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.
Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!
Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.
Below which there is currently a stonking big add for... Barclaycard.
Brechiner, you now have 37 posts to your name, why are you still posting in the Welcome forum? Could you post either in your thread, or General if the post is not directly related to your claim, please?
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!
Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.
This question is for the site admin: If your site goes down can you contact every member to advise of new site or problem? As BCH almost seems to be dead - maintenance mode for 15 days is not good they had a huge amount of members but no one can email those members no it is offline. Many people must have had huge worries about help, claims etc. and to find, for some, their only source for help vanish is hard.
I just want to make sure we dont have another site crash - with just its front page up, and no one to contact help etc.
[quote=Bookworm;420888]Can't access it, it's a sign-in screen...
Below which there is currently a stonking big add for... Barclaycard.
It is quite cool to have some of the hugest banks help fund a site that helps people reclaim unlawful charges from banks. You missed an ad for the Halifax, UN hunger site, habitat for community as well, MSE
Well, for those of us who don't really want to be bombarded with those, seeing that a few of us got where they are now with their help, any chance of copying and pasting whatever it is you're talking about?
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
We have no ads on our forum pages so you dont need to worry, just a discreet banner for the Hunger site and a banner at the bottom of the page for some wireless technology. So no bombardment.
Thank you for submitting your complaint and supporting information regarding Barclaycard. Please accept my apologies for the delay in my reply. Our investigation into this matter has taken longer than initially anticipated.
Complaints such as yours are treated as 'requests for assessments' under section 42 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act). When we receive a request for assessment, in most instances we have a duty to assess whether it is likely or unlikely that the processing in question has been carried out in compliance with the Act. However, we have discretion as to how we carry out the assessment and as to what action, if any, to take.
I understand from your correspondence that you made a Subject access request (SAR) to Barclaycard and made specific reference to bank statements and to charges levied on your account over the last six years. Barclaycard responded by confirming that it would supply you with information from your bank statements from May 2004 onwards; however statements prior to this date would only be provided at a cost of £3 per sheet. It went on to explain that this was because these older statements were only stored on microfiche which is not a relevant filing system for the purposes of the Act so did not have to be provided as part of a SAR.
It may first be helpful to clarify that although the information contained within your bank statements, such as details of transactions, is considered to be personal data under the Act so must be supplied in response to a SAR, the Act simply states that personal data must be supplied in an 'intelligible form'. This means that the information you have requested must be provided if it is held as personal data, but not necessarily in its original format i.e. as a bank statement.
As you may be aware, the Act only applies to 'personal data' i.e. information which is processed electronically and which relates to a living, identifiable individual. Information which is held in some manual (non-computerised) records can also be personal data for the purposes of the Act if it is stored in what is known as a 'relevant filing system'.
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) produced guidance to help data controllers such as Barclaycard decide whether or not manual records were stored in a relevant filing system; however this was amended following a Court of Appeal ruling a number of years ago (Durant v FSA 2003). In light of the outcome of this case, the ICO revised its guidance and narrowed its interpretation of what constitutes a relevant filing system. This guidance suggests that unless the filing system is highly structured, it will fall outside the scope of the Act and led us to conclude that in our view most manual records fall outside the definition of personal data.
We recognise that the definition of a relevant filing system is open to interpretation and that not all parties will agree. During recent months we have once again been reviewing our interpretation of what constitutes a relevant filing system and intend to publish new guidance in the near future, although this is not as a direct result of the recent issues surrounding bank charges. The new guidance is likely to represent a significant shift in emphasis from our existing guidance and our view will be that many more manual records are likely to fall within the scope of the Act.
Following your complaint and others like it we contacted Barclaycard for a detailed explanation of its microfiche system, including how the information in it is stored and retrieved. It was not clear from the response whether or not the system was a relevant filing system; therefore Barclaycard invited me and a number of my colleagues to inspect it and see the system in operation.
