More than 6 years.

[phatram]

Has anyone managed to get more than 6 years ststements etc from the Co-op?
We have today requested all info from start of the account in the early 80's to Sept 2000 after receiving info Sept 2000 to now in our original Subject Access Request.
We have informed Co-op that the Information Commissioner has stated that as the account is "live" they must supply all info they hold.
We have given them a further 14 days to comply with this request before legal action, due to the fact they didn't comply within the 40 days last time.
Wake up Co-op and send us OUR info !!! or WE WILL SUE YOU !!

[phatram]

Anyone ???

[livelylad]

Originally Posted by phatram

Has anyone managed to get more than 6 years ststements etc from the Co-op?
We have today requested all info from start of the account in the early 80's to Sept 2000 after receiving info Sept 2000 to now in our original S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).
We have informed Co-op that the Information Commissioner has stated that as the account is "live" they must supply all info they hold.
We have given them a further 14 days to comply with this request before legal action, due to the fact they didn't comply within the 40 days last time.
Wake up Co-op and send us OUR info !!! or WE WILL SUE YOU !!

I am not sure on their policy but I believe that most banks hold 10 years. I got 15 years from RBS.

[richwhit1]

Hi Phatram,

Did you have any success in obtaining statements beyond 6 years as like you I've only received last 6 years statements and not those for the entirety of the account??

richwhit1

[phatram]

Did with MBNA, some from Co-Op no more at the moment.

[Glenn UK]

i recieved data from the Co-op which was over 9 years old after issuing a claim for no-complaince.

Glenn Vs Co-op

suggest that you check out my thread to see what i did and if theres anything else you need ask if i can help i will

glenn

[LES VOGEL]

Hi I got 12yrs from the woolwich(barclays) mortgage and that was after the account had been closed 2yrs!! so really they went back 14yrs if you see what I mean. another very important point is-- its in their best interest to get you the info, because if they dont or can't then how can they dispute your figures- albeit estimated, barclaycard were well known for refusing to send anyone's statements prior to 2004 and wanted to charge people £3 per statement,until Information Commissioners Office said they were wrong to do so, so we all got them sent by b/c free. so if you are told they can't send them to you for whatever reason just estimate in your favour and hope a judge agree's with you-even if they do turn up at c/court(which barclays did in my case) use it as a bargaining tool against them, but be sure to report them to the Information Commissioners Office for non-compliance-(it is hassle for you paper-work wise) but the more complaints the better. cheers LES

[Glenn UK]

Les makes some interesting points but I'm not sure agree with the conclusions.

mortgage accounts are different and the limitations act gives you 12 years within which to raise disputes i believe so could explain why they have that much data.

Re estimated claims, you are mistaken the bank don't have to disprove the charges you claim, you have to prove them and this is always the case. those bringing the action have to prove their case not the other way round.

Re Barclaycard tuning up at court Les what was that for and what was the result please?

Glenn

[LES VOGEL]

My understanding is you can "obtain" all the info a bank has on you-but limitation act states you can only claim back 6yrs worth of charges!!! as the account is live they will have legally bound rules to keep all your info on file, for disputes like this. or criminal action via police- they would be destroying vital edvidence- (in a fraud case for instance) my case at court with b/card was estimated because they refused to send all statements-even though they knew how many charges they had levied against me on the account, my point was to use that situation to your advantage-so they have to come up with the info to argue in open court that what you are claiming isnt correct, as said above the judge will always need hard evidence to award damages, but b/card settled on the morning of court at cardiff for what I was claiming which was estimated,(they had charged me £520 in fees but I settled for £950) because I would not budge from the amount I wanted to close the case, out of all the banks that day--barclays were the only bank to turn up to argue their corner in open court- but believe me they "wanted to settle" before we got in front of the judge. the other people got awarded all they were asking for plus any costs on the day like car parking exspenses!! And the judge didnt like the idea that b/c had not complied with Data Protection Act, and they had no excuse for the delay either- which i think goes in our favour. You cant say a bank owes you £20,000 if they only really owe you maybe £2,000, but the point is if you are fair in your estimate and the bank cant prove you wrong then that is their problem, as long as you have done all you can to show your being fair. the thing is to keep going even if it means going to court and getting settled that day!!!! cheers les

