You have a message.

Here's an update.

Sent email to BC trainee Solicitor as suggested by Slick. BC geek said they would reply by end of last week but didn't.

I sent geek a brief email today as follows;

"I am disappointed that you have not responded to my email of 3rd July 2012 as promised in your email 5th July 2012.

Should I not receive a response by close of business today you will leave me no alternative but to continue my claim via the courts.

Any additional costs incurred will of course be duly claimed".

Geek replied saying he would get back to me within the hour.

Here is geek's reply;

"WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Dear BC Slayer,

I have liaised with the Director’s Office who are confident that your Subject Access Request was complied with adequately. Accordingly, I have been instructed to file a Defence. However, in the interests of saving costs, the Director’s Office would agree to a payment of £150 to be made to you. This payment would not be any admission of liability and would only be made in the interests of reaching a commercial settlement.

Should you reject this offer, we are confident that we have a strong prospect of successfully defending the claim and will instruct Counsel accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that defending the claim would cost more than settling on your terms.

Please can you let me know by 1700 whether you choose to accept this, if so, I shall have a settlement letter emailed to you.

If you would like to discuss this matter over the phone, please contact me on my mobile number below."

So lads and lasses, I am now intending to continue my claim for costs and damages unless you think I am being unreasonable. Feel free to offer your opinions/feedback.

I believe my time has been costed out correctly on my POC and Schedule of Claim and the damages claimed were only nominal hence, I don't think I should be under valuing my services.

Hi Shelley,

You may be able to avoid the need to trouble the courts further and secure your costs and damages by negotiation. However, if Barclays won't play ball nicely, you may HAVE to go back to court on the issue of costs and damages.

I suggest you reply to Barclays Litigation as follows :-

Dear Mr xxxxx,

Thank you for your email dated 9th July. I was unable to respond by your 5pm deadline but trust this has not caused any problems for us.

I entirely agree with you, that Barclays have complied with my SAR adequately. However, this was only done after, and in direct response to, my court action.

My email of 4th July about settlement was, I thought, quite clear. However, I'll state once more what I require to avoid Barclays, myself and the court spending any more time on this very simple matter.

I am confused as to why your Director's Office have agreed to you paying me only £150. My schedule of costs as a Litigant in Person was enclosed with my claim Form N1 and showed the sum of £180 for research time and for costs of a carer (for my dependent husband). This is reasonable, it is not estimated and I have no doubt a judge will agree that Barclays should pay this.

On the issue of damages, I was going to ask the court for a nominal £100 and leave it to the court's discretion. However, in an attempt to avoid troubling the court further and to save you further time and costs, I agreed to accept nominal damages of just £50.

If you agree to pay me the sum of £230, I will discontinue my claim. If you fail to agree, I will continue the claim seeking just costs and nominal damages.

As stated before, I would appreciate your response within 24 hours and full payment within 7 days.

Yours faithfully,

Shelley the BC Slayer

Hi Shelley,

 

You may be able to avoid the need to trouble the courts further and secure your costs and damages by negotiation. However, if Barclays won't play ball nicely, you may HAVE to go back to court on the issue of costs and damages.

 

I suggest you reply to Barclays Litigation as follows :-

 

Dear Mr xxxxx,

 

Thank you for your email dated 9th July. I was unable to respond by your 5pm deadline but trust this has not caused any problems for us.

 

I entirely agree with you, that Barclays have complied with my SAR adequately. However, this was only done after, and in direct response to, my court action.

 

My email of 4th July about settlement was, I thought, quite clear. However, I'll state once more what I require to avoid Barclays, myself and the court spending any more time on this very simple matter.

 

I am confused as to why your Director's Office have agreed to you paying me only £150. My schedule of costs as a Litigant in Person was enclosed with my claim Form N1 and showed the sum of £180 for research time and for costs of a carer (for my dependent husband). This is reasonable, it is not estimated and I have no doubt a judge will agree that Barclays should pay this.

 

On the issue of damages, I was going to ask the court for a nominal £100 and leave it to the court's discretion. However, in an attempt to avoid troubling the court further and to save you further time and costs, I agreed to accept nominal damages of just £50.

 

If you agree to pay me the sum of £230, I will discontinue my claim. If you fail to agree, I will continue the claim seeking just costs and nominal damages.

