Jump to content

verdant

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by verdant

  1. Sorry I've not been around to respond to this. There has been a lot of other stuff going on in my life like dealing with my mum's estate and the 6 month anniversary of her death.

     

    Where do I send the subject access request? The Uber website has two postal addresses, one in The Netherlands and one in the USA:

     

    Uber B.V. (Mr. Treublaan 7, 1097 DP, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

    Uber Technologies Inc. (1515 3rd Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA)

     

    https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?name=privacy-notice&country=great-britain&lang=en-gb

     

  2. Since my I made my initial post Uber has accepted there might be a problem and has escalated the issue to another team. They say they can't provide a timescale though.

     

    I've also followed their SAR process and downloaded what they describe as all the personal data they hold about me. It doesn't contain any financial transaction records, so it's clearly not all the data they hold.

     

    Here is what I intend to send about the incorrect data:

     

    Quote

     
    On 15th March 2021 I ordered a meal costing £66.13 and I paid the money via PayPal (transaction id 4ME83274WW445612R, invoice id 1UEdv70PJHu23Q26vXscO6a0). I didn't receive one of the items: Notorious DFP £4.50. On 31st March after attempting to use the broken contact us functionality on the Uber Eats website I raised a case with PayPal. On 17th April Uber had not responded and the case was raised to a claim. On 27th April Uber had still not responded and the claim was paid: £4.50 was refunded to me by PayPal. I have already provided Uber with excerpts of credit card and PayPal statements that prove my description of events to be correct.
     
    Uber fails to recognise that the payment of £66.13 was made or that it had sufficient time to deal with my refund claim and is now incorrectly demanding £66.13 be paid. Uber's records are incorrect and they are processing my data inaccurately. The fact that Uber is holding inaccurate data about me is causing me distress and the fact that Uber is using their inaccurate as a basis for withdrawing service is causing me additional distress because I have been ordering food and suddenly Uber refused to deliver it. Uber's initial reaction to my query has caused me further significant distress: my query was dismissed, out of hand, without any consideration on Uber's part that they may have incorrect data.
     
    Uber is in breach of its statutory duty to process my information correctly, and to rectify it where it is incorrect. I require compensation of £100 for the distress Uber is causing me and I require Uber to correct its records.

     

     

    Does that seem OK? I will send it electronically, do I also need to send a letter?

  3. In March I ordered a takeaway via UberEats.

    I paid by PayPal and the order arrived with an item missing.

     

    I forgot to raise the issue straight away with Uber. By the time I remembered to do it the order was too old to raise the issue directly but did suggest that I contact their support team. I tried to do this, but that the link they provided didn't work. I then raised a case with PayPal. Uber didn't respond to the case and I was refunded for the missing item.

     

    Uber are now claiming that I owe the full amount of the order even though it has already been paid (less the refund). I've asked Uber to look into it, but they are insistent that I owe the full amount. I've asked PayPal to looking into it but they insist that Uber have been paid.

    In brief:
    15th March ordered a takeaway through Uber Eats cost £66.13
    27th April refunded £4.50 for item that didn't arrive

    Uber claim I owe £66.13

     

    I have checked my PayPal statement and credit card statements and on both I see the £66.13 go out and £4.50 refunded.

     

    I'm not sure what to do now as I have contacted both organisations and they refuse to help.

  4. Bus operators in West Yorkshire are part of the Bus 18 initiative which was set up by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. It guarantees a free travel voucher to bus user who are "not happy with their journey". I have submitted claims under this guarantee for buses that haven't turned up, and buses that have been late but have never received a free travel voucher. First Bus say they deal with all complaints in 14 days, but I've had nothing after 2 months.

     

    Has anyone had experience of claiming under the Bus 18 scheme? How long did you have to wait?

     

    https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/bus18

  5. I've noticed something about the method used by Barclaycard to calculate minimum payment amounts and it appears that they are deliberately and systematically mischarging interest to all customers who make the minimum payment each month.

     

    The systematic mischarging may be costing Barclaycard customers millions of pounds a year - millions of pounds that go straight onto Barclaycard's bottom line. In brief, Barclaycard are under-calculating the minimum payment to keep balances slightly higher than they should be. They then charge interest on the amount underpaid.

     

    When Barclaycard calculate the minimum payment amount they round down to the nearest pound, so if the balance on the account is £500.00 and the minimum payment is 2.5% per month then the correct minimum payment is £12.50; Barclaycard round the amount down to £12.00. Averaged over all customers this is a 50p per month underpayment for those paying the minimum payment, i.e. £6.00 per year on average. There is nothing in the terms and conditions to allow Barclaycard to perform the rounding.

