Well its been a very very interesting time with them. Something jogged my memory of the case the other day and I had forgotten about this thread. Long story short. I went to court and the representative of clydesdale was all prepared to fight for it to be set aside but I got there first and just asked the sheriff to do it. Was kinda funny to see the look on the persons face. But while I was at the court the plot thickened, one of the solicitors that approached me did so not realising we had met before. Approximately 6 weeks before I had asked for a legal opinion from someone in a particular firm that will remain nameless on the clydesdale situation. I didn't get much of a helpful response. I then come to find out that - oh yes! you guessed it! The solicitor representing clydesdale is none other than the one I asked for a legal opinion from and was screwed around - conflict of interest or what! Anyway, after allowing the recall of decree a new date was set for the hearing again. I requested a stack of info from the ICO and something else turned up. Apparently the ICO had opened two cases by mistake with two different handlers. One contacted the branch and one contacted their head office, obviously without noticing that they were both working on it. Long story short, they told me it was a single person had cocked up where as they gave a different excuse to each of the 2 case handlers at the ICO. The plot thickens even more. The funny thing is that they effectively trapped themselves in contradictory lies. Suffice to say that this all made me extremely angry so I spent 2 weeks going back and forth between myself and clydesdale in writing. I informed them that I would be modifying the ammount sought to a sum considerably north of the original sum. They accepted the revised figure without argument (which I cant disclose because it was under a settlement agreement) but it was considerably north of £1200 on the agreement that the matter would go no further. I accepted the offer, they paid the settlement and I dismissed the claim on that basis.

Hi crazy diamond. I actively encouraged the judged to recall the decree so we can both argue the case in court. This is not about monetary gain its about the principle that an organisation can not be allowed to blatantly diregard the rule of law. It has to stop and I want my day in court to argue it. One thing is that the decree cannot be recalled more than once so tactically by agreeing to it, if I win in court then they cannot apply for a recall.

Just a quick update. Stunned them by not contesting the recall of decree. Instead we go to court. Sheriff has set an evidenciary hearing on 30th of march with the case being called on 14th of April. Here we go.

I am up in court with clydesdale soon. I am taking them to task for failing to comply with section 7 of the DPA 1998. Anyway I have a daft but important question. If a person joins the bank at age 16 and the bank upgrades the account automatically at age 18 to an adult account allowing it to go overdrawn without having a meeting of the minds and subsequently the signing of a new credit agreement then is the account ligitimate. My understanding is that an account that allows you to go overdrawn is a credit facility and that someone under the age of 18 would not be able to sign up for it. Furthermore, upgrading of this account without a new agreement would be an agreement without meeting of the minds wouldnt it and therefore unenforceable? I cant get clarity around the CCA and current accounts. Whats the script with this. Does it or does it not apply to current accounts. I need this urgently because we are in court very soon. Cheers in advance. Martin

A petition has been put together on the government e-petition site to have the government enforce and impose fines on banks / organisations who fail to meet their requirements under the data protection act. We are trying to get as many people as possible to sign the petition and spread word of the petition through social media. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22295

You can get this recalled so far as not implemented no problem what so ever. The sheriff would then recall it and remove the registration against you setting a date for the hearing to commence again. You can ask for it to be recalled if you can prove you did not recieve the summons and in this case the track and trace is saying that its still to be delivered. Put in a "minute for recall of decree" - the forms are at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk You will need to list the reason you are seeking recall (non reciept) and also your proposed defence to the original summons and turn up on the date specified by the court. This is all providing that you do actually have a good reason for not paying it i.e. the amount was in dispute etc etc One thing I would ask you, have they executed it? i.e. have they sent the sheriff officer after the money or garnished your wages/ income? If they havent then you could actually pay it off and then ask for it to be recalled (thats what I did) because I believe the time limit on a recall is 14 days after the date of execution of the decree. If it hasnt been executed then you should still be able to have it recalled.

It is the evening before I go back to court against clydesdale and they have indeed put in an application for recall of decree with the sheriff as I knew they would. They have said that it was an "administration error" as I knew it would be. They have said that this is due to their legal team not recieving the appropriate summons and therefore they were unable to lodge a defence. Tomorrow is the actual hearing for the recall of decree and I am planning not to contest the recall itself as it will only mean that the decree will be classified as "not implemented". I would much prefer to concentrate all my energy into the actual case.that is to follow after the decree has been recalled. Besides the opportunity to pull clydesdale over the coals about what they have done is the reason I started this case in the first place. It is unnacceptable for an organisation that is entrusted with our personal data to blatantly flought the laws which are designed to protect us. That being said, the government and the banking industry seem content to just brush these offenses under the carpet. The ICO has no real power when dealing with these types of situation but I am convinced that their assessment of such cases does give weight to the argument in a court of law. I am hoping that the sheriff will agree. I will report again tomorrow Martin

Affidavit's Wanted Please Preparing for the case ahead, clydesdale I know will use the "it was only a one of administration error" line alongside their proposed defence. I want to show the court that infact failure to provide documentation under section 7 of the DPA 1998 is rife across the industry but in particular within this bank. I am trying to collect as many affidavits from people who have banked with clydesdale and had problems of this nature to use as evidence that this is not a 1 time occurance. 3 Years and still no data from them. Anyone willing to help?

