Help Please re: CCA decision

[knoxvillain]

I would respond and tell them it's in dispute with FOS and so no payment will be forthcoming before the dispute is resolved and you suggest they pass it back to the creditor. I keep doing that with SLC's many debt collectors and I never hear from them again until it gets passed to a new one. Better to send a letter and get rid of them than have them keep chasing you. IMHO

[Misterzeus]

Thanks knoxvillian, will do

 

Regards

 

Mrs Z

[Misterzeus]

Good afternoon all, Mrs Z here

 

This post concerns Citi cards.

 

We sent off a S.A.R to Citi which was received and signed for on the 1st December.

 

By my reckoning, their 40 days to comply are up either yesterday or today, do we have to allow extra days due to Christmas and New Year?

 

I believe the next step is a complaint to The Information Commissioners Office concerning their non compliance, is that correct?

 

Any comments most welcome, thank you

 

Kind Regards

 

Mrs Z

[Misterzeus]

Anybody please? Citi have been absolute b's over the past 9 months and we don't want them to get off scot free!!

 

Regards

 

Mrs Z

[car2403]

I wouldn't bother with the ICO, personally - it's straight to Court for non-compliance with your DPA SAR, IMHO.

 

There are some template POC available on the forum as well... I'll see if I can hunt them out.

[supasnooper]

Here you go. MrZ

 

If you wish to take them to court for non-compliance, this will cost £30.00

 

Follow the guide as it is written especially for non-compliance

 

Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - Particulars of claim

 

Download the N1 form here.

 

The requested resource (/HMCSCourtFinder/tiles/Her Majesty's Courts Service -Forms and Guidance) is not available

 

Don't worry about the figures for damages, let the court decide that.

[Misterzeus]

Thanks for your advice car2403

 

Thanks supasnoopa for the advice and links, I will run this by Mr Z later!

 

I take it that the 40 days do not have to allow for Christmas/New Year then??

 

Regards

 

Mrs Z

[ScarletPimpernel]

For a SAR it's 40 calendar days, so Christmas/New Year is included.

[Misterzeus]

Thanks SP!

 

Regards

 

Mrs Z

[Misterzeus]

Good afternoon all, Mrs Z here

 

I am so annoyed!!!

 

Today, Mr Z has received a letter from Citi cards regarding his S.A.R request which was out of compliance date on the 11th or 12th Jan.

 

Strange, the address on the letter and data form have a PO box, London address but the envelope was post marked Derby??

 

TBH, Mr Z is not sure about taking them to Court for non compliance and has been thinking about whether he should or not as the Court document asks when the account was opened etc, this has made him apprehensive regarding taking them to Court over non compliance(maybe he'll change his mind after this letter!!).

 

 

I think Mr Z's concerns are should Citi (arrogant cretins that they are) attempt to go for a CCJ, Citi will use the claim (in his opinion he feels he would be acknowledging the debt) against him!

 

 

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn216/Misterzeus/CitiDataRequest1done.jpg

 

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn216/Misterzeus/CitiDataRequest2done.jpg

 

 

 

They obviously have ignored the last paragraph of Mr Z’s S.A.R request:

 

 

If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return. However, please note that the above address is the one which you normally use to communicate my private business to me and which you have hitherto found to be acceptable.

 

In my opinion, I believe that Citi are being deliberately obstructive!

 

I have read about digital signatures, putting a signature in a shaded box ensuring the sig goes outside of the box etc, but do they really need a signature?

 

Can anyone please give me some advice enabling me to allay Mr Z’s fears about taking them to Court?

 

Any help appreciated as always, thank you

 

 

Kind Regards

 

Mrs Z

[car2403]

The issue over having an unenforceable debt or not is completely different to the DPA SAR non-compliance issue.

 

If they don't comply with your SAR, you will never know about the enforceability issues, etc.

 

Also, I can't can't see how taking a DPA SAR non-compliance claim against them can be acknowledgment of the debt? If you are worried that it would, or could, be, you should state in all letters that you send "I do not acknowledge any debt to you or your company".

[Misterzeus]

Thanks car2403 for your reply

 

 

I see your point about putting "I do not acknowledge any debt to you or your company" on letters to Citi, but obviously, it could not be put on any POC. I'm presuming that you didn't think that anyway, but I just want to clarify!

