Well how wrong was i, my data arrived today just found it after coming back from work. Something extremely interesting has come to light. I'll paraphase the cover letter from Emma Fairchild "Please find enclosed statements dating from 10th December 2003 until 10th April 2006 as requested. Due to a technical problem I have been unable to obtain statements dated from June 2003 (when the account was opened) until December 2003 but would like to reassure you that no charges were applied to your account during this period" Well unlucky for them i was routing through an old drawer last week and found a few of my various statements from a while back. Yes you guessed it statements from BOTH 10/03 and 11/03 in which charges WERE applied. Therefore the data subject request is a lie. I have paid for this information and do not expect to be lied to. What is my next step? Surely this is very serious indeed? A fuming Dave J

For the record i have just processed my claim against MINT £40 + £30 court costs which will soon be in the litigation in progress section. I used the following address The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc 17-19 Mill Street Bedford MK40 3EU

Joanne unfortunately i did not send the cheque initially however that particular letter was dated 20th March which means they are on day 36. I can't see the data coming in the next 4 days anyway, they don't have a clue whats going on.

The 40 days were up on Wednesday 12th. Cheque was cashed 28th March and credited to my account (fools)

No phone call, not good enough. I will proceed for an estimated amount of £400 + £100 interest. Prelim on way

Thanks for taking the time bookworm i do appreciate it. Angry cat last time i checked Edinburgh was in Scotland but cheers anyway! I'll call them and get an address from the horses mouth and put it on here.

I'm past the DPA stage i need an address in England or Wales with which to take Mint to court.

I used the standard DPA letter in the library Nigel, the only time i would use secure messages are to chase things up. I will keep you informed.

Hi i sent a secure message asking where my data was, i was told 5-7 days as the cheque was received April 15th or something. They cashed the cheque in MARCH!!!!! I'm not going to go down the IC route personally but i won't leave them in peace i know that for certain.

If any of the bods could help with this i would be really grateful, so grateful in fact that i will donate a thankyou tenner to your book fund. Who says bribery gets you nowhere?!

I certainly did Loula, dated early March

I called them, spoke to a nice girl who didn't know what i was talking about. Received a call telling me the person i need to speak to will call on Monday. Not that impressed but good enough for now. I WILL get my money back from these charlatans!

Hi mossysue, I am pretty sure this has no bearing on your claim whatsoever. Also, I'm not sure the term is valid as this is only a recent development, if you have access to your original t & c's I don't think you would have agreed to it. I know that i didn't in 2004.

Hi Loula, Nothing back yet, i will call them tomorrow and let you have an update. If i'm not successful i will proceed with an estimate. I had a good look through the IC's website but i don't think they're a very heavy handed bunch. I may or may not report them I haven't decided yet. Thanks for your interest Dave

They don't affect your credit file as a charge no, only if you could argue the charges have led to a default or late payments could you go that way.

I would be really grateful if someone could pass on some knowledge on this i am gagging to take them to court but cannot because it seems the business is registered in Edinburgh and Moneyclaim won't allow it. I am based in England and want to go through the English system but i obviously need a valid English address, could anyone advise briefly?

Hi again all, After two letters to which i've received the same thankyou your complaint is being looked into response i've now got to proceed with the moneyclaim part of the game. Mint are registered in Scotland under RBOS. I know from reading another thread in the General Forum that my claim still falls under English law because it was begun in England but who are the actual defendants MINT or RBS? The best address I can find is Royal Bank Of Scotland 17-19 Mill Street Bedford MK40 3EU Would this be suitable? As an aside what is the importance of getting the Head Office address correct, if I were to just address any old department would it still be valid? Thanks Dave P.S I think Mint should get its own forum now.

I would suppose that by the very fact they don't send it would imply they don't have it and as such could not use it to prove they informed you.

Well done mate, have a great time spending it.

Lois please see my thread my smile journey starts here i'm a little bit further than you but not got the data through yet.

Hi Bookworm, your best bet is to get an online credit search done via equifax. They have a 30 day free trial to get unlimited access to credit reports. I am pretty sure, (although my trial has expired so i cannot check) that each reference comes with an account number. Worth a try anyway...

Thanks for the replies i do think you are missing some of my points though. I appreciate from their point of view barclaycards t and c's are terrible although obviously we don't want to point this out too much. To illustrate my point further i'll post the relevant section of Smile's t and c's from their website on a standard current account. 3. Borrowing and overdrafts 3.1 We may agree to you overdrawing your account up to an agreed overdraft limit. Please refer to the smile tariff for information about overdrafts including the charges and interest rates we will apply in any month the account is overdrawn. If your account becomes overdrawn in any monthly charging period and we have not agreed an overdraft limit the smile tariff details the charges for unauthorised overdrafts (including interest, monthly management and daily service charges) which will apply. 3.2 You must not overdraw where no agreed overdraft is in place or exceed or try to exceed any agreed overdraft limit. If a payment from your account does or may cause you to overdraw where no agreed overdraft is in place or exceed any agreed overdraft limit:- we may refuse to carry out those payments you must immediately pay into or transfer enough money to the account to bring the balance back into credit or within any agreed overdraft limit We will charge you for services we are required to carry out in such circumstances, for example if we have to bounce cheques, please refer to the smile tariff for details of charges we will apply. 3.3 You must repay all amounts owing to us on your account in full at the end of the term of any agreed overdraft limit or on our written demand this includes any interest, charges or other applicable fees we have applied to your account. 3.4 We will send any written demand by first class post to the address you last notified to us. Any such demand will be treated as having been received by you 24 hours after posting. As you can see there is no mention of a breach at all and if there is no breach then there cannot be a penalty charge. With reference to your 4th point i would only say i am agreeing with you, in the case of returned cheques/dd's there is no benefit and so would not classify as a service. Also with regard to my money for food example it doesn't really turn it into a moral issue at all in my opinion. It was just to illustrate the benefit of immediate funds could be seen as a bigger need to the person than a greater amount later in time and hence completely justifiable as a benefit. I still am confident that i can win a case against smile but if i didn't bring this up I wouldn't be doing myself justice

I still think this topic requires a little more discussion because if i were the banks legal counsel i would look to go down this avenue; Some thoughts.... Are the banks saying that the contract has never actually been breached? Also that they offer a unique service which provides you with additional money resulting in an agreed fee set out in the t and c's and that you accept your benefit of this service when going overlimit. It's difficult for me to explain so i'll set out an example. I have a remaining balance of £5 I need to buy food for the next few days so i purchase £10 worth completely aware of my financial position and the fee i am likely to incur. I still do it though because i need to eat and the £5 extra i'm borrowing is of great benefit to me. The additional utility gained (staying alive) is immeasurable and could easily be argued to exceed £20 upwards. The charge for this borrowing does not have to be in line with reasonable costs to them and they are fully entitled to profit from your acceptance of the service fee. Do they have a responsiblity to refuse my card though? Does my attempt at using it catagorically state that i want them to accept it? Does this then start to haze the one charge is the same as another theory? A returned cheque fee would not fall under this catagory for example, you are definately not receiving a benefit there. I do completely agree with the penalty charge argument and if a bank has this plastered all over their own literature then they are basically offering the money back on a plate, but i want to make sure i've got all bases covered in my own four pending claims.

They have banked my cheque but no sign of the data, still early days i guess. Coincidently i went £2 over my limit again and received a secure message (automated im sure) telling me that there is a charge. There is no sign of this on my statement though which is interesting given recent events. I will update until i get my money back.

Hi all, Monument have requested £5 for each statement following my DPA request. I am hoping my request is useful to someone.