Jump to content

L33noa

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by L33noa

  1. The name i was just following their correspondence, all the communication form them was Tesco Bank, for address i highlighted in this thread that the main headquarters was Scotland and was told to just use an address in England. so I used the main Tesco Head quarters.   

     

    The Defendant investigated the transaction and concluded that the Claimant had been the beneficiary of fraudulent funds. - I have seen no evidence of the investigation. they have said the account was the beneficiary of fraudulent funds but as i have have said from the beginning I hadn't used the account in nearly a year. they did not communicate with me like they did their other customer therefore not giving me any opportunity to either assist the investigation or report to the police myself. The FOS and ICO have both found the investigation was not properly handled.

     

    ICO: The organisation have acknowledged that they have not acted in compliance with the GDPR in this case as they did not discuss their concerns with you before the CIFAS marker was applied. Tesco Bank have accepted that this was not fair, and we understand that they have now changed their process as a result in order to prevent any reoccurrence of this issue. I have considered the information available in relation to this complaint and I am of the view that Tesco Bank have not complied with their data protection obligations. This is because Tesco Bank failed to meet their obligations under the GDPR in this specific case with regard to fairness and transparency, prior to the CIFAS marker being initially applied.

     

    FOS: The FOS found that Tesco didn't do enough to show it could apply the marker and found this wasn't fair. The FOS found that Tesco Bank did not do a sufficient investigation

     

    Tesco: Tony O'Donnell investigation officer stated that There is no way we could have established if I  could have been complicit in the ACTO and know that the funds were fraudulent funds without speaking to him.

  2. I never used the account from the day it was opened, I received multiple letters encouraging me to use the account but I never did. 

    I had issues accessing it which i raised. I never knew about any of these transactions and the CIFAS until i had insurance cancelled and RBS closed my bank accounts some 2 yrs later

     

    They say themselves the account was hijacked and the account i was a beneficiary of funds. but I didn't have any knowledge of this. 

     

    Tesco acknowledge the investigation was flawed as to did the FOS and ICO as the investigation wasn't fair and proper. But as they cannot establish how it happened they automatically make me the guilty party. 

     

     

  3. In breach of contract and their statutory duty to the claimant, the defendant acted unfairly in that they:

    ·       Have not acted in accordance with GDPR regulations as you did not discuss your concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied

    ·       Have not carried out a full and sufficient investigation as found by the Financial Ombudsman service dated 12th November 2019

    ·       Failed to demonstrate enough to apply for the CIFAS marker as found by Financial Ombudsman service dated 12th November 2019

    ·       Acted Irresponsibly by not recognising “a sudden increase in spending”, (No previous transactions on the account) and “a payment to a new Payee”.

    ·       Have not acted in compliance to discuss their concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied acknowledged by Tesco themselves

    ·       Have failed to follow their own internal process and procedures as in normal in these cases

    ·       Have not complied with their data protection obligations as found by Information Commissioner's Office dated 3RD July 2020

    ·       Failed to meet their obligations under the GDPR in this specific case with regard to fairness and transparency, prior to the CIFAS marker being initially applied

    ·       Failed to communicate to the claimant in that The Claimant was unaware of the CIFAS marker for 2 years

    ·       Failure to communicate to the claimant giving no opportunity for the Claimant to defend allegations or assist with any enquires or allow the Claimant to report to the Police

    ·       Failed to meet the National Fraud Database Principles in particular those below:

    * Principle 3: Transparency - Subjects have a right to know how data will be used and how any decisions related to them have been made.

    * Principle 4: Lawfulness (Searching and filing) - Subjects must only be searched and filed if they have been legally informed of how their data may be used via a Fair Processing Notice

    * Principle 4: Lawfulness (Standard of Proof) - Cases filed to the National Fraud Database must be supported by evidence and meet the ‘four pillars’ of the Standard of Proof. The Standard of Proof Pillar 2 has not been met:

    That the evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous such that the member could confidently report the conduct of the Subject to the police.

  4. @BankFodderi have attempted a first draft POC please can i get your thoughts , am i on the right lines ? I need to add costs etc but at this stage i wanted to make sue i had the content idea right first many thanks as always :-) 

     

    Those sentences in red are the ones I am unsure of the wording or what would have biggest impact I have tried to lok for someguidance here but its difficult to find. 

     

     

    IN THE XXX COUNTY COURT

     

     

    Between

                                                                                                              Lee XXXXXX - Claimant

      

     

     

    and

     

      

     

    Tesco Bank - Defendant

     

     

     

     

    Particulars of Claim

    The claimant Mr Lee XXXXX of United Kingdom

     

    The defendant is a firm regulated by the FSA under the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 and as such is subject to the Banking:Conduct of Business Regulations (BCOB) 2009 which requires among other things that firms treat their customers fairly (R.5.1.1).