 

Anyhoo, I have been doing a little research since I posted last.

 

Taken from the Information Commissioners Office’s website:

 

A reply must be received within 40 days as long as the necessary fee has been paid. A data controller should act promptly in requesting the fee or any further information necessary to fulfil the request. If a data controller is not processing personal information of which this individual is the data subject, the data controller must reply saying so.

 

Mr Z has received loads of letters from Citi, if they consider that they need a signature and proof of residency etc, why have they never asked sending sensitive information before to him at our address?

 

How about the following letter (unsigned of course) to Citi (courtesy of Viscount Stair)? I have adapted it to suit:

 

 

Dear Sir,

I write Further to your recent correspondence dated (**).

 

I do not consider that I am obliged to provide with the further information that you have requested in order for you to fulfil my subject access request.

 

The Data Protection Act only permits you to request such information as you reasonably require.

 

The fact that you have been writing to the above address and to me by name with sensitive data has confirmed to me that you already have the correct details. This address and the occupier has been satisfactory to you in the past, so there is no basis upon which you can now claim reasonably to require additional information or evidence as to my identity.

 

As it has now been 47 days since I submitted a subject Access request, I would like you to explain why Citi did not request further corroboration as to my identity immediately upon receipt of my request dated ** ** 08, delivered and signed for by Citi on the ** ** 08?

 

If I do not receive the information I have requested within seven days upon receipt of this letter, I will report your failure to comply with your statutory obligations to the Information Commissioners Office without further notice to you.

 

Furthermore, I will commence Court proceedings against Citi for non compliance of my Subject Access Request.

 

 

I’ve said “47” days as it will be by Monday when the letter will be dated and posted.

 

Any opinions much appreciated, thank you

 

Mrs z

 

[car2403]

I see your point about putting "I do not acknowledge any debt to you or your company" on letters to Citi, but obviously, it could not be put on any POC. I'm presuming that you didn't think that anyway, but I just want to clarify!

 

I think you're missing my point, probably by complicating this...

 

"The claimant does not acknowledge any debt to the Defendant" could be used in POC, but not for a DPA SAR non-compliance as a claim on that basis has no bearing on whether you do, or do not, have a debt with the company - the claim is to enforce your SAR rights under the DPA. Put bluntly, if you didn't owe a debt to this company, they would still have to comply with your request.

 

Mr Z has received loads of letters from Citi, if they consider that they need a signature and proof of residency etc, why have they never asked sending sensitive information before to him at our address?

 

The issue here is that the DPA allows them to delay responding to your request on the basis that they have to take reasonable steps to confirm you are the person you say you are, to protect your identity. Ironically, everything you've mentioned so far is probably going to be considered by a Judge, who will decide if it's reasonable to delay your reply until you've complied with the hoops they are holding up.

 

For me, this is all posturing - you either have to send them what they ask for, which which case you can't sue them for non-compliance, (as the 40 days will start once they receive the information) should you consider what they are asking for not necessary to prove your identity, or you choose to sue them for non-compliance on the basis that they haven't complied with the request and you don't think what they've asked for is relevant, so they should have complied with the 40 day period. I can't see how sending them a letter saying that what they asked for isn't going to be sent, as you're just giving them more time to correspond on that issue.

[Misterzeus]

Thanks again car2403

 

I (think) I understand what you're saying, apologies - I have a splitting headache and am probably not thinking straight!

 

The part at the end of the "letter" about taking Citi to court for non compliance should have read if they don't comply by the end of the 7 days.

 

Surely citi should not have waited until they were out of time before requesting further identification?

 

Are you suggesting that Mr Z should sue for non compliance and ignore their letter?

 

Thanks again

 

Kind Regards

 

Mrs Z

[car2403]

I think you should, if you really believe you have a case, (I do) stick to your own timescales and not get sucked in to sending letters left, right and centre.

 

After all, you have submissions that show what you've asked for is reasonable and they don't seem to have an argument for requesting more information from you before complying. (Such as if you had moved recently, for example)

 

It's interesting to note that a lot of threads regarding DPA SAR compliance, where more information has been requested to confirm ID, have had responses sent regardless of ignoring those further requests.

 

Ultimately, they need to convince a Judge that what they've asked for is reasonable - it isn't an onus on you to convince him that it's unreasonable.

