noomill060 v Woolwich

[noomill060]

This is my first post.

Ok- story to date.

They owe me £30 for bounced DD and anything else I've forgotten about.

Sent library template Subject Access Request to Woolwich/Barclays for transaction info under Data Protection Act on 20 Sept 06 by Recorded Delivery.

Today, 25/9/06, recieved this letter:

Quote: "Dear noomill060,

Data Protection Act

We refer to you letter of 19 September, which was passed to this department for comment due to you request for certain information under the terms of the Data Protection Act.

As requested, a scheduel of charges is in the course of preparation and this will be sent to you shortly by the Woolwich;there will be no charge for this service. as the Bank is providing this information on a complementary basis, your cheque is returned herewith.

As regards your mention of "manual intervention", the Data Protection Act does not obliege the Bank to comment about internal polices and procedures. Further more, the the context of managing day to day transactions arising from out of order accounts, the Bank does not hold the information you requested in a form that would be 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 provisions of the DPA, is in no way an admission that there was no such manual intervention.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Townsend

Manager, Barclays Data Protection"

End quote

(and 60's rock guitar legend, he wishes.)

[Bookworm]

Yes, yes, yes, bla, bla, BLAH, Mr T.... Nothing we haven't heard or seen a thousand times before....

You'd think they'd change the letters now and then, don't you....

[noomill060]

Good news!

The Woolwich statement on all transactions arrived this morn. (30/9/06)

The charge of £35 that they made for bounced DD, on 9/7/06 was mysteriously refunded on 15/9/06. Apparently.

Five days before they even recieved the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

So, thats the Woolwich dealt with.

Barclaycard, Morgan Stanley CC and Student Loans Co are next on the list.

I suspect they may be a little more reticent...

[noomill060]

Oh yeah, just been to the hole in the wall, and sure enough, there was £35 more than there had been.

[paddym]

happy days !

[noomill060]

Last week I realised that Woolwich havent actually complied with the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and only sent me details of the one only charge for unpaid direct debit.

I used the template S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request requesting details of all transactions and charges, any legal actions etc.

I wrote to them a week before the 40 days were reminding them that they only had a few days to comply, including a copy of the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

On Saturday I got a letter from Pete Townsend at The Woolwich stating that details of all "transactional charges" had been sent and refunded, so WTF did I actually want?

All details of transactional charges have indeed been sent and refunded, thank you Pete, but you havent provided any of the other info I asked for. Do any of your minions actually read English?

Their additional 7 days are up tomorrow.

Hi ho, hi ho, its off to county court we go...

[noomill060]

Cant be arris'd doing the court thing at the mo, Ive got Morgan Stanley and Barclaycrud to barbeque first.

Sent complaint to Information Commissioners Office instead to give Woolwich a bit of grief while I sort their friends at Barclaycrud and MS out

[noomill060]

Woolwich remain in breach of my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request sent last September.

Complained to the Information Commissioners Office about this and this morning recieved this letter.

"Dear noomill060,

Data Protection Complaint- Barclay Bank re. The Woolwich.

Thank you for your recent email comunication regarding your complaint against Woolwich.

You wrote to inform us that despite the assurances, Barclays had fail to furninish you your account statements.

As Barclays have seemingly failed to respond to your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) in its entirety, I have taken the decision to refer the matter to our Regulatory Action Division for further consideration. You will be contacted by a Remedies Officer in due course.

I would like to thank you for you continued patience during the interim.

Yours Sincerely,

Matthew Negus."

[noomill060]

Have this afternoon filed a Small Claim to enforce my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and I claim damages of £200.

I've just done the same with Woolwich's friends at Barclaycard. They caved in and settled out of Court for £200:

noomill v Barclaycard- S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) non-compliance**DAMAGES WON**

[noomill060]

Recieved letter from the Information Commissioners Office. My complaint about Woolwich S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) non-compliance has been refered to their Regulatory Action Division.

This means that a criminal action is being considered against the Woolwich.

[noomill060]

I issued a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) non-compliance small claim against Woolwich which they had until 26 June to respond to.

They didnt and I applied online for a Default Judgement at 00.01hrs on 27 June.

Yesterday, they entered a notice of dispute and today I recieved a letter from their solicitors askind me to contact them with a view to settlement.

Woolwich (in the interim and under pressure from the Information Commissioners Office Regulatory Action Division) have supplied me with all but three of my statements.

[welshcakes]

Hi noomill

Yep, I had an offer to settle full amount (after claim issued). I accepted on condition that they not only satisfy my costs but still comply with the original S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) in question.

They haven't responded to my letter and their time is up so I've now recalculated my costs which are still under £150.

In the meantime, they've put in a poxy Defence which is full of holes so looks like they're going to let it go all the way to court.

I think their motive is to avoid providing the list (if you settle and sign their letter you waive the right to pursue your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)).

I've now put in a Prelim Letter using estimated SOC and explained that this is due to their non-compliance (even quoted court case number for them). I offered to amend my Prelim SOC if they are prepared to provide an accurate list of charges.

Will be interesting to see how they handle these two claims.

[noomill060]

Dunno why they were so coy about providing my statements- there arent any charges on them!

[welshcakes]

Perhaps they have simply adopted a blanket attitude to anything over 6 years.

I would like to find some examples of people receiving pre-6yr account details or some nice person who works/has worked for Woolwich to confirm what the official line is that staff are asked to tow when dealing with these requests.

I find it extremely hard to believe that their IT system literally wipes off all customer account info that's more than 6 yrs old, I really do.

[noomill060]

Me too...

[stephanie.reed]

Sorry to butt in guys!! Am part of the Lloyds TSB forum and have my own thread running in that. Going to court with them on Fri!! On my thread, I have also been talking about my husband's claim for £19000 (yes you did read that right!) in Bank Charges from the Woolwich. Well he adopted a different route, and phoned them regularly threatening them with court action. Initially he was offered £1000 (as a goodwill gesture) which we obviously turned down. He chased them up again last week and 2 days later received an increased offer (another goodwill gesture) of £14235!!!!! We have accepted this and are just sitting and waiting for payment. So keep going- it'll work out in the end!!
Steph