Affidavit's Wanted Please Preparing for the case ahead, clydesdale I know will use the "it was only a one of administration error" line alongside their proposed defence. I want to show the court that infact failure to provide documentation under section 7 of the DPA 1998 is rife across the industry but in particular within this bank. I am trying to collect as many affidavits from people who have banked with clydesdale and had problems of this nature to use as evidence that this is not a 1 time occurance. 3 Years and still no data from them. Anyone willing to help?

Yes, thats what I think is going to happen. Pray that it all goes well.

The are attempting to say that it was an administration error? That it was not sent from the branch to the legal team and therefore they were not represented. The thing is, I spoke to the manager on 26th october and she admitted that it had been sent on to legal. They are actually lying to the court. That to me is offensive. We know for a fact that they received the summons because it was served on them by the actual court by first class recorded delivery to the branch. As for the decree, I served it on them myself (otherwise they would not have put in an minute for recall of decree). They are require under the sheriff court rules to serve me the recall of decree papers no less than 7 days before the date of the hearing, until then I wont know that they are requesting a recall of decree and the date and time of the hearing. Woops! good job I checked with the clerk eh!. If they dont serve me then the action is delinquent and the judge will have to continue the minute for recall and re-order service of it.

For Three Years I have been fighting with Clydesdale bank regarding an account with an alleged debt of £310. Each time I ask them for statements and information partaining to the account I get ignored but they continued to send debt collection letters. After massive arguments with the branch over the fact that they were not providing the information requested under the DPA 1998, I decided to go the formal route. Last Year (2010) I sent clydesdale three formal letters. The first was a subject access request advising that they were to provide the information within 40 days. The next was a letter saying they had failed to provide the information within the 40 day time limit as defined by the DPA and that they had 14 days to provide it. The final letter was advising them that they had failed to comply and that a complaint was being raised with the Information Commissioner. I then raised the complaint with the ICO. It took a good few weeks but I recieved a letter advising me that it was the ICO's view that clydedale had failed to comply and that they had contacted them advising them to get back into compliance. Clydesdale advised them that it had been a mistake and that the person concerned had been "retrained" and that the info had infact been sent out. I recieved a letter with two blank sheets of paper. So, I contacted the ICO again and they advised me that they would contact them again. They then came back to me and advised that clydesdale had said that they didnt have anything on file. The ICO then advised that therefore the matter was now closed. I emailed the ICO again and they advised that they had done as much as they could and that I should seek other means of enforcement. So, enough is enough! I lodged a formal summons at dunfermline sheriff court in July of this year. They we're served on the 27th and the court date was set for the 30th of September. Clydesdale neither replied to the summons neither did they turn up and subsequently a minute for decree was entered and the decree awarded in default because they were not present. Fast forward to 26th of October and I recieve the signed extract of decree telling clydesdale that they were to pay me £1200 plus 8% interest from 12th march 2010 (date that they went into default with the DPA 1998 40 day time limit). So I decided to pay a visit to the branch and speak to the person who had been ognoring me for three years, the manager, Diane Grieve at Dunfermline branch. I advised her that I would graciously give them 48 hours to pay out or I was requesting a charge for payment to be brought to them by the sheriff officer/ messenger at arms (Baliff for the lay man). On the wednesday, I find out that they have infact put in a request to recall the decree (decree to be set aside if you are in england) on the grounds that the legal team at clydesdale did not recieve the summons from the branch due to an administration error and clydesdale was therefore not represented in court. I am trying to find a defence to a recall of decree on these grounds. Anyone help?

I hope this isn't inappropriate but I have been an ardent follower of CAG for years and have on a number of occasions referenced the site to gain information on how to proceed against banks and even again the inland revenue. So far I have won all four of my cases. I am not quite sure if posting links to other sites would constitute spam aunder the sites rules but I am hoping that the members and those who run the CAG site will be behind me on this. I have started a cause online in regards to Unfair Bank Charges: Opt-in to prevent exceeding overdraft limits. Effectively, I am attempting to try and pressure the government into passing legislation which would allow consumers to advise the banks that they do not want them to pay out debits over and above their authorised overdraft limits and therefore preventing bank charges. I would very much appreciate it if everyone would take just a few minutes to join the cause. In July I will be hand delivering a letter to westminster advising the prime minister to view the site which in affect is an online petition. http://www.causes.com/causes/562020

Consumer credit act 2006 (ammendment to the original CCA 1974)

I have actually just found the provisions in the new legislation. Section 13.6 of the banking code has been replaced by the lending code (http://www.lendingstandardsboard.org.uk/docs/lendingcode.pdf) Non credit related items have been taking over by the FSA Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook and Payment Services Regulations 2009. Credit related items including bank accounts and overdrafts are now under the Lending Code 2009. Section 13.6 of the banking code stated: We may give information to credit reference agencies about the personal debts you owe us if: • you have fallen behind with your payments; • the amount owed is not in dispute; and • you have not made proposals we are satisfied with for repaying your debt, following our formal demand. Section 3(35) of the Lending Code 2009 states: Subscribers can give CRAs default information about a customer’s debts if: *the customer has fallen behind with their payments *the amount owed is not being disputed by the customer; and *the customer has not made a proposal that satisfies the subscriber for repaying the debt following the subscriber’s formal demand. Section 3 has detailed information regarding credit reference agencies and how banks should deal with them. The full lending code is available at http://www.lendingstandardsboard.org.uk/docs/lendingcode.pdf