Thread: Seminole v Abbey: £10,235 RECEIVED

1. Unless otherwise indicated references to paragraph numbers are references to the numbered paragraphs in the Particulars of Claim dated 11 May 2006.
2. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are admitted, save that the account referred to was closed on 4 April 2005.
3. As to paragraph, it is admitted that the Claimant sent a Subject access request ("SAR") dated 11 February 2006. The Defendant subsequently paid the sum of £10 in accordance with section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the "Act"). This was received on 21 March 2006.
4. Paragraph 4 is denied. The Defendant denies that it has failed to comply with the SAR. It has provided all the data which the Claimant is entitled to receive pursuant to the Act.
5. Under section 7 of the Act the Claimant is only entitled to receive "personal data". Pursuant to section 1 of the Act "personal data" is defined (in so far as relevant) as:
"data which relate to a living individual who can be identified
(a) from those data, or
(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of or is likely to come into the possession of the data controller..."
6 Pursuant to section 1 of the Act “data” is defined as follows:

(a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose;
(b) is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment;
(c) is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system; or
(d) does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) but forms part of an accessible record as defined by section 68"

7. Section 68 concerns health, educational and public records and therefore sub-section (d) is not relevant to the present proceedings.
8. "Relevant filing system" is defined as:
"any set of information relating to individuals to the extent that, although the information is not processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purposes, the set is structured, either by reference to individuals or by reference to criteria relating to individuals, in such a way that specific information relating to a particular individual is readily accessible".
9. The Claimant's SAR was made in relation to bank statements and information in relation to the charges levied in an account number XXXXXXX held with the Defendant ("Account"). The Defendant keeps this information on its automated "live" system for up to 18 months. In compliance with the SAR, and in accordance with subsection (a) of the definition of "data" under the Act, all relevant data stored on the "live" system was provided to the Claimant under cover of letter dated 23 March 2006.
10. After the 18-month period has elapsed, the Defendant transfers the information held on the live system onto microfiche. The microfiche is then stored and, if necessary, retrieved as follows:

10.1 It is stored in boxes covering a 2-month period (for example, January and February, or March and April). There are usually 4 boxes covering each 2-month period.
10.2 Each box contains a range of account numbers, such that (by way of example only) "box 1" could cover account numbers 1-500 and "box 2" account numbers 501-900.

10.3 In the circumstances, in order to search for microfiche dating back for a period of 4 years would require a member of the Defendant's staff to check the fronts of 96 boxes to identify the relevant boxes containing microfiche records relating to the account, then search the contents of 24 different boxes identified and finally go through an average of 450 different accounts on the particular microfiche in order to locate the specific records of the individual account.
10.4 Each piece of microfiche contains the records of a number of accounts and there is a note on the fiche itself of the range of account numbers that it covers.
10.5 The microfiche in each box are stored in numerical order, although each box contains approximately between 8,000-9,000 pieces of microfiche. The member of staff searching for or retrieving the microfiche has to check through the boxes manually to find the relevant information sought.
10.6 Once the correct microfiche has been identified, the member of staff has to put it into the fiche reading machine and then manually find the correct account number. Once the correct account details have been located the information is then printed onto paper. This process has to be repeated for each piece of microfiche retrieved from each relevant box..

11. Accordingly, the manual microfiche storage and retrieval operations do not fall within the definition of "relevant filing system", such that the information stored as microfiche does not fall within the definition of "data" and is not covered by the provisions of the Act. The records are not stored in a manner broadly comparable with computerised records: they are not sufficiently structured nor readily accessible, they would have to be retrieved manually at great length and cost to the Defendant.
12. In the premises, in not providing such information as is stored on the microfiche, the Defendant has not failed fully to comply with the SAR nor is it in breach of any of its obligations pursuant to the Act.
13. In the circumstances, and as regards paragraph 6, it is denied that the provisions of section 15 of the Act are necessary or proportionately required to resolve the present dispute.
14. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief from the Defendant.

Similar Threads:

• Us v Abbey - Defence received

Is it just me, or have they just proved the case for the prosecution?

Originally Posted by seminole

Actually in light of today's events I think the lawyer must be a Paraguayan. He has a tendency to score own goals.

excellent!!

Originally Posted by alanfromderby

Is it just me, or have they just proved the case for the prosecution?

That's just what I was thinking.