 

As stated before, I would appreciate your response within 24 hours and full payment within 7 days.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Shelley the BC Slayer

 

Love it. Huge thanks for cmpiling that for me Slick.

And, if I HAVE to go back to court what 'trainee solicitor' and Barclays do not realise is; I now have my very own Manager at the CCMCC who deals with all my personal mail,:whoo:

Just gets better,

Received a positive response today but I am unsure of one of the conditions which say;

"It is in full and final settlement of the claim and all other claims arising out of the same facts of the claim"

Will this affect my next stage when I claim unfair charges and PPI?

Need an urgent response please - as they want the offer accepted by 3pm

Many thanks

Hi Shelley,

Sounding good !

You can agree to the sentence you've highlighted above in red. The acceptance refers only to this claim (for the disclosure of data under the DP Act) or other claims relating to the same facts.

This will not affect your ability to pursue any PPI or penalty charges refund.

Putty in my hands :whoo:

Confidentiality clause removed and bank details provided.

All thats left for me now is to sit back and watch the bank balance increase, hehe.

Another victory for BC Slayer

Thank you Slick. Once again you have guided my brilliantly. Hugs dude.

Just realised. I haven't got time to sit about.

Need to amend the claim date on my PPI/Unfair charges claim (now I have the data from 10 years ago) ready to whisk off to them the minute my bank balance is increased. Yippeeee

I will also need to tweak my CV ready for the application process to replace Bob Diamond

Wow!!

Excellent result Shelley !!

Really pleased for you AND delighted that you have shown BC have data back to 2002, and probably longer, although that's when THIS a/c opened.

Others should be encouraged by this and seek older data from BC or other banks.

Also Shelley, please ENSURE that you write to the ICO to point out that BC DO have access to older data, despite what they tell the ICO.

Look fwd to seeing progress on the both the PPI and the penalty chgs reclaims.

Will you seek PPI through Barclays, the FOS or court ?

Well done, Shelley

Just realised. I haven't got time to sit about.

 

Need to amend the claim date on my PPI/Unfair charges claim (now I have the data from 10 years ago) ready to whisk off to them the minute my bank balance is increased. Yippeeee

 

I will also need to tweak my CV ready for the application process to replace Bob Diamond

Thank you all.

If I hadn't found this website and my family of Caggers, I wouldn't have persevered this far. I wouldn't of had the confidence. You have all empowered me to get back what is rightfully mine.

Not sure yet how to tackle my PPI claim but BC might surprise me and refund it as a goodwill gesture

Funny you should mention the ICO Slick. Whilst frantically scanning my documents for trainee geeks I received a phone call from them. my letter will be posted tomorow without fail.

I had great pleasure in advising their advisor of my sweet success and explained that although BC had informed them and me that the documents no longer exist, once court action had been taken, they miraculously appeared! He was amazed.

The advisor has made relevant notes to the details I advised him and awaits my letter to produce to his superiors. I was pleased that he had taken me seriously and he said "you sound like a force not to be reckoned with" hehe.

All joking aside, if the ICO are only going to accept what BC say every time they are approached, what's the point of writing to them in the first place? The ICO need to do spot checks on these claims and go into BC and demand access to their systems to verify what they are being told. There's no deterrent otherwise. What use are they?

Huge thanks to you guys - you've done it again :cheer2:

Hi Shelley,

This is why I think your complaint to the ICO is really important. The ICO must be told that BC are STILL (see below) failing to supply data as required by the DPA in response to an SAR.

Back in 2006, BC told CAGgers and the ICO they did not have to divulge data held on Microfiche. The ICO visited BC's data storage facility to review the position.................

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.

The above comes from the first post in this Sticky - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?50148-Barclaycard-amp-Microfiche-they-are-wrong-OFFICIAL&p=404766&viewfull=1#post404766

Your complaint now will tell the ICO that BC may still be routinely failing to properly comply with the responsibilities imposed by an SAR.

As promised. Letter posted today to ICO. Will obviously post back if/when response received.

Angry & frustrated do not cover what I am feeling today.

I am posting this message here because the thread explains what hassle I have experienced with the courts new found system of filing new claims direct to Salford.

I have submitted a new claim attaching all relevant financial documents (originals) to support an application for fee remission on the court costs. Naturally, I sent this documentation by SPECIAL DELIVERY along with new style N1 claim form and have clarified it was duly signed for by their security guard on 9th July 2012. However, albeit, they have a 4 day backlog, they have confirmed today that it should have been dealt with by now.

