Thread: barclays claim

We are a little bit down the line so I will outline in bullet points

: Received statements for £5.00 for past 4 years after one phone call

: Sent letter requesting payment of £1096.74

: Received a letter back from Barclays as other people offering £400.00

: Thank the bank for offer and asked them for full payment before court action will be taken

: After reading info on this site sent a new letter to bank accepting the 400.00 but if full payment was not made then claim for the other £600+ will be placed on Tuesday 14 days after my first letter

Will keep you up to date

Similar Threads:

• Barclays vs Harry - Barclays counter claim
• Barclays Claim
• Barclays Claim
• New claim with Barclays

Looks like you've got it all under control, well done to you.


Brownie points for reading all, absorbing all, dealing with it all.

Yup - good luck with the claim.

just need to check where is the best place to address the claim to the local bank or the address the letters where written to
Thanks Andy

I did mine to my local branch. Amazing how they pass it on, especially when it's bad news for them, lol.

sent a letter to Barclays regarding Manual intervention i asked for:

I am asking for anything that might show when an employee actually checked our account, allowed/disallowed a transaction, applied a charge, and sent a letter. I would like the date and time of such intervention, the first name or initials of the staff in question for each of those interventions. Should you not be in a position to provide such information, it will be taken that the said intervention never happened.

If you do not show details of manual intervention but suggest that there has been some, then I have the right to attend your offices and view the details personally - an option which I may choose to take at a later date.


got this reply how do i stand (extract from the letter from peter tonsend)

As regards your mention of Manual intervention
the data protectionact dose not oblige the bank to comment about matters that amount to internal policies and procedures and in the circumstances i am unable to provide any advisory observations in this respect. Furthermore, the legislation dose not present an obligation to provide comments additional to the information itself or an interpretation of that inofrmation; this apart from the explanation of non-obvious codes and abbreviations.
That said the bank is of course entirely willing to supply you with any additional information which qualifies for disclosure as your personal data.

Mhhh.... They're really wringing the DPA like an old dishcloth, aren't they...

The way I see it, you can do various things:

You can write back saying: "I asked you for a list of all charges and transactions on my account, and all relevant notes showing -or not- whether and when an employee has intervened on my account. It has nothing to do with "internal policies". "

You can write back saying: "Since you choose not to disclose the required information, please be advised that as per my previous communication, it will be deemed that there has been no such intervention, and should you attempt to use that in at a later stage in court, you will be expected to justify your actions in front of the judge. Furthermore, I shall add a complaint about your attempts to circumvent the DPA"

Or you could not reply at all, and let them think they've won for now, and hit them with 1-complaint to the IC, 2-complaint added to your court claim about DPA violation.

Let's face it: we KNOW there's been no manual intervention. At this point, do you really want to keep on chasing what doesn't exist, knowing they'll stonewall to the end?

The other thing to remember is, we have a big trump in our hands: The OFT statement, which made it clear that no matter what, if it's over £12, it IS a penalty. End of story. Even if there was manual intervention, it still would not justify the £30 charge.

IMO, the only angle of defense left to the banks now is the "we're providing a service" one. I personally wouldn't waste any more time on the manual intervention issue right now. All the better if they think they have us stumped.

I have today issued a complaint to the IC about Barclays handling of a request under the data act

Will keep you up 2 date

hey guys

i sent a letter of complaint to the ico i got this response ( Below) can you please tell me what you want to do with it .

I recived a letter from Barclaycard yesterday which i think you also had which says statements that are prior to the date are not held on computer system or a structured relevant filing system anD therefore, they do not fall under the DPA . Well i think this letter blows this out of the water

ICO LETTER

ON RECEIPT OF A REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT, WE ARE UNDER A DUTY , IN MOST INSTANCES, TO ASSESS WHETHER IT IS LIKELY OR UNLIKELY THAT THE PROCESSING IN QUESTION HAS BEEN, OR IS BEING CARRIED OUT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE DPA , HOWEVER , WE HAVE DISCRETION AS TO HOW WE CARRY OUT THE ASSESSMENT AND AS TO WHAT ACTION, IF ANY,TO TAKE.

WE HAVE CONSIDERED YOUR REQUEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS POLICY AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INFORMATION WHICH YOU HAVE PROVIDED JUSTIFIES FURTHER INVESTIGTION .

YOU COMPLAINED TO THE ICO REGARDING A Subject access request YOU SUBMITTED TO Barclays BANK UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ACT.

I NOTE YOU MADE SPECIFIC REFERENC TO STATEMENTS AND TO CHARGES LEVIED ON YOUR ACCOUNT DATING BACK XXXXXXXX. IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO CLARIFY THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN YOUR BANK STATEMENTS ,SUCH AS DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS, IS CONSIDERED TO BE PERSONAL DATA UNDER THE ACT: THEREFORE IT MUST BE SUPPLIED IN RESPONSE TO A Subject access request. HOWEVER , THE ACT SIMPLY STATES THAT THE PERSONAL DATA MUST BE SUPPLIED IN AN `INELLIGIBLE` FORM.
THIS MEANS THAT THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE REQUESTED MUST BE PROVIDED IF IT IS HELD, BUT NOT NECESSARILY IN ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT I.E AS IN BANK STATEMENTS.