From the look of it, I would guess that whoever wrote this had never seen the DPA before,and was interpreting it 'on the fly', that is, without reference to any of the legal precedents which nowadays are used as a benchmark for what's covered.

I wonder if it's worth sending this off to the ICO for an opinion?

Go on Robert, do it!!!!

Basically, the person who composed this piece of drivel, hasn't got a clue.

Originally Posted by seminole

10. After the 18-month period has elapsed, the Defendant transfers the information held on the live system onto microfiche. The microfiche is then stored and, if necessary, retrieved as follows:

10.1 It is stored in boxes covering a 2-month period (for example, January and February, or March and April). There are usually 4 boxes covering each 2-month period.
10.2 Each box contains a range of account numbers, such that (by way of example only) "box 1" could cover account numbers 1-500 and "box 2" account numbers 501-900.

10.3 In the circumstances, in order to search for microfiche dating back for a period of 4 years would require a member of the Defendant's staff to check the fronts of 96 boxes to identify the relevant boxes containing microfiche records relating to the account, then search the contents of 24 different boxes identified and finally go through an average of 450 different accounts on the particular microfiche in order to locate the specific records of the individual account.
10.4 Each piece of microfiche contains the records of a number of accounts and there is a note on the fiche itself of the range of account numbers that it covers.
10.5 The microfiche in each box are stored in numerical order, although each box contains approximately between 8,000-9,000 pieces of microfiche. The member of staff searching for or retrieving the microfiche has to check through the boxes manually to find the relevant information sought.
10.6 Once the correct microfiche has been identified, the member of staff has to put it into the fiche reading machine and then manually find the correct account number. Once the correct account details have been located the information is then printed onto paper. This process has to be repeated for each piece of microfiche retrieved from each relevant box..

Whilst the records are stored in date order, the front of the box gives the range of account numbers, and the individual microfiche slides are stored in account number order in the relevant box.

I accept that it may be a time consuming process, but let's be clear - in order to find the transactions for one month, you would be faced with two boxes. On the front of the two boxes would be the account number range. When you have selected the correct box, the slides are in a/c number order, so you could easily locate the slide - I cannot believe then that the accounts are not in order on the slide.

This is a filing system that is used in virtually all office environments for paper records - it is logical, and any suggestion that this is not indexed is absolute garbage.

It is NOT difficult to find the records - it is a little time-consuming, but let's face it they have got 40-days to comply!!

god it sounds like it takes up loads of time to do this !! hours and hours of hard manual graft !!!!

so why is it they tried to charge us £5.00 for single and £10.00 for multiple copies that have been archived ??

so if it takes them that long, how much are they paying the people by the hour to do it ?? 10p ???

also if they didnt have to send the info out under the dpa ( well they wouldnt would they ? )

Bear in mind as well, that because of the nature of the data, all the boxes will be in a secure location and be strictly access controlled, which means that the person doing the searching will probably be a professional archivist who will be able to home in on any file in no time at all.

I used to (about 7 years ago) temp at a head office of a building society, and I dealt with copy cheque requests. My memory is a little hazy ( I was pregnant at the time and worked there for about 7 months) but I used to take down a long list of copys to find each day, to prove signatures/amounts etc. and the filing system was pretty much the same as what Abbey have described. It was an annoying menial job but not exactly difficult or time consuming, and it was always the temps doing it.

We found it more annoying to have to find a physical cheque from the boxes than to find the microfiche ones as these were simpler to access and a lot quicker - you knew they would be in the right order !

There must be some other people out there with experience of this kind of work - who have a better memory of it than I do........


Robertxc - just read your post - other than the building society PASS card thingy anyone who worked in the building could get into the files room ! and most of the time it was just temps in there.......who actually are probably more intelligent than the full time banking staff ! (no offence banking staff!)

Sometimes in life you eventually get to one of those Victor Meldrew moments. You know, when all you can think of to say is, "I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!".

I have spent ages trying to find someone with experience of microfiche systems, and just how easy/difficult it is to access a record, and how files are likely to be structured.

Last night I was talking to the wife about Abbey's defence, and exactly how their system works - and she then said that this was exactly the same as the microfiche system she used to work with at an NHS accounts department!!!!

So, after weeks of trying to locate an expert witness........I find I was sleeping with one!!!

I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!!!

Originally Posted by alanfromderby

So, after weeks of trying to locate an expert witness........I find I was sleeping with one!!!

At least you weren't sleeping with the enemy!