Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I sent of my dpa request form but silly me forgot to post the £10 postal order with it. I recieved a letter back saying the following but Im v confused.
" Please be aware that the bank is not under an oligation to present information according to present information according to any particular format. Therefore your request to assemble a schedule of charges is turned aside. You may of course obtain this data from a copy of statements and these will be provided shortly without charge on this occasion.
As regards to your mention of "manual intervention" the DPA does not oblige the bank to comment about internal policies and procedure, furthermore in the context of managing day to day transactions arising from out of order accounts, the bank does not hold the information you have requested in a form that is covered by the DPA. Whilst aggregated information is retained for statistical purposes, this would not constitute "personal data" under the DPA and therefore would not be covered by a s.7 DPA Subject access request. For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that we do not generally record information in a way that is caught by the provisons of the DPA, is in no way an admission that there was no such manual intervention.
Not withstanding the above teh bank is ofcourse entirely willing to supply the general information that should be disclosed due to the dpa. To inititate the process Barclays will require a payment of £10 blah blah blah"
This letter about manual interventions seems to be a new thing for Barclays. I would send a letter asking for all the actions applied to the account including the text of any comments put by anyone. The presence/absence of these comments will provide proof of manual intervention. I would think that anything recorded on a computer system or backup of the computer system would easily fall within the remit of DPA.
I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with this tactic as manual intervention would be a way of proving that bouncing cheques/direct debits and going over the limit costs them some money (although not the amount charged).
Hiding behind terms and conditions is a good way of scaring people off but when it comes to court they haven't a leg to stand on and they know it. There only chance of winning is to convince the court that the charges are 'a reasonable pre-estimate' of the costs involved.
Esharnock vs Barclays
" under the DPA and therefore would not be covered by a s.7 DPA Subject access request
Reply With Quote