[Misterzeus]

Thank you once again car2403!

 

I have a clearer head this morning and after thinking about it and discussing the replies with Mr Z, we both think that suing Citi for non compliance is the way to go!

 

After all, as I've said before, Citi have never asked for "extra" info to substantiate Mr Z's identity, even when he requested a CCA. We both believe that they are trying it on!

 

Thanks again

 

Kind Regards

 

Mrs Z

[citizenB]

Hi Mrs Z, I agree with Car. Citi are just flexing their miniscule muscles. Go for the non-compliance. They should have asked for any information they required much sooner IMHO.

[Misterzeus]

Totally agree citizenB

[Misterzeus]

Good afternoon all on this dreary dark and wet afternoon!!

 

Mr Z has just phoned the Court and tbh, they don't seem to have a clue about the fee or anything else for that matter! He got passed from one person to another and asked how much he was claiming!?! Mr Z he wasn't stipulating an amount and the 2nd person said that the fee would cost £150

 

If that's the case wouldn't it be better to go down the letter route as shown below?

 

Dear Sir,

I write Further to your recent correspondence dated (**).

 

I do not consider that I am obliged to provide with the further information that you have requested in order for you to fulfil my subject access request.

 

The Data Protection Act only permits you to request such information as you reasonably require.

 

The fact that you have been writing to the above address and to me by name with sensitive data has confirmed to me that you already have the correct details. This address and the occupier has been satisfactory to you in the past, so there is no basis upon which you can now claim reasonably to require additional information or evidence as to my identity.

 

As it has now been 47 days since I submitted a subject Access request, I would like you to explain why Citi did not request further corroboration as to my identity immediately upon receipt of my request dated ** ** 08, delivered and signed for by Citi on the ** ** 08?

 

If I do not receive the information I have requested within seven days upon receipt of this letter, I will report your failure to comply with your statutory obligations to the Information Commissioners Office without further notice to you.

 

 

Both Mr Z and I are thinking that the Court route is too messy and too costly. We think that even if Citi don't comply and still attempt to go down the CCJ route - all this messing around by Citi (non compliance with just about everything) will form a good defence for Mr Z.

 

If anyone has any opinions or advice, it would be welcomed, thank you

 

A rather despondant Mrs Z

[car2403]

Mr Z has just phoned the Court and tbh, they don't seem to have a clue about the fee or anything else for that matter! He got passed from one person to another and asked how much he was claiming!?! Mr Z he wasn't stipulating an amount and the 2nd person said that the fee would cost £150

 

Only if you don't have a monetary value to reclaim.

 

Check this out;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/high-street-stores/110148-car2403-ge-capial-bank-2.html#post1435550

[Misterzeus]

Thanks car2403, I shall go and have a look through your thread.

 

Citi makes me feel like your Avatar

 

Regards

 

Mrs Z

[citizenB]

I think if you put something like "compensation at the court's discretion" you only pay a minimum fee.

[car2403]

I think if you put something like "compensation at the court's discretion" you only pay a minimum fee.

 

Not quite - I suspect such a claim could be struck out, if that is all you are claiming.

 

The fee for starting a claim depends on whether is under CPR Part 7 (with a monetary value) or under CPR Part 8. (Which is £150)

 

It is possible to ask for damages at the Court's discretion, but you would need to offer an estimate on the claim form. If you didn't, it may be deemed a claim under Part 8, in which case you'll pay the full whack. (Not good if you are issuing a £30 DPA SAR enforcement claim, for example)

[Misterzeus]

Thanks citizenB

 

Thanks again car2403, great thread by the way

 

Come to think of it, the woman at the court did ask Mr Z if it was under part 8 - hence the full fee then!! Although he did say he wasn't specifying an amount, she said that the fee usually goes by the amount being claimed.

 

What we want out of the S.A.R request is the statements etc to work out what charges they've slammed on. So for now, we're sending the letter with a bit added saying Mr Z will take legal action if necesscary to force Citi to comply for now.

 

We shall see what we get back as a response before deciding whether to go down the legal route or not!

 

Thanks again

 

Regards

 

Mrs Z

[citizenB]

Thanks for that information Car, I have squirrelled it away for future use.

 

Good luck with your claim, Mrs Z