     

    This £6.00 underpayment earns interest for Barclaycard. If I assume an APR of 25% the interest earned on the underpayment amount will be around £1.50 per year. Not a lot you may think, but multiply that by the number of customers making the minimum payment each month, and then take into account the fact that this interest is compounded year on year.

     

    After two years the amount undercharged will be £12.00 plus over £3.00 in interest. By years three and four the interest charged is approaching 100% of the total underpayment. For example based on figures from my own account, by the end of the fourth year I would be undercharged £24.00 (based on 50p per month) and would have paid £18.87 interest on this amount. Using an underestimate of half a million customers making the minimum payment each month, this would come to £9.435 million over 4 years. So an underestimate of the amount gained from this is over £2 million per year - all profit.

     

    There is a further problem caused by Barclaycard undercharging which is that the minimum payment can sometimes be lower than the interest (which is never rounded down). This means that even if you make the minimum payment each month your balance will continue to rise.

     

    I have raised this matter with Barclaycard once in December 2006 and again in December 2007. I have put it to Barclaycard that they are, at best, in breach of their own terms and conditions and that their behaviour could be interpreted as fraudulent. The only formal response I have received so far gives the reason for the rounding down as "We calculate this as 2.5% of your balance an round the amount down to the nearest pound. The reason we round this calculation down is to keep payments as low as possible for customers who are struggling." I fail to see how charging over two million pounds a year in extra interest or allowing balances to continue to rise month on month is helping struggling customers.

     

    What can be done as Barclaycard are in breach of their own terms and are deliberately ripping-off all customers who make the minimum payment.

  6. Citi have responded to the judge's order.

     

    Their letter to the court:

     

    I act on behalf of CitiFinancial Europe plc and write further to the Order of District Judge Spencer date 2nd April.

     

    Regarding the Defendant complying with Part 1 of the Order, I regret I am unable to comply since, as the Court will be aware, the majority of default claims that are lodged are being heard exclusively in the Small Claims Track and every case I have referred to has been heard in that forum. There are no written judgements or findings of fact that my client can refer the Court to as every final Order is simply a variation on "Case Dismissed" or "Claim struck out".

     

    Anecdotally, various District Judges have noted that it is for the Claimant to prove his case that the charges are penalties rather than liquidated damages clauses; that to do otherwise would reverse the burden of proof; that a breach of contract issues in damages and that it is not tenable for the Claimant to breach and recover everything and, given that, the OFT figure is a reasonable starting point.

     

    The bases of law relied upon by my client are identical in most points to those set out in the Defendant's defence hereto (save where the account has defaulted and charged off) and the draft Skeleton argument and witness statement that I enclose herewith. These are submitted in each case and have proven persuasive in all cases so far heard.

     

    Yours sincerely,

     

    Mr Brian Smith

     

    As far as I can tell this letter is saying we're not complying with your order, we're not even going to tell you which cases we claim we've won.

  7. After Citi filed their defence I asked for a stay of a month to try and negotiate a settlement. I sent a letter to Citi explaining that in order to reach a negotiated agreement I would need them to explain the basis and structure of their costs in relation to their default charges. They haven't replied. I already had a signed letter from their data protection manager saying that the charges were applied automatically with no manual intervention at all, so I 'm sure their costs in regard to each breach aren't very high at all.

     

    In the meantime, District Judge Spencer has issued an order:

     

    Upon reading the Claimant and Defendant's Allocation Questionnaires

     

    IT IS ORDERED THAT:

    1. The Defendant shall by 4.00pm on 30th April 2007 file and serve a summary of the bases in law/judgements/findings of fact in the "dozen" successfully defended cases defended cases referred to in the Defendant's Allocation Questionnaire.

     

    2. The file be referred back to District Judge Spencer on 1st May 2007.

     

    3. Request to transfer to Salford County Court made in the Allocation Questionnaire is treated as an application and is refused.

     

    4. This order was made of the District Judge's own initiative. If you object to the order you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it.

     

    I have a few questions:

     

    1. Is this order good/bad/mixed news?

    2. At this stage can I still provide draft orders? (I want to ask that Citi disclose the basis of their charges).

    3. I realized last night that I used a loan from Citi to pay off my CitiCard account (paying off the card was a condition of the loan). Could I claim for the interest on that part of the loan used to repay the credit card?

    4. If I could claim the loan interest, can I modify my claim at this stage?

  8. I've just been looking at my Barclaycard statement from a few weeks ago. Something strange happened. I pay the minimum payment by direct debit and Barclays took the amount they stated on my previous statement. I made no other transactions during the month and was not over my limit at any point during the month but somehow the interest charged took me over my credit limit.