[LES VOGEL]

added to above for mortgage accounts with deed = you can claim back 12yrs worth of charges as I am doing with woolwich as we speak--les

[Glenn UK]

Les

You are correct, if the bank holds data in a relevant filing system then they have to provide it when asked by the subject, in writing with the suitable fee. The terms data and relevant filing system have specific meanings within the act that does mean, in theory at least, they could have information about your account which they would not have to provide, i think this is a theoretical possibility but one which is not found in practice.

As far as i am aware there is nothing to stop the bank destroying your data should they so choose, it is rumoured that there is legislation requiring them to hold it for six years, but so far no one, including the Information Commissioners Office and IR, have been able to tell me what this bit of legislation is called. if you know i would be glad to hear of it.

I disagree with your assessment of Barclaycards appearance at court, if they wanted to argue their corner they wouldn't have settled.

They turned up with the express wish of settling all claims against them and nothing else.

If the bank had chosen to go into court the simple comment of 'prove it' would demolish the claim for estimated charges unless you have the evidence.

The banks dont go into court because you can prove your charges, they don't go in because they don't want to risk a judgement against them.

Estimating claims is risky when it gets to court, maybe the odd charge fine, but there are those who are talking about estimate all charges for the life of their account.

Anyway I'm glad you got your money back and lets hope that everyone else does.

JMHO

Glenn

[phatram]

Glenn,
did you take them to court for non-comp or just a complaint to info commissioner?

[Glenn UK]

Phatram

i took Co-op to court for non-compliance, initially i had a couple of years worth of data from them under the Subject Access Request then got the run around.

So i submitted a claim for non-compliance in court and got back data which was over 9 years old.

Funny thing was they sent a letter saying heres your info and thats all your entitled to and thats all we have.

This seemed and still does seem strange to me.

My take is that either they still had data and i wasn't entitled to it, in which case i wanted to know why.

Or they had supplied me all the data for the account history, which was it?

The entered a statement into court the day before a directions hearing, which i received the morning of the hearing.

I was not entirely happy with the statements but on balance it was probably all o was going to get and the judge indicated he thought that the matter should be closed.

He did give me options but in truth it was clear he thought it was over and i wouldn't want to risk being branded unreasonable.

Hope that helps. if you want to see more details on my claim check out Glenn Vs co-op where all the details have been posted.

HTH

Glenn

[phatram]

Thanks

[groovycaz]

hi again phatram, ive got business statements going back to 1996 from the coopperative bank, they charged me £30 for an unpaid item,also £15 for the letter they sent to me informing me they were not paying the item so £45 charge. They also charged me £10 to £15 overdraft advice which is when I called them and spoke to someone complaining about the charges. They charged me n total £1907 until they closed my account in 2000. Ive written to them requesting they refund me these charges and they refused statin that they are only required to go back 6 years. I then wrote again quoting s(32) of the limitation act and again requested a full refund, that was about a month ago and they just ignored my letter, so im in the process of sending them a schedule of the charges with another LBA but after that Im not sure how to calculate the interest, wether its to date or just to 2000 when the account was closed so will have to have a good read through the FAQs

[Gary JAY]

Totally agree with 'Groovycaz' - the Latent Damages Act, 1986, inserted sections 14(A) & 14(B) into the Limitations Act, 1980. But, more importantly, inserted Section 32 - the normal section here would be to quote Sec 32(1)(b) - there's load of stuff to be found on this section!!

I've just written to Co-op going back to 1999. The reason - 1999 to 2005 was the last 6 year period that I held my account. I could go back further, but this is MY 'gesture of goodwill' (basically, banks etc always use this tactic before going to court to be seen to be 'fair' - I've played them at their own game). It's important to be fair as well and not greedy - in my opinion.
The OFT and Financial Ombudsman are always releasing new guidelines - and the banks do not want to be the first test case at court to have a judgement ordered against them.

Stick by your guns and keep it fair.

Good luck.