Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I Know I will get flamed for this , but for once time only I am with MET . The so called  “graffiti” is there to help people , Parent and child bays , Disabled bays , and electric charge point bays are all there for a reason  , just suppose you had an electric car and it was in need of charging ,had children in the car and need extra space to get them out ,had a disabled passenger who needs extra space . how would you feel  if the bay was obstructed . I have no doubt the experts here will guide you to having the parking charge cancelled . But morally ………..
    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
  • Our picks

yourbank

Useful things I worked on re NatWest and 6 years data

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3857 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I was interested in finding out what NatWest had on me

I thought I would ask them for a Subject Access Request.

 

I used the suggested wording from the ICO and used their register of data controllers to get the address from.

I never sent a thing recorded delivery but normal snail mail.

 

My first response was, do you want statements?

And can you specify the account number involved?

I politely wrote back saying, "I would like a full Subject Access Request".

 

A week later I received recorded delivery a load of stuff and 6 years statements(didn't need them anyway).

 

However, being a former member of NatWest,

I knew they were not complying so I asked them for the stuff from the NatWest Archive, which I duly received today.

 

Curiously there was a line in the letter that stated

"Our standard procedure for providing personal data allows for six years data to be provided."

 

I was intrigued so asked the ICO for a view and they said that it would depend on the data retention policy which could be determined by other legal statutes and regulations. So I asked the question to NatWest, what is your data retention policy?

 

A few emails later and I got this response:

 

"if I make a SAR request would I expect to receive ALL data on my account or would it be restricted to 6 years worth of data? It would be restricted to six years

 

To follow up on termination of accounts, and the issue of SAR would that be expected to be produced on a Full Subject Access Request? Again six years back from the day you request the information"

 

Those of you that know me,

will realise that I wasn't happy with the response

I asked for a view from the ICO and there response verbally to me was about "disproportionate effort" within the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

More to come on this but if the bank have not sent data to you from October 2002 go backwards to 1991/92 then send them a polite request for the Notes on the archive. If you want me to explain more on the Archive notes, I can :D

Edited by dx100uk
formatting

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please. A full explanation of the system and archive notes would be very useful for all of us.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, "disproportionate effort" does not refer to the effort required in searching for the data and laying hands on it.

"Disproportinate effort" refers to difficulty in presenting it in some intelligible form.

 

So for instance, if your personal data included your genetic map. having it rendered into some alphabetic form might involve disproportionate effort.

If you wanted transcriptions of phone calls then the renderig of recordings into transcripts mght involve disproportionate effort.

There might be some instances where your dislosure might have to be made by, say, a visit to the data controller's premises because anything else might involve disproportionate effort.

 

However, the overriding principle is that the data MUST be disclosed - regardless of the effort involved.

It is only the manner of its disclosure which is subject to a test of proportionality.

 

 

The IC is avoiding the issue and is incorrect (and it won't have been the first time either)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NatWest Archive is the previous computer system that was used prior to integration with RBS Group system. What that meant what that for every loan you took out, every item returned was recorded on the NatWest Archive. That means that providing the bank do not look at the DPA 1998 and "disproportionate effort" that everyone is entitile to those notes. I know I have suggested it previously with regards to finding accounts when they are closed but it has other useful bits.

I think BF you were helping Sneax, this will help him get his details going back to 1995, if I remember rightly on his thread.

 

EDIT: that is from October 2002 back to 1991/92


.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ICO mentioned emails for example, if you SAR an organisation for emails and there say 1000 emails to find that it could be classed in that manner.


.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please see this thread and the link to information Commissioner guidance on the satisfying of SARs

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/199553-data-protection-sar-guidance.html#post2168775


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...