     

    When I worked it out I believe that Barclaycard had incorrectly calculated my interest. The monthly interest rate stated was 2.207% and the balance from the previous statement (constant for the month) was £259.57. A very quick calculation leads me to believe that the interest should have been £5.72 however Barclaycard charged me £7.52 in interest. Thats an overcharge of 31%.

     

    On further calculation I worked out that the payment they had taken was not for the correct amount. Based upon the previous month's statement with a closing balance of £259.57, 3% of this is £7.78. Barclaycard took only £7.00.

     

    The reason I noticed this and went to the trouble of making the calculations was that even though the minimum payment is made automatically by direct debit and I made no other purchases from the account they claim the credit limit was breached and applied a £12 charge.

     

    I called Barclaycard and they couldn't explain how they had worked out the interest but insisted there was no mistake and the charge and interest stood. They also stated that the £7.00 minimum payment was correct as it was 2.5% of the outstanding balance (clearly incorrect). After much insisting on my part, they agreed to send out a detailed breakdown of how the interest amount was calculated.

     

    I went and checked three other statements at random and I believe the interest was similarly miscalculated by Barclaycard on each of them. By my reckoning, the miscalculation takes the APR from 20 odd percent to 41%. When you factor in that on two of the three months the over charged interest took the balance over the limit and caused a £12 charge to be applied, if you count that charge along with the interest, I calculated that the equivalent APR would be a staggering 71%.

     

    Just to check my method I checked my wife's statements on a seperate Barclaycard account and got very similar amounts to those calculated by Barclaycard (near enough for rounding errors to have explained the difference). So it looks to me like I was performing the calculation correctly.

     

    Has anyone else noticed anything similar? Have I performed the calculations correctly? Are Barclays routinely miscalculating interest on some accounts? Or perhaps the rest of you have lives and don't spend your time working out what the interest on your credit cards should be.:)

    • Haha 1
  9. Thye didn't mention the ones thattehy haven't been successful on - the judge in my case last week didn't fall for their arguments and ordered ful ldisclosure.

     

    They couldn't attempt to mislead if they told us the facts about all the cases.

     

    What does it say about the cheque?

     

    I'll post the full letter:

     

    Dear Verdant,

     

    Account number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

     

    I act on behalf of CitiFinancial Europe plc and I am writing to you in response to your complaint regarding the default charges applied to your account.

     

    I assume that your complaint was made as a result of the recent statement by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) on default fees charged by the UK credit card industry.

     

    My client has adopted the same practices as the entire UK credit card industry and, with that industry, disagrees with the OFT's interpretation of the law relating to default charges. Please note that the OFT recognises that its interpretation does not have the force of law, having never been decided by a court, and is therefore merely persuasive.

     

    Moreover, the OFT did acknowledge that default fees are not themselves unlawful, but simply confined itself to stating that it believed that the level of default charges imposed by the UK credit card industry to be unfair. Therefore, if you breach your contract, we are and always were, entitled to levy a default fee, just not one in excess of £12.00.

     

    The OFT did not say in its statement that all such charges are unfair; it merely set a recommended threshold of £12.00 to reflet the balance of information given to it by many of the banks that these charges are based on a number of factors and not just, as is commonly supposed, the price of a stamp or the envelope,etc.

     

    In line with the OFT statement, therefore, I have advised my client that, in your case, as a previous cardholder who has been charged six late fees of £25.00, one over limit fee of £25.00, six late fees of £20.00 and six over limit fees of £20.00 which is a total of £415.00, it would be appropriate to write off the difference between our charges and the OFT's recommended level of £12.00. Having reviewed your account, I have therefore recommended that the sum of £187.00 be written off, reflecting the difference between £415.00 and £288.00 had the charges been £12.00. This amount has been written off on an ex gratia basis and enclosed as a cheque

     

    In the event that you are not satisfied with this and proceed to issue a claim for the full amount, CitiFinancial will defend this on the basis of the OFT's own statement and analysis of the lawful level of default charges.

     

    In over a dozen recent court cases involving Citi, we have successfully argued the fairness of the above policy and the fairness of the £12 charges. The cases have all resulted in the claims being dismissed and the courts have implicitly held that the policy is fair and the charges reasonable, being in line with both OFT guidance and common law principles of damage for breach of contract.

     

    Any defence will also exercise the defendant's right to seek to have the claim transferredto its home court, i.e. Salford County Court. The legal presumption is that justice should be local to the defendant as the defendant is deemed innocent until proven guilty and ought not to be disadvantaged in defending itself.