Following our visit, we concluded that the microfiche system used by Barclaycard is a relevant filing system for the purposes of the Act. This means that in our view the information is personal data and should have been supplied as part of your SAR within 40 days and for a maximum fee of £10. As a result, it is our view that it is likely Barclaycard has contravened the sixth data protection principle, as this requires data controllers to process personal data in accordance with data subjects' rights.
As I explained above, we are currently reviewing our guidance on relevant filing systems and are placing greater emphasis on the types of systems that are covered rather than those that are not. This will be based on practical examples of non-computerised filing systems. Our decision in this case has been made with this shift in emphasis in mind and it appears that Barclaycard disagrees with us. In light of the Durant ruling and our subsequent guidance, it is difficult to maintain that Barclaycard has acted unreasonably in this matter and it could plausibly argue that its interpretation and subsequent actions were consistent with the accepted view. If this occurs it will be for the Information Tribunal and ultimately the courts to decide which, if either, interpretation of a relevant filing system is correct.
We have informed Barclaycard of the outcome of our investigation and I will now write to it under separate cover with details of your complaint. If it has not done so already, I will instruct Barclaycard to provide you with the personal data you requested as part of your SAR.
It may be helpful to explain that a contravention of one of the data protection principles is not itself a criminal offence and the Information Commissioner has no power to 'punish' a data controller. In such instances, the Commissioner will seek a resolution to the contravention and once satisfied that it has been remedied then in general no further action will be taken.
In addition, section 13 of the Act gives individuals the right to claim compensation if they have suffered damage as a result of a contravention of the Act. If this is something you are interested in pursuing, I recommend obtaining legal advice and pursuing the matter through the courts. The Information Commissioner cannot comment or advise upon any claim for compensation.
Thank you for brining this matter to our attention. Your case will now be closed.
Oh, that! Sorry, I thought you meant a court case had taken place, which B/card had lost!
Yeah, we know about the ICO, it's been stickied by myself over a week ago both in the Barclays and B/card forums. In fact, GlennUK, who has been liaising with the ICO for months now (and due credit to him, has made a sterling job of gathering and providing a lot of the info to push them into action), had already given us the wink a few weeks before that.
Darn, I was really hoping for breaking news here, that would have made my day!
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
the template letters and especially the MCOL template on your site are in accurate.
We have seen a judge threaten to strike out a claim that was entered with similar POC.
The claimant claims the repayment of
unlawful bank charges for the period (start
date) to (end date) amounting to £xxx for direct debit, standing order and cheque
returns and overdraft interest and
overdraft excess fees. The claimant
also claims interest on this amount under
section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at
the rate of 8% a year from (start date) to
(end date) of £xxx and also interest at
the same rate up to the date of judgment or
earlier payment at a daily rate of 8%.
You give no reasons as to why you are claiming the return of this money ?
YOu detail reasons seperately on a reply to the court letter ? when do you intend this to be entered to the court ? After the judge moves to strike the claim out ? You also state in this letter the charges are Illegal, which they are not, they are unlawful.
The Data Protection Act Letter - statements are excluded from the Data Protection Act - HOWEVER transaction information IS NOT.
1. The Claimant has an account 1234567 with the Defendant, opened May 2000 2. Since 01/02/03 the Defendant debited charges and interest in respect of purported breaches of contract. 3. Defendant is aware of all details as a list of charges has already been supplied. Another copy will be sent. 4. Claimant contends: (a) The charges exceed the Defendant's losses caused by the breaches; (b) The Term permitting the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law. 5. Claimant claims: (a) return of the amounts debited of £XXXX; (b) Interest per S.69 County Courts Act 1984 of 8% - £xxx [enter interest total at date of claim] continuing at 8% until judgment or settlement at a daily rate of £0.xx; 6. Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 7. Costs allowed by the Court.
Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!
Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.
Barclaycard v ICO
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by mrpromiscous