I do have a manager who deals with my claims paperwork personally due to previous 'hiccups' and having got Westminster involved, things had been going smoothly. Unfortunately, this person was on holiday and my correspondence should have been passed to their manager, but they have confirmed they do not have it - Basically, it sounds like they have lost it

It was addressed correctly and personally to my contact but it appears the 'postroom' have a process all of their own and do just what they like.

Correspondence sent included bank statements, proof of other income and I am concerned once again the breach of my data protection

To add insult to the injury, enclosed in the same Royal Mail Polybag envelope was a further envelope requesting Judgment by Default on a further claim. :jaw:

I have been promised a call back tomorrow with an update.

To my brilliant family of Caggers I have one question.

What redress do I have (if any)?

Shelley

It beggars belief doesnt it?

I am not sure what redress you have, shelley. I will flag for site team and I am sure slick will pop in soon.

Hi CB,

It does beggar belief doesn't it?

I know I probably should expect some hurdles when dealing with 'Government organisations' but having gone through the relevant channels like I have, I did think we were over that.

This is peoples personal financial data in original format they're asking for and they don't have the decency to put processes in place to ensure the safety of documents sent to them.

I'm hanging from the ceiling by a fine thread at the moment I am so angry

Rant over - going for cup of tea

Hi Shelley,

Not surprised that you're hopping mad about this.

Do you know how long your "contact" manager is on holiday for. Perhaps send him/her a letter briefly outlining what has gone wrong and ask that they, or their superior, investigate and report back to you.

You can point out that you've already had cause to complain to Westminster about their admin failings and you will, if necessary, make a further complaint to Westminster.

Hi Slick,

My contact was on holiday until 10th July, returning to duties on 11th.

I had telephoned before hand to make sure what they would do with her correspondence in her absence and was advised it would be either handed to her boss or left on her desk along with other stuff received.

I have spoken to her boss today and he is aware of my Westminster complaint and has been very obliging but he broke up today for 3 wks but assures me he will leave an urgent message for my contact for her to ring me tomorrow about the latest 'hiccup'.

I am already drafting something up for Westminster but with respect, that isn't going to get my Judgment or new claim processed if I have to send them my photo copies because of their major mistakes, before they can process any of it.

It makes me feel like driving to Salford to hand deliver my stuff and demand to wait while they process it and claim damages from them for their incompetence- might that be an option? lol.

In fact, I might suggest that tomorrow and see what response I get.

Shelley

Let us know how it goes tomorrow.

Let us know how it goes tomorrow.

 

Haha, I wonder what the CEO's response would be if I told him I was claiming HMCTS have breached my Data Protection and slapped a claim on his desk? WOW! It just gets better. Ha, what price could I put on that? lol

I jest.

Of course I will post here tomorrow.

Thanks Slick

As promised, here's an update.

Spoke to my contact at Salford and made her aware of the CEO's involvement and that I almost drove to Salford today to see her in person! That got the desired effect.

She has finally tracked down the request for Judgment which has been processed on 19th July - huh! they signed for the envelope on 9th............ ah well. at least that bits done. Citi financial I am coming after you & for the folks who don't know, I sent the bailiff into them last year and made them pay up.

The new claim paperwork & my financial data has NOT yet been located and this is the best bit - The centre is working SAT & SUN to clear the backlog and my contact said don't be surprised if I receive a call from her over the week-end with an update. I couldn't resist, so I asked if the CEO was working along side them to understand the red tape they've now got to sort out and the mess they've caused by centralising everything? Naturally, she couldn't respond but she understood what I meant.

I also asked why their post room staff were opening correspondence which had been personally addressed to other staff members and she confirmed they are aware of the problem but haven't yet come up with a solution!

Suggestions will be cordially passed on, lol.

Shelley

Today was the final day which payment could be made in settlement of this matter - and no surprise, they have failed to comply with their own settlement agreement.

I have just sent a snooty email emphatically demanding payment by 15.00hrs today or else it will be in to court.

I'm still upbeat and will continue to claim what is rightfully mine albeit is frustrating the hell out of me this week. I will survive!

Pretty much what you expected though, wasnt it

Of course!

It's (strange) because I suspect they have put a block on my current BC account because although it is in limit, they decline any attempt to spend on it!

There has never been any mis-conduct on this new account