     

    Yours sincerely

     

    Brian Smith

    Solicitor

     

     

    My reading of the section about the cheque is that it's not a full and final offer and it has no strings attached. I could, however, be quite wrong and just want to make sure before I pay it into my bank account.

     

    Innocent until proven guilty; I thought that was criminal law. Perhaps Citi see themselves as criminals.

  10. I haven't been updating this thread recently as we moved house and I've had no Internet access at home, but I'm up and running again now.

     

    Citi finally filed a defence on Thursday 22nd Feb, just two working days before the 28 day limit. I don't have a copy of their defence as yet but I assume it will be fairly standard stuff. On MCOL it says that the defendant disputes the whole amount so I was surprised to receive a letter this morning from Brian Smith offering me £187.00 as an ex gratia payment of the difference between each of the charges and £12.

     

    The letter contains a paragraph: In over a dozen recent court cases involving Citi, we have successfully argued the fairness of the above policy and the fairness of the £12 charges. The cases have all resulted in the claims being dismissed and the courts have implicitly held that the policy is fair and the charges reasonable, being in line with both OFT guidance and common law principles of damage for breach of contract.

    As I mentioned earlier, I've not been able to keep up with the comings and goings of the Citi soap opera recently. Is it true that Citi have succesfully defended these claims for the final £12 of each charge, or is it another attempt to mislead?

     

    Am I right in assuming I can cash the cheque with prejudicing my case?

  11. Hi Folks,

    Now I have received a letter saying that they have withdrawn my UK cash advance facility - dirty tactics or what?

     

     

    They've already withdrawn my cash facility and reduced my credit limit all because I queried one charge. I don't believe it was a coincidence that I complained about one charge that appeared to have been applied due to interest charges taking my account over its limit and the credit limit was slashed.

  12. I received a letter from Barclaycard yesterday telling me that they weren't going to fulfil my Subject Access Request within the 40 day limit (I think they have actually already breached the 40 days but I've recently moved house and haven't unpacked all my paperwork yet, so I can't verify it against the recorded delivery receipt).

    Dear Verdant,

     

    Barclaycard Services

    Account number: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

     

    Data Protection Act 1998 - Subject Access Request

     

    Further to your request for copy statements, we are writing to inform you that the 40 day legal time limit for supplying this information is about to expire.

     

    The reason for the delay in our providing this information is the very large number of identical requests that we have received, all of which we are obliged to respond to within the same timescale.

     

    We have made the Information Commissioner's Office aware of the volume challenges we face and that we are writing to you in these terms. We are sorry for the delay but assure you that we will let you have your statements as soon as we can.

     

    We regret that we are not able to enter into correspondance with you about this issue.

     

    Yours sincerely

     

    Adrian Whalley

    Head of Privacy and Data Protection

    Legal Counsel

     

    I managed to speak to Adrian Whalley last night. He told me that there were many people in this situation and gave me the impression that the Information Commissioner's Office approved of the delay.

     

    According to Adrian Whalley the delay is due to the time taken to retrieve data from microfiche. He didn't really have an adequate explanation for the delay in sending the other information which is stored electronically.

     

    I contacted the Information Commissioner's Office this morning to ask if they had approved the breaches of the Data Protection Act. I was informed that they had simply been made aware of the situation and it wasn't up to them to approve it. I asked what action they proposed to take and was told that it isn't up to the Information Commissioners Office to enforce the Data Protection Act and that I could make an individual complaint if I wanted but it would take a very long time to deal with it.

     

    Has anyone else had one of these letters? What are the Information Commissioner's Office for? They have no interest in taking action about criminal behaviour on a large scale by Barclaycard.

  13. The claim was served on Tuesday 23rd January. Citi filed an acknowledgement stating they intend to defend all of the claim.

     

    I'm not sure how they can justify a defence of the full amount when they have previously stated in court that their estimate of the true cost is £12.88 (I think that's right) and all of the charges they have applied to my account were for more than that amount.

     

    I could understand it if they wanted to defend part of it. I wonder if the recent order by a judge about Lloyds TSB could be brought to bear here.

  14. A couple of years ago I had an unpaid phone bill with T-mobile. I'd moved house and thought I'd cancelled the contract and settled fully. Eventually I gota letter from BCW demanding immediate repayment of the 70 odd pounds or offering a payment schedule of £30 a month by standing order. After checking my bank account I realized I hadn't made the final payment to T-mobile to I sent back the standing order form to BCW.

     

    The standing order form was part of the letter they sent to me and I returned the whole thing with the standing order filled in. Imagine my surprise today when I received some of the information requested in my SAR to my bank and the whole letter from BCW including threats of court action etc. had been forwarded on to my bank.

     

    Data protection breach?

×
×
  • Create New...