Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In essence I am trying to win a loosing battle i take up the 33 % discount on offer me thinks
    • Whose duty?   you can use civil law to pursue the GDPR issue with the police (though, as I’ve stated: it may not do you any benefit).   The court isn’t bound by any duty under GDPR that the police may (or may not) have. I can only repeat, the duty of the magistrates regarding verdict is “is the offence proven beyond all reasonable doubt?”. They can’t, and won’t, be influenced by the GDPR issues at that stage, and you are misguided if you continue to believe that it will make a difference to their verdict.
    • the duty of the police
    • Hi Andy   The following is my WS2 in reply to their WS2, please do let me know if i need to mention/amend/add anything to it, the attachments are in my previous post #78.   Can i add my costs as this is the second hearing for it?   Also i don't know if this will help but i also have an old Capital One Credit Card which i don't use anymore, so how can i possibly have 2 Capital One Credit Cards as this claim is clearly for the Luma Credit Card....   SECOND SUPPLIMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF ROLAND I, Roland, the Defendant in this case, will state as follows; I make this second Witness Statement as a supplementary to my first Witness Statement dated 22ndNovember 2019 Page 1-2 and Amended Defence dated 17thDecember 2019 page 3-4 in Exhibit xx1 in response to the claimant’s second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020.    THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT  1. The claimant failed to comply with my Section CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974 request and their claim remained stayed for over one and half years. I can only assume as this was due to the claimant not having any of the requested documentation below and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.     2. The stay was lifted by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 and the Claimant’s application for summary judgment and/or strike out was dismissed.   3. My amended defence was filed and served 17thDecember 2019.    4. I received the Claimant’s Second Witness statement 21stJanuary 2020.   5. It is accepted as per my Amended Defence para 2 insofar that I have once held a contractual relationship with Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc for a LUMA Credit Card and not a Capital One Credit Card.    6. The Claimant’s point 23 in their second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020 refers to me providing supporting evidence that my application was for a LUMA Credit Card, and that their position that it is for a Capital One Credit Card. This is for the Claimant to prove it’s a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card, when this matter was heard by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 he also questioned the Claimant’s advocate the same.   7. The Claimant’s point 24 refers to the Reconstituted Capital One Credit Card Agreement in their Exhibit JK1 pages 2-3, that a firm is able to reconstitute a copy of the agreement and that there is no obligation to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature, then why has an electronic signature and date been applied…regarding the same question by Deputy District Judge Mitchell on the validity of the signature on this Reconstituted agreement to which the claimant’s advocate stated that it may have been an online application, which is not true as it was a signed postal Luma Card Application and not a Capital One Credit Card online application.    8. The Claimant’s point 25 states that they would say that the 16 digit account number in the top left hand corner on the Reconstituted Agreement is now not the account number but a ‘document number’ and that the Account number is on Page 9 of their Exhibit JK1, which is a blank page with my name and a 16 digit Account number on it. The Claimant is backtracking and clearly16 digits are Credit Card/Bank Card numbers.    9.  The Claimant’s reconstituted Agreement has failed to be a true reconstituted version and failed to provide any supporting document to confirm that this claim is for a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card.     10. The evidence provided by way of Exhibit JK1 is woefully deficient and invalid and not pursuant to the CCA 1974 request.  Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the agreement complete with terms and conditions from inception which they refer to within the particulars of this claim and witness statement they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974.   11. For the reasons set out above I invite this court to strike out the claim and request my costs as litigant in person to be awarded.      Many thanks, Roland 
    • By severe penalty you mean ? criminal record is criminal record right ? isnt it still their duty comply with GDPR albeit Civil
  • 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 3908 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...