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.
Just about to send out my S.A.R. tomorrow. Should I mention anything in it about the microfiche (as I can see some comments about that), or should I send the basic template?
I don't think I'll be able to get much as feel some of the info is going to b out of the 6 years limitation, but can only try.
Check with Royal Mail and its not showing that my letter to them has been received Thats been 7 days from when i posted it.
Sometimes the update process doesn't work too clever. Give RM a ring and find out where your letter is. You should be able to find the correct number to ring from the RM website.
If my post has been useful, tip my scales and let me know
Had a letter today from Barclaycard saying that they have received my S.A.R. and that I should have it in 40 days. Due to the mess up with Royalmail I will not be able to start my 40 days from the two days after posting, so Barclaycard have a benefit as I will start it from the date of their letter to me, February 13th 2007. So come 25th March I should hopefully have all my info to make a claim against Barclaycard.
Further to your recent request for personal information held by Barclaycard, please find enclosed a copy of the card statements you have requested.
Statements held prior to May 2004 are stored on microfilm which is a means of storage that does not fall within the definition of "relevant filing system" under the Data Protection Act 1998 ("the Act") nor within the bounds of what we are obliged to provide in response to your data Subject access request as set out in the Information Commissioner's Office website at ICO – Information Commissioner's Office
The Information Commissioner has indicated his intention to amend this guidance. It is therefore as a gesture of goodwill to you, our customer, and in the light of this proposed change that we enclose copies of our pre May 2004 statements as you requested although we take a different view to the Information Commissioner's Office on whether these fall within the definition of "relevant filing system" as set out in the Act.
This information we have enclosed relating to this account is all that we hold.
Hi peeps. Just got a letter of Barclaycard from my prelim letter. Not overly happy with there response. Tell me what you think please.
3 April 2007
Dear Bizarre.Moogle
I write further to your recent letter, your correspondence has been passed to me in order that I may investigate and respond in my capacity as Customer Relationship Manager.
With regards to your request for a refund of charges I am sorry you feel the charges you have incurred are unfair. We believe that our charges are both fair and transparent, and we make them clear in our terms and conditions, and on the reverse of every monthlystatement. These charges are avoidable by staying within your limit and making your monthly payment on time.
In your correspondance you have outlined case law which you say supports your view. As I am sure you will appreciate Barclaycard is aware of all the information you have drawn to our attention. I must inform you however, that we diasgree with your legal analysis.
However, as a goodwill gesture and without any admission of liability Barclaycard is prepared to credit to your account the difference between the charges you have incurred and the £12 fee recommended by the OFT. In accordance with the charges incurred this would amount to £102.00. As the above Barclaycard account is now closed, please contact this office on the above telephone number with your bank details to enable us to process this refund to you.
I hope this now clarifie the situation. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. If my reply does not meet your expectations you may ultimately be eligible to refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Further details of this service are on available on request.
If I have not from you within 8 weeks from the date of this letter, I will close my file in accordance with our usual practice.
Yours sincerely
Carol Jones
Customer Relationship Manager
As you can see this isn't even half the charges back, rough calcs make it to be around 36% back.
As far as I'm concerned is that the OFT have and will quote from her letter "recommended" that the fee be no bigger than £12, but if memory serves me correctly (and maybe someone can point me in the right direction) the OFT still feel this £12 fee to still be too high.
Just dug these out of the OFT report. Thinking of sending my lba with some of these in. Again comments welcomed.
The statement released by the OFT in April 2006 does state the following,
“1.1 This statement sets out the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) view of the principles credit card issuers should follow in setting default charges in their standard contracts with consumers in order to meet the test of fairness set out in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs). The principles have far wider implications for analogous standard default terms in other agreements including those for mortgages, current bank accounts and storecards.”
“1.9 Our presumption will be that credit card default charges set above this level [1.8 … The threshold is £12.] are unfair unless there are exceptional factors…”
“1.10 Where we conclude hat a fee above the threshold is unfair we are likely to challenge the charge but will have regard to all the circumstances in deciding whether to do so or not. We will regard default charges set below the threshold as either not unfair or insufficiently detrimental to the economic interests of consumers in all the circumstances to warrant regulatory intervention at this time. The does not affect in any way the statutory rights of individual consumers, or groups of such consumers, to challenge the level of the default charges, either above or below this threshold”
“1.11 The setting of the threshold is a provisional practical measure to move the whole market towards compliance. We are not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold. Our position is that default fees need to be recalibrated in line with the principles set out in this statement to achieve consistency with the UTCCRs…”
“1.14 It must be stressed that this is a statement of our position and reflects the exercise of our discretion as an enforcement agency. Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set to meet the requirements of the UTCCRs. It should be kept in mind that other enforcers may apply for injunctions under the UTCCRs and that the UTCCRs may be relied upon by consumers in private claims.”
“3.3 Schedule 2 to the UTCCRs illustrates possible respects in which a term may be unfair to the consumer by means of a “grey list” of possible kinds of unfairness. Of particular relevance to the default charges is paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2, specifying terms that have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.”
