and squirming to get out of paying back the money they have unlawfully taken from their customers.

[Odd Fellow]

Originally Posted by seminole

Yes, but the system isn't nearly as random and unstructured as they're trying to dress it up to be.

Indeed not. If the entire system can be explained on less than half a page of A4, then it's pretty simple.

OK, we can't see how many boxes there are, but that's immaterial. If the archival room has indexed shelving racks (and it must have), then finding the right box must take minutes. If the contents are stored in order (and they must be) then it will take minutes to find the correct fiche.

None of this is difficult. It's a standard form of filing. What makes it difficult is when 1000s of people ask for the same information at the same time - however shabbey won't admit that that's the problem.

[comanche]

Agreed. As someone has pointed out the Act gives them 40 days to provide the information. It assumes that some filing systems are better than others and it gives the data controller time to extract the information.

[Lula]

Originally Posted by seminole

Agreed. As someone has pointed out the Act gives them 40 days to provide the information. It assumes that some filing systems are better than others and it gives the data controller time to extract the information.

i still find it incredible to beleive that they keep this stuff in "boxes"!!!!!! this is the 21st century!!!!

[Robertxc]

It's quite extraordinary - your bank would have you believe that they keep old statements in cardboard boxes in the 'statements cupboard'. When you think about it though, if Abbey have five million customers, their archive will have to hold not only them, but all the ex customers as well. The archive must be absolutely enormous. I actually had someone from Clydesdale a few years ago phone me up and say that they couldn't provide statement because they're 'kept in boxes' and 'not really stored in any order'(!)

[Lula]

Originally Posted by Robertxc

It's quite extraordinary - your bank would have you believe that they keep old statements in cardboard boxes in the 'statements cupboard'. When you think about it though, if Abbey have five million customers, their archive will have to hold not only them, but all the ex customers as well. The archive must be absolutely enormous. I actually had someone from Clydesdale a few years ago phone me up and say that they couldn't provide statement because they're 'kept in boxes' and 'not really stored in any order'(!)

Do you know, I just dont beleive them, perhaps 20 years ago, but not now, they are yanking our chains, i bet they are all neatly organised, can you computerise microfiche? Perhaps onto some computerised filing system, of course, in an ideal world one would tap in a name or account number in a computer and be presented with a file holding all account information and all statements

[Odd Fellow]

Originally Posted by Julia Ball

i still find it incredible to beleive that they keep this stuff in "boxes"!!!!!! this is the 21st century!!!!

What's incredible is that it's kept on microfiche - if indeed it is.

[Robertxc]

There are all sorts of ways you can do it. You can have a robotic archive where the boxes are tightly stacked and a mechanical mechanism goes and retrieves it for you. This is usefaul for very large archives (such as a bank, for example), and also archives where files are constantly being accessed. Another way is a computerised index, where you type in the customer's details and it tells you the exact location of the file.