secthesac vs (SH)Abbey ** WON **

[secthesac]

Hi,

I'm working my way through the standard letters - sending the 'LBA' letter tomorrow to Pam Speed.

My question is this: to which address do I need to send the 'Preliminary Approach' letter to?

Also, (it's turned into a two question post now) can I send both of the above letters at the same time or is it prudent to wait for an answer to the LBA letter (if one is forthcoming) and then send the 'Preliminary Approach'?

Thanks in advance for any replies,

Regards

Steve

[Karnevil]

Hi Steve

I assume the LBA is the Data Protection Act one ? in which case Pam is fine.

You can also send your prelim letter for refund of charges to Pam. Are you estimating the amount for your prelim ?

Welcome to the site

Karne
x

[secthesac]

Karne,

Thank you for your 'welcome' and such a prompt reply.

May I elaborate about the sequence of the letters, in a chronological order, if that's OK (want to get the order correct):

I sent the initial Data Protection Act (Data Protection Act) request letter and received the standard microfiche reply.

One years worth of statements arrived soon after.

I sent the microfiche reply and received nothing.

I sent the Data Protection Act (Data Protection Act) non-compliance letter and received nothing.

I'm preparing to send the Template 3 LBA (letter before action) letter tomorrow as I have received no replies since the standard microfiche one.

Should I also send the Preliminary Approach letter at the same time?

To answer your question, I only have 12 months of statements & printouts so I am estimating the remaining five year total (£682.00 for last twelve months, so I'm assuming that this final year was a fair representation of the entire six year period; I've multiplied the last year by five) which gives me a total of £4092.00.

Thanks again,

Steve

[Karnevil]

Hiya

I'm preparing to send the Template 3 LBA (letter before action) letter tomorrow as I have received no replies since the standard microfiche one. YES

Should I also send the Preliminary Approach letter at the same time? YES

To answer your question, I only have 12 months of statements & printouts so I am estimating the remaining five year total (£682.00 for last twelve months, so I'm assuming that this final year was a fair representation of the entire six year period; I've multiplied the last year by five) which gives me a total of £4092.00. YES - sounds perfect .

Your sound like you are doing really well. Abbey may well supply your statements (thats the plan anyway) before you get to court with your Data Protection Act LBA

with the refund claim, you can just adjust the figures if necessary on your LBA or when you file your claim.

[secthesac]

Karne,

Thanks again. I've sent both letters today. I'll keep ya posted.

Steve

[secthesac]

All,

An update - well nothing to update really as I've received no correspondance since the 'microfiche' reply.

I've given plenty of extra time for the 'template 3 (letter before action)' letter regarding Data Protection Act non-compliance, so it's time to fill in the N1 forms and toddle-off to the local court.

Am I correct in saying that I should ideally put a nominal (yet justifable) figure into the 'ammout claimed' section on the N1 forms; say £25.00 for letters & postage etc... ?


Here is my first stab at the Particulars of Claim:

BRIEF DETAILS OF CLAIM

Order under Section 7 and Section 15(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998

£25.00

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The Defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject.

2. The Claimant had an account number XXXXXXXX ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 1st January 1995 and closed on or around 2nd March 2006.

3. On 20th June 2006 the Claimant sent a Subject Access Request, pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to the Defendant.

4. The Defendant has failed to comply.

5. By virtue of the Defendant's failure to comply with the Subject Access Request the Claimant has suffered damage.

6. The damage caused is:

Extra costs incurred in addition to court costs, due to the Defendants failure to comply - this includes the cost of additional correspondence and time spent preparing documents and seeking legal advice, I estimate this cost to be £25.00

7. The Claimant seeks an order that the Defendant do comply with the Claimant's Subject Access Request

8. Under the terms of Section 15(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998, where the Defendant contests that information requested under the Claimant's Subject Access Request is not included within the scope of Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Claimant requests that the Court inspects that information, and where it finds that the Defendant's opinion is unfounded, that it orders such information be included within the information supplied to the Claimant under the Subject Access Request.

9. Damages and costs within the discretion of the Court.


I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true

Signed:


Date:

Any comments & advice would be greatly appreciated,

Steve

[secthesac]

Bump (as I've edited my last post)

[Karnevil]

Yes - the £25 is about right

I would be tempted to hold on to this until after the Information Commissioners Office have made a decision on 6th Sept (I beleive they are going to let peole know on the 11th Sept)

Have a read of Oddfellows thread in Abbey....