“3.9 So far as a failure to pay or a failure to honour payment are concerned, in general a party to a contract who fails to pay an amount of money due to the other side is not usually liable to pay any damages to the creditor except such interest as may be payable by statue or agreement. The presumption is that in the ordinary course of things a person does not suffer any other loss by reason of the late payment of money.”
The part I like is the last one, saying that the OFT feel that interest alone should be enough of a charge rather than having a default fee on.
Further to your recent request for personal information held by Barclaycard, please find enclosed a copy of the card statements you have requested.
Statements held prior to May 2004 are stored on microfilm which is a means of storage that does not fall within the definition of "relevant filing system" under the Data Protection Act 1998 ("the Act") nor within the bounds of what we are obliged to provide in response to your data Subject access request as set out in the Information Commissioner's Office website at ICO – Information Commissioner's Office
The Information Commissioner has indicated his intention to amend this guidance. It is therefore as a gesture of goodwill to you, our customer, and in the light of this proposed change that we enclose copies of our pre May 2004 statements as you requested although we take a different view to the Information Commissioner's Office on whether these fall within the definition of "relevant filing system" as set out in the Act.
This information we have enclosed relating to this account is all that we hold.
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.
I have all of statements from Barclaycard. They did include them, either though they think still not a filing system. My concern at the moment is how I go about challanging the offer they have given me.
I'm going to be sending the following to Barclaycard soon. Using a mixture of two templates. First is the refusal of offer, and then attached will be the LBA.
I wont post the template bits, but have included the following.
RESPONSE TO SETTLEMENT LETTER
Standard Letter To Refusal Of Settlement Offer
The following is what I have added...
In your letter to me, you state the following, “However, as a goodwill gesture and without any admission of liability Barclaycard is prepared to credit to your account the difference between the charges you have incurred and the £12 fee recommended by the OFT. In accordance with the charges incurred this would amount to £xxx.xx. As the above Barclaycard account is now closed, please contact this office on the above telephone number with your bank details to enable us to process this refund to you.”
After taking time to read the statement released by the OFT, I would like to draw your attention to the following.
“1.11 The setting of the threshold is a provisional practical measure to move the whole market towards compliance. We are not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold. Our position is that default fees need to be recalibrated in line with the principles set out in this statement to achieve consistency with the UTCCRs…”
“1.14 It must be stressed that this is a statement of our position and reflects the exercise of our discretion as an enforcement agency. Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set to meet the requirements of the UTCCRs. It should be kept in mind that other enforcers may apply for injunctions under the UTCCRs and that the UTCCRs may be relied upon by consumers in private claims.”
“3.9 So far as a failure to pay or a failure to honour payment are concerned, in general a party to a contract who fails to pay an amount of money due to the other side is not usually liable to pay any damages to the creditor except such interest as may be payable by statue or agreement. The presumption is that in the ordinary course of things a person does not suffer any other loss by reason of the late payment of money.”
As you can see and from my interpretation, the OFT feel that the £12 threshold is there to make the market compliant whilst it continues to investigate. Particularly interest of mine is 3.9, which suggests to me that the OFT is stating that any late payment or over credit limit should not incur a charge, as the company will charge interest under the presumption that they do not suffer any other loss as the money would be paid.
In the letter that I received from you, you state “We believe that our charges are both fair and transparent, and we make them clear in our terms and conditions, and on the reverse of every monthly statement.” When you mean transparent, does this merely imply that they are mentioned in your literature?
I feel that you are using the OFT recommendation to limit your liability as this proposal happened after my account was closed and I do not feel this should be applied retrospectively.
Had this today for my issue of rejection of offer and lba.
16th April 2007
Dear Bizarre.Moogle
I refer to your letter dated 11/04/2007.
I note that you are dissatisfied with our offer to refund £102.00 however our position remains that we believe it is fair when custoemrs break the terms of their agreement with us, we recover the costs. Therefore, I am not prepared to consider your request for any further refund.
As previously advised, when your Barclaycard account was opened, you signed and agreed to our terms and conditions and this included details of our charges. The information provided at application stage clearly explains our obligations to our customers, as well as their obligations to us. If we make any changes to the terms and conditions we provide details of these to our customers.
I appreciate that this may not be the outcome you expected, however I trust that the information I have provided has clarified Barclaycard's position.
Should you have any further questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. If my reply does not meet with your expectations you may ultimately be eligble to refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Further details of this service are available on request. If I have not heard from you within 8 weeks from the date of this letter, I will close my complaint file in accordance with our usual practice.
Yours sincerely
Matthew Tuppen
Customer Relationship Manager
Any idea people? Shall I send another rejection letter or now stick to the LBA that was also sent?
Don't see the point in responding. There's nothing to respond to. You've said no, they've said tough. Wait for the lba to expire and proceed. Right behind ya buddy
If my post has been useful, tip my scales and let me know
Bizarre.Moogle Vs Barclaycard
limitation, but can only try.
Reply With Quote
Thats been 7 days from when i posted it.
Originally Posted by Bizarre.Moogle
But hopefully this week.
