Here are my PoCs and Barclaycard's defence in my claim against Barclaycard for non-compliance of my S.A.R - (
Subject Access Request) of last October.
I have now recieved all the data I requested and all that remains is my claim for damages. Maybe I should quit while I'm ahead? £200 is pushing it a bit! The full hearing is on May 15.
Barclaycard have offered to pay my Court fee of £36.
I have offered to accept my statements from 1986 in lieu of damages claimed. They have told me that these are not available as they only keep copy statements for a period of 6 years. They have not said that this data has been destroyed.
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
1. The Respondent is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Applicant is a Subject.
2. The Applicant had an account number XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX("the Account") with the Respondent which was opened on or around December 1999
3. On 4 October 2006 the Applicant sent a
Subject Access Request, pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to the Respondent .
4. The Respondent has failed to comply, despite being directly instructed to do so by the Information Commissioner on or around 4 January 2007.
5. By virtue of the Respondent's failure to comply with the
Subject Access Request the Applicant has suffered damage.
6. The damage caused is:
Extra costs incurred in addition to Court costs, due to the Respondent’s 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 £200
.
7. The Applicant seeks an order that the Respondent do comply with the Applicant’s Subject Access Request
8. Under the terms of Section 15(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998, where the Respondent contests that information requested under the Applicant’s Subject Access Request is not included within the scope of Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Applicant requests that the Court inspects that information, and where it finds that the Respondent's opinion is unfounded, that it orders such information be included within the information supplied to the Applicant under his Subject Access Request.
9.The Applicant notes that, in the view of the Information Commissioner, it is likely that the respondent has contravened the sixth data protection principle, as this requires data controllers to process personal data in accordance with data subjects right’s.
10. Applicant claims:
(a) £200 extra costs incurred in addition to Court costs due to the Respondent’s failure to comply with the Applicant’s Subject Access Request.
b)£6.56
interest under the 1984
County Court Act rate of 8%, increasing at a daily rate of £0.05 per day until settlement.
11. Settlement to be made in the form of cleared funds drawn on a cheque or banker’s draft, to be received within 7 days of decree.
12. Damages and costs within the discretion of the Court.
I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true
Signed:
Date:
Barclaycards defence. James, Boston & Sullivan, Solicitors, Belfast.
1) Save for any admissions made in this defence, Claimant's Claim is denied and the Claimant put to Strict Proof.
2) As regards paragraph 1 of the Claimant's PoC, no admissions are made.
3) It is admitted that the Claimant has a Barclaycard account with the Respondent.
4) As regards paragraph 3 of the Claimants PoC, it is admitted the claimant made a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to the Respondent of copies of statements of his account, some of which were dated prior to May 2004. The Respondent supplied and is willing to to supply copies of statemenst from May 2004 onwards for a fee not exceeding the prescribed maximum under the Data Protection Act 1998 of £10. However for statements dated prior to May2004, the Respondent advised the Claimant that a charge of £3.00 was required for each statement due to such statements not being held in a relevant structured filing system within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act)
5) As regards paragraph 4 of the Claimant's PoCs, the respondent denies being directly instructed by the Information Commissioner to comply in or around 4 Jan 2007. Furthermore. in the alternative if the Respondent was instructed by the Information Commissioner to comply in or around 4 han 2007 (which is denied), the Respondent would intend that it has complied.
6) As regards paragraph 5 and 6 of the Claimant's PoC, these are denied by the Respondent and the Claimant is put to Strict Proof. It is denied that the Claimant has suffered damage; and that the Respondent would put the Claimant to Strict Proof as to his alleged loss and the steps taken to mitigate the alleged loss. The Respondent will contend that it complied with the Claimant's S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and is willing to supply copies of the statements prior to May 2004 for payment by the Claimant of the required fee. The Respondent will contend that in the circumstances it is not liable for for extra costs set out by the Claimant as alleged at all and that such costs are unreasonable and the Claimant is not entitled to such alleged costs.
7) As regards Paragraph 7 of the Claimants PoC, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to an order. The Respondent will contend inter alia that the Claimant's S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) as regards provision of copy statements prior to May 2004 falls outside the scope of section 7 the Act.
As regards paragraph 8 of the Claimants PoC, no admissions are made by the Respondent. The Respondent will contend that the Claimant's S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) as regards provision of copy statements prior to May 2004 falls outside the scope of section 7 the Act.
9) As regards the Claimant's particulars in paragraph 9, the Respondent denies that it has contravened the Sisth Data Protection Principle and puts the Claimant to Strict Proof in support of such an allegation.
10) As regards paragraph 10 (a) and (b) of the Claimant's PoC, the respondent reapeats paragraph 6 of this defence, namely that the Respondent denies that the Claimant has suffered any loss as alleged or at all and put the Claimant to Strict Proofs of any allegations of loss oe =r damage and also as to what steps have been taken to mitigate any alleged los or damage.
11) As regards paragraph 11 of the Claimant's PoC, the Respondent would contend that such settlement method pleaded by the Claimant is unreasonable and should not be granted by this Honourable Court.
12) As regards paragraph 12 of the Claimant's PoC, the Respondent would contend that the discretion of this Court should not be exercised since it is contended that the claimants claim is groundless and he has suffered no loss or damage.
Re: Barclaycard & Microfiche - they are wrong - OFFICIAL 
