Thread: Information Commissioners Office - Barclaycard Visit

Dear All

Just a small update, I spoke to the ICOs office today, they are expecting to write to those who complained in the next week or so, yeah I know we have heard that before with Abbey, if its any comfort my contact acknowledges that fact that she has told me this before.

Anyway I am sure that the letters will go out soon, I haven't heard anything to suggest that the ICO has changed its position since they sent the Abbey letter out.

On that basis it seems most filing systems are relevant including the fiche used by Barclaycard.

Something worth pointing out is that on the abbey thread there was some confusing about what is going to happen when the ICO makes its decision.

They will write to those who have complained but they wont be making a formal report. They will be issuing new guidance but there isn't a date for the publication of this so if you are waiting for fiche from Barclaycard and the 40 days has expired and they haven't responded to the lba you can write to the ICO to complain and or take them to court. Up to you.


Glenn

Similar Threads:

• re Information Commissioners letter
• How do u fill in the Information Commissioners Complaint Form?
• Information Commissioners Office visit to Barclaycard

Thanks, Glenn

In view of the visit, don't you think people who have been fobbed off for a long time should try one more lba, 7 days to comply, before going to the ICO?
(I never complained directly to the ICO, you (& BF) got my relevant bits instead, )
That's certainly my plan anyway, and it will please me greatly to send a "in your face" letter to Mr T. anyway. What's 7 days when you've been waiting for months? ;-)

BW

I have spoken at some length to the ICO on this matter, as you know, the Data Controller has 40 days to comply, strictly speaking for a complaint to be registered with the ICO you don't even need to send the lba.

I have recommended people do, then they have the option to either claim in the courts or complain to the ICO, or to do both.

If someone had been waiting a long time with their SAR and LBA expiring, but maybe not having done something about it, then it might be reasonable to send an LBA reminding Barclaycard of their responsibilities, maybe tell them about Abbey too.

It would go down well if it went to court i suppose but i don't think the ICO would be bothered as long as the 40 days had expired.

Something which has come out of my discussions with the ICO is that they operate in a rarefied atmosphere where the y only know whats going on if the consumer complains and tells them.

They have a view of how Abbey and others are behaving based on the complaints they get.

It is therefore very important that people complain to make sure that the ICO know and can therefore deal with problems.

Its become a bit of a hobby horse of mine (OH god not another bloody hobby horse!!)

Anyway people must do as they see fit and if they wish to send another LBA then it wont do any harm as far as I can tell.

JMHO

Glenn

Well I guess it depends on what you expect to get from them.

I guess it depends on who you speak to as well, if you ring the help desk then i guess you could be disappointed with the info you get back.

The two contacts that the CAG have been working with are directly involved in the investigation of Abbey and Barclaycard and the change in policy.

In fairness if you expect a quick result from either complaining to the ICO or taking a bank to Court over non compliance then you will be disappointed.

I cant talk about the other myriad issues that impact on the ICO/CAG since I haven't been talking about default removals, only Sec 7, DPA.

What has come across though is that they have a skewed impression of how the banks are serving their customers (I'm sure we do too).

The only way to change their views and influence them is to be involved in some way, either complaining as an individual or through dialogue such as the CAG is engaging them in.

JMHO

Glenn

PS FWIW Abbey may take a different view to you about ICO now their system has been ruled relevant, maybe Barclay's will change their tune too.

Hello everyone!

I am in the same position as 221b. I sent my S.A.R - (Subject access request) on 09/11/06 and received the statements from May 04 together with the "brush off" letter on 18/11/06. Quite a fast response I thought.

As the 40 days of the original SAR hasn't expired I'm not sure whether I can complain yet to the Information Commissioners Office about refusal to supply data. I'm wondering whether it might be better to wait a little while if the microfiche ruling for BarclayCard is expected imminently.

Grateful for any help.

OM

You cannot complain until the 40 days expires, and if you want to make a claim for non-compliance with the Data Protection Act through the courts you have to write to them giving them 7 days before claiming.

HTH

Glenn

Not sure where I stand. I decided it would be best to pay up the £3 per statement (I paid £138) and claim it back later.
Barclaycard have paid me the charges costs, but are refusing to pay the £138 I paid for the microfiche statements or the £10 for the SAR costs.

We are now at a point where Barclaycard have issued a defence, so we're well into the process by now - any ideas?

sorry, that should have been £138 pounds in statement charges!!

Originally Posted by gordonhall

Not sure where I stand. I decided it would be best to pay up the £3 per statement (I paid £138) and claim it back later.
Barclaycard have paid me the charges costs, but are refusing to pay the £138 I paid for the microfiche statements or the £10 for the S.A.R - (Subject access request) costs.

We are now at a point where Barclaycard have issued a defence, so we're well into the process by now - any ideas?

Watching with interest as I was thinking about doing the same. Cant help you though Im affraid, but Im sure someone will. Good luck.

I would argue that these are legitimate costs imposed on you in an effort to recover your money.

I believe, but may be corrected, that if you proceed to court that the court would only award the fees for court action as a matter of course in the SCC.

However, you can quite legitimately argue that if the defendant wants to settle to prevent court action that this is part of your requirements to settle.

If it were to proceed to court I suggest you prepare a schedule for costs so that when you win and the judge asks what your costs were, you tell the judge you're not sure what you can legitimately claim for and submit your schedule for consideration.

I would also point out that costs and interest seem to be two areas where the banks and cc companies are refusing to pay up.

If you accept a partial settlement and they don't accept your costs then when it gets to court they will argue the case is settled save for costs and wont have to argue about the lawfulness of the bank charges etc.

So i guess its up to you how to proceed and others may have differing views.

JMHO

Glenn