    The defendant is also subject to the General Data Protection Regulation & The Data Protection Act 2018. Aswell as abiding by National Fraud Database Principles.

     

    From 28th February 2015 – 11th November 2016 the defendant supplied current account services to the claimant - account reference number Sort code 40-64-20 – Account number 10139362 - subject to contract being the “General Terms and Conditions – Current Accounts and Savings Accounts (including Cash ISA’s) and the implied conditions of contract contained in the Banking:Conduct of Business Regulations (BCOB) 2009 and the Payment Services Regulations 2009.

     

    In breach of contract and their statutory duty to the claimant, the defendant acted unfairly in that they:

    °       Have not acted in accordance with GDPR regulations as you did not discuss your concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied

    °       Have not carried out a full and sufficient investigation as found by the Financial Ombudsman service dated 12th November 2019

    °       Failed to demonstrate enough to apply for the CIFAS marker as found by Financial Ombudsman service dated 12th November 2019

    °       Failed to produce under SAR request the CIFAS review document highlighting the decision to place the marker and overrule a previous decision

    °       Failed to provide me with a FULL DSAR request

    °       Acted Irresponsibly by not recognising “a sudden increase in spending”, (No previous transactions on the account) and “a payment to a new Payee”.

    °       Have not acted in compliance to discuss their concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied acknowledged by Tesco themselves

    °       Have failed to follow their own internal process and procedures as in normal in these cases

    °       Have not complied with their data protection obligations as found by Information Commissioner's Office dated 3RD July 2020

    °       Failed to meet their obligations under the GDPR in this specific case with regard to fairness and transparency, prior to the CIFAS marker being initially applied

    °       Failed to communicate to the claimant in that The Claimant was unaware of the CIFAS marker for 2 years

    °       Failure to communicate to the claimant giving no opportunity for the Claimant to defend and allegations or assist with any enquires or allow the Claimant to report to the Police

    °       Failed to meet the National Fraud Database Principles in particular those below:

    * Principle 3: Transparency - Subjects have a right to know how data will be used and how any decisions related to them have been made.

    * Principle 4: Lawfulness (Searching and filing) - Subjects must only be searched and filed if they have been legally informed of how their data may be used via a Fair Processing Notice

    * Principle 4: Lawfulness (Standard of Proof) - Cases filed to the National Fraud Database must be supported by evidence and meet the ‘four pillars’ of the Standard of Proof. The Standard of Proof Pillar 2 has not been met.

    That the evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous such that the member could confidently report the conduct of the Subject to the police.

     

    By virtue of the above unfairness the claimant has suffered loss, inconvenience, and defamation.

     

    Particulars of loss

    Cost of Telephone Calls - £

    Cost of Transcription - £

    Cost of Postage and Special Delivery £

    Cost of Research £

     

    Total - £

    Particulars of inconvenience

    The claimant has had to spend much time in dealing with the defendant by telephone calls & correspondence.

     

    Particulars of Defamation

     

    The claimant has suffered immense distress as well as being unable to obtain basic credit facilities, the Claimant has had credit facilities removed and cancelled, Insurance products cancelled and has had to decline job opportunities as a result.

     

     

    And the claimant claims £XXX compensation for actual loss plus damages not exceeding £XXX for inconvenience to be decided by the court plus damages not exceeding £XXX for defamation plus exemplary damages as the court sees fit plus interest pursuant to s.69 County Courts Act 1984

     

     

    I believe that the fact laid out in this particulars of claim are true

     

     

    Signed

     

     

     

    Date

     

  5. these were my notes re the court action I just wanted to make sure wasn't missing anything, 

     

    1.     Issue a letter of claim (28th April) giving 14 days before the issue of the proceedings

             Ø  no response by 13th May ----> move to Step 2 or…

             Ø  See what response I receive

    2.     Claimant sends a claim form using MoneyClaims online on 14th day if no response (13th May)

    3.     Defence or an acknowledgement of service must be filed with the Court within 14 days of receiving the claim form

             Ø  If an acknowledgement of service is filed, the Defendant then has 28 days from service of the claim to file a defence.

             Ø  If no acknowledgement of service or Defence is filed within the time permitted an application for judgment in default can be made by the claimant

     

    Note:

    When the Court receives a defence it will send a copy to the Claimant, the claimant will have 28 days to respond and you will be informed of this on notice form the court.

×
×
  • Create New...