You can always go ahead with an estimated prelim/lba letter to abbey for a refund in the meantime....but I think I would wait on the non compliance claim for the moment...

just my opinion.

Karne
x

[secthesac]

Karne,

Thanks again for replying - I'll hold off then until the IOC have published a decision.

Steve

[secthesac]

All,

Opened todays post - (SH)Abbey Franked mail - and to my (un)surprise, there was the following:

Dear Mr XXXX

Thank you for contacting us and I am sorry that you have been so unhappy that you have felt you must complain.

One of my team will be responsible for investigating your complaint and I have enclosed our Complaints leaflet, which explains our procedure for doing this. High quality customer service is of great importance to us at Abbey and we will do everything we can to reslove your complaint in a timely and satisfactory manner.

I know it is important to you that we resolve your complaint quickly, but we want to do a thorough investigation and sometimes this can take time. If we have not contacted you before then, we will write to you in four weeks to let you know what is happening.

Although I do not know what the outcome will be, I do hope that we will be able to find a solution that you are happy with.

Yours sincerely

Marc Winder
Head of Complaints

This just strengthens my resolve in proceeding with the Letter Before Action with regard to the charges claim next week, when the fourteen days have passed since my Preliminary Approach letter.

Regards

Steve

[secthesac]

All,

55 sheets of microfiched statements arrived in yesterdays post - I haven't checked, but I guess that's the remainder of the statements. I suppose that ends the Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) claim.

Only a few more days until I file the charges claim - get's exciting now!

[Karnevil]

fabulous news steve - you can get on with filing on the 13th then !

[secthesac]

Karne,

All seemed great until I went through the sheets with my highlighters - the account balances are missing from every sheet! This info is needed for me to calculate (via the Excel spreadsheet) the interest charges.

I phoned (sh)Abbey and spoke with a very courteous young chap, Ross.

I explained that every sheet of the microfiche statements had the last three columns missing, ie: Balance, Date, and Branch.

He spoke to the 'Statements Department' and relayed their response to me...

Apparently, my original Data Protection Act - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter had the wording "...complete list of transactions and charges..." which they have provided. As I didn't state that I also required the account balances, they didn't include this!

In the initial batch of 14 months worth of statements, the first sheet was what appeared to be a microfiche printout which included the 'Balance, Date, Branch' columns. The final sheet of yesterdays '55 sheet batch' was a duplicate of the 'first sheet' of the initial batch with these same columns missing.

I queried this and was told that this was interesting in as much as the two same sheets displayed different amounts of data, but what arrived in yesterday's post was in fact what I had asked for.

Ross confirmed that he would raise a request on my behalf for the microfiche statements to be re-printed, at no extra charge, but the likelihood was that this would take another 4-6 weeks, although he would also request that this be done as a priority.

I pointed out that my Data Protection Act - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter asked for data extending back to 1st March 2000 and that they had only provided statements from 1st April 2000; this was obviously an oversight on their behalf and could they include this in the 're-print' run. I also raised the fact that they had not complied with my Data Protection Act request and that a court claim is being progressed by myself against Abbey for non-compliance.

Perhaps the wording of the Data Protection Act - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter is onerous or is this another way of wriggling out of their responsibilities?

[Karnevil]

I agree actually compltely Seth - dont hold your breath....and if you cant work it out from the info you have .. try estimating

[secthesac]

All,

Now this may be a stupid question....

I closed my (sh)Abbey account on 2nd March 2006 - from when do I take the six years back from?

Would it be from when I submitted my Data Protection Act - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter, from the date I closed the account or from todays date?

See - told you it was stupid!

[secthesac]

All,

Any replies to the above question would be greatly appreciated.

[Karnevil]

when do I take the six years back from?

Would it be from when I submitted my Data Protection Act - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter,

YES !!

[secthesac]

Karne,

Thanks (again).

[secthesac]

All,

Got another reasonable/stupid question - on my statements (going back over a six year period) it is apparant the scale/level of charges has varied during my time wih (sh)Abbey.

I am (we are) cl