Noobrider V Abbey ***SETTLED IN FULL***

[noobrider]

Today i posted my Data Protection Act request to the Abbey using the excellent template to cover 2 accounts one joint and one single.

Single cheque for £10 enclosed to cover the one request for 2 accounts worth.

also posted action against Monument aka Barclays credit card but have posted details in the correct forum.

this could be a complicated one as I have an estimated claim of around £9000 so I will be splitting it and may possibly require advice further down the line as to anyone else who has followed this route successfully.

forgot to mention... i signed it with the letters MBAG after my name...Member of the Bank Action group

[noobrider]

Parachute account opened online with NatWest (Step account)...wewere going to leave Abbey anyway.

[fergal71]

i would split amount so you keep within small claims limit of £5000 then do the rest later

[noobrider]

got a nice letter this morning...a statement for this month with 3350 worth of charges....bring it on boys...all the more to pay back

[Karnevil]

you got 3350 charges in one month ???? bleeping heck ! Thats more than I earn !

[noobrider]

LOL...damn new keyboard....£350... I wish...3350 doh...

[noobrider]

I have written a cheque using my garauntee card and the cashier has obviously written the information wrong as the amount was less than £20 however Abbey have refused the cheque 3 times so far which has incurred £60 worth of charges for each instance. where do i stand with this do I approach the company I wrote the cheque to or the Abbey to stop charging me for something that obviously wasnt my fault????

[barracad]

I'm assuming the cheque has 'bounced' due to insufficient funds in your account - if so, I don't see what that has to do with the retailer.

The charges Abbey have levied are unlawful and you need to claim them back.

[noobrider]

in light of all the people that have been successful in claiming their charges back from grabbey, would it not be advantageous to start and quote cases whereby new claiments understand the process of delays that they will put in place, not only to demonstrate to them that new claims are serious and backed up by prior knowledge but in view of cases going to court to demonstrate the blatant abuse of the court systems that they are currently using?

a slight alteration of the letters section could include wording to the effect that " following known cases where we have evidence of identical requests we understand Abbey's procedure will be....therefore to save court time and your money we respectfully request we bypass the known delaying tactics and proceed straight to negotiation of the refund of all charges in contest"... I'm sure someone could word it more eloquently.

I can only assume that if they decide to ignore the content and proceed with their normal delay tactics, it would sway the courts to disallow set asides and reduce the initial costs of filing actions. It could also possibly start to pursuade abbey to not even let it get to court stage and settle on a LBA?????

As I said just a thought.

[gordonhall]

Regardless of whether you know their tactics, they are designed to grind you down, and in some cases, for some people, it works.

Of course, for others, it just gives us more to go on!!

[noobrider]

well shock horror a quick responce. This morning i received 2 letters in reply to my Data Protection Act request. First one was the standard mircofiche letter acknowledging my £10 fee and will use that to recover the microfiche files on my wifes account... The second letter stated that the usual microfiche stuff etc etc but this one didn't acknowledge the £10 and this time the charges were £5 per statement and £10 for multiple statements.

I would like to point out that I submitted a single Data Protection Act request for 2 accounts one joint account and one single account. As i understand it the DPA request should cover all requests for any information contained in their records that are relevant to you.

Standard reply on its way back slightly reworded to cover the two letters received.... the game has started

[noobrider]

drafted this letter in responce.

Pam speed
Regulatory Compliance
Abbey National plc
Abbey House
201 Grafton Gate East
Milton Keynes
MK9 1AN

23/06/06

Data Protection Act disclosure request

Dear Pam Speed

Account Numbers: *********and ********

I am in receipt of your two letters dated 21/06/06, outlining that you could only provide me with printouts covering recent transactions on my accounts, because any earlier information has been archived onto microfiche and also in the second letter requesting further payment for this information. May I remind you that a single request for all the information held on your systems in my name will only require a single maximum fee of £10 which you have acknowledged receipt of.

My request was for a complete list of transactions and charges relating to both my accounts since 12/06/00 – in short, a list of charges with dates and amounts – alternatively, a complete set of account statements for that period will be acceptable. This should be retrievable from your accounting systems, and easy for you to produce. I will accept a computer print out of these transactions.

I am aware that you have been willing and able to provide other customers with a print-out of transaction information covering this period – and am ready to bring this to the attention of the Information Commissioner should it prove necessary. I would also draw your attention to Smith v Lloyds TSB Bank plc (2005) EWHC 246 (Ch).

This letter has been sent by first class recorded delivery, and therefore should have reached you by 26/06/06 – as you will be aware, as of this date you have just 29 days in which to comply with my request. As stated above, a complete set of account statements for the period in question will be acceptable; however, I expect this to be provided within the time period for Data Protection Act compliance.

Should there be any further attempts to delay compliance, I will be left with no alternative but to commence a County Court action under section 7, and section 15(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998, and in due course, escalate this matter into an official complaint to the Information Commissioner and the FSA.


Yours faithfully,




If anyone would like to comment?

[noobrider]

quick bump is the above letter OK? am I right in what I am saying. 1 Data Protection Act request for 2 accounts which all have the same name included even though 1 is a joint account and 1 a single?

Thanks in advance

[Karnevil]

I believe your letter is fine - I had similar letters from abbey (both of my accounts are joint accounts) and they seemed to be under the illusion that a Data Protection Act request was for a single account rather than information regarding an individual. As the account is a joint account and only requires a single signatory then one DPA request covers all the information from both the accounts.

Glad to see its only £350 charges as opposed to £3350 !

[noobrider]

thanks Karnevil, appreciate the response. I think just occassionally we all need that bit of confidence that what we put is right before we let one go.

[monkey_uk]

NoobRider, the letter looks fine to me.

[noobrider]

And thanks also Monkey

[Deborah]

I received the same letters from the Abbey a couple of days ago about the microfiche and multiple accounts.

Would you mind if I copied your letter to send to the Abbey?