YOU HAVE BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION THAT DESPITE SUBMITTING YOUR SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST TO BARCLAYS, YOUARE YET TO RECEIVE A SUBSTANITIVE RESPONSE FROM THEM IN RELATION TO YOUR REQUEST.

IN VEIW OF THIS , I WILL NOW WRITE TO THE BANK FOR THEIR COMMENTS AS TO WHY YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE TO YOUR SUBJECT ACCESS REQUSET. I SHELL INFORM bARCLAYS TAHT WE WOULD NOW EXPECT YOUR SUBJECT ACCESS REQUSET TO BE DELT WITH IN ENTIRETY, BY PROVIDING YOU WITH PERSONAL DATA TO WHICH YOU ARE ENTITLED UNDER THE ACT.
I WILL WRITE TO YOU TO ADVISE YOU OF THERE RESPONSE.

Have been toold Barclays are to defend over a week ago still no letters from them or the court.

Thanks for posting the above response from the ICO. Please let us know how things develop as it could have implications for everyone still waiting on DPA information.

I have my concerns about whether the ICO could handle the volume of complaints that they are likely to be getting, but if they are going to take a hands-on approach, as the letter seems to indicate, it could help to resolve some of the delaying/obstruction tactics that are becoming prevalent.

I think this letter's quite important. It's clear that the the banks have been caught badly off guard by all these people suddenly claiming back their chrges. It's also quite clear that the ICO have been caught out as well.

It seems likely that the banks have suddenly taken a much closer look at the DPA to see if there's any way they can get out of supplying people the information they need to recover their charges. Clearly, some of the arguments they've been putting forward have caused the ICO to pause for thought - I'm specifically thinking of the "statements aren't covered by the DPA" arguement, which was certainly a new one on me, and I do a lot of DPA requests!

When I spoke to the ICO about seven weeks ago there was quite a bit of confusion surrounding the implications of Durant v FSA, and they seemed to be agreeing that because of it, statements are nor covered by the DPA. Happily, they now seem to be regaining their balance, and this letter seems to indicate that this particular line of defence is closing for them.

It is still fact that statements are not covered by the DPA. However, Durant v FSA confirmed that the transactional information within a statement was personal data under the terms of the Act.

Whilst this is technical, it does mean that a bank does not have to provide copy statements - however, they do have to provide a printout of transactions, and should they wish to provide that information in the form of copy statements then that is acceptable.

It is important to remember that the DPA request template is not a "request for statements", and if anyone requests statements specifically, the bank is within its rights to charge a fee for each month.

THE ACT: THEREFORE IT MUST BE SUPPLIED IN RESPONSE TO A Subject access request. HOWEVER , THE ACT SIMPLY STATES THAT THE personal data MUST BE SUPPLIED IN AN `INTELLIGIBLE` FORM.
THIS MEANS THAT THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE REQUESTED MUST BE PROVIDED IF IT IS HELD, BUT NOT NECESSARILY IN ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT I.E AS IN BANK STATEMENTS.

Dose this above mean that when a bank \barclay card says unable to send out transactions due to the way they are held ie: before July 2004 is no longer acceptable??

It means that although the statements themselves MAY not be covered by the DPA, the information within them most certainly is. The information in your statements will be help in other parts of the banks for their own accounting and auditing purposes. This is why it's crucial when submitting a DPA request that you ask for 'transactions' not 'statements'

Originally Posted by andrewfarmer

THE ACT: THEREFORE IT MUST BE SUPPLIED IN RESPONSE TO A Subject access request. HOWEVER , THE ACT SIMPLY STATES THAT THE personal data MUST BE SUPPLIED IN AN `INTELLIGIBLE` FORM.
THIS MEANS THAT THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE REQUESTED MUST BE PROVIDED IF IT IS HELD, BUT NOT NECESSARILY IN ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT I.E AS IN BANK STATEMENTS.

Dose this above mean that when a bank \barclay card says unable to send out transactions due to the way they are held ie: before July 2004 is no longer acceptable??

Please do not PM a question to a mod if you are then going to ask the same question on the forum. This is wasting time that can be spent answering other people enquiries.

For the benefit of the thread I will now repeat my reply:

No, this is referring to the Durrant v FSA case, where the judge ruled that whilst statements were not included within the act - the transactional information is.

It's Smith v Lloyd's, that says that information contained in manual systems should be included if it is easily accessible with an indexing system.

See the note I made about interest in another thread, it may be helpful, I hope.
Click here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...tml#post227935