Let's use some common sense, folks.

[voiceofreason]

I have to say, I think you've all completely lost your sense of proportion and are becoming - dare I say it - a bit paranoid. Has it ever occurred to you that Egg aren't actually stalling, and aren't out to make life difficult for you at all? My impression is that they are simply being careful. Personally, I'd much rather they took the trouble to verify my identity properly and find out exactly what I want from them (which is what their much-maligned form seems to be about) before sending me out my info. If my details fell into the wrong hands or if they sent them out without checking that I'd actually requested it, I'd be the first person to complain and kick up a fuss so it seems sensible for them to double check. And they have got to cover themselves too - so do be realistic! I work in the field of privacy and Data Protection and I can also tell you that they're not legally doing anything wrong. They're quite entitled to ask for ID, charge a fee and clarify what information we want and their forty days doesn't start until they've got fee and ID. I for one am happy with that and so should you all be. I thought the aim was to get bank charges back, not just to pick holes in Egg's processes and cause a nuisance, but perhaps I've misunderstood you all. Don't let's show our (sorry - not mine, it's all yours!) ignorance - decide what you're actually trying to achieve and do it correctly, sensibly, politely and with dignity.

[thunderpuss2k]

Can't speak for anyone else but the main reason I put a Subject Access Request into Egg isn't for charges etc, it's for something completely different. And TBH in my case time is of the essence, as it's causing untold problems for me and needs to be resolved. Previous attempts to do through normal channels have failed, so now having to result to doing things a different way.

Not saying Egg are at fault in every case, but a lot of things I read lead me to think they (and they're not alone, from what I read) are using the 40 day limit and identity requests to their advantage. If they receive the request, and correct payment, then on day 39 decide to write to the individual to ask for further identification, don't you think this is an unreasonable amount of time thats elapsed between the original request and request for further identification?

[comanche]

Originally Posted by voiceofreason

Don't let's show our (sorry - not mine, it's all yours!) ignorance - decide what you're actually trying to achieve and do it correctly, sensibly, politely and with dignity.

You were making a legitmate point up until your last sentence and they you decided to be derogatory. Please refrain from posting in those terms.

[Bookworm]

.


MOD: I have moved your post at OP's request. OP feels your post is somewhat inflammatory and does not wish the argument that may ensue to clog up his/her thread which is about reclaiming charges. In the interest of open discussion, I have created a thread for your post.


.

[Movingon]

I'm pretty certain that it's a matter for individuals to decide whether they're being messed about or not, and absolutely nothing to do with anyone else. This site, in my humble opinion as one of its users, is all about people offering each other advice and support rather than decrying each other's approaches. I would certainly thank you not to post in derisory or derogatory terms in reply to any of MY posts...

[voiceofreason]

I'm sorry - I really did not intend to cause offence and apologise if I've upset anyone. However, I stand by what I said. "Ignorance" is not a derogatory term, and although perhaps I should have phrased my post in a less flippant manner, what I meant in my final sentence was that when taking on something like this, consumers should make sure they are armed with accurate knowledge and information before they do it. The banks know the rules better than we mere mortals, and it's in their interests to play by them. It's absolutely pointless for consumers to embark upon a campaign unless they too are playing by the rules - it can only cause undue hassle for both sides and I didn't think that was the aim. Please bear this in mind, everyone.

[thunderpuss2k]

Originally Posted by voiceofreason

I'm sorry - I really did not intend to cause offence and apologise if I've upset anyone. However, I stand by what I said. "Ignorance" is not a derogatory term, and although perhaps I should have phrased my post in a less flippant manner, what I meant in my final sentence was that when taking on something like this, consumers should make sure they are armed with accurate knowledge and information before they do it. The banks know the rules better than we mere mortals, and it's in their interests to play by them. It's absolutely pointless for consumers to embark upon a campaign unless they too are playing by the rules - it can only cause undue hassle for both sides and I didn't think that was the aim. Please bear this in mind, everyone.

I wasn't offended, just a little curious as the way you phrased it made it sound like you were tarring everyone with the same brush, and calling everyone else ignorant. Anyway, moving on..!

[Movingon]

Oh, and by the way, the banks have demonstrated time and time again that even if they DO know the rules better than us, they are not prepared to abide by them. In most cases the banks are utterly ignorant of the rules and laws governing their business because they have been able to successfully ignore them for so long.

There is no requirement anywhere to fill in a form for a Subject Access Request. The letters given here ask for specific information very clearly, and immediately on receipt of one of those letters the bank should be able to proceed. The only thing they are entitled to do, is to ask for further proof of identification. But how is asking for this on day 20 after the original request not "messing people about"? It has happened.

Please try to be careful how you phrase things; your post above came off as arrogant, intolerant and offensive. I now accept that that was not your intention, and thanks very much for apologising