Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Webby v Barclaycard **WON with CCI and Older Charges**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4888 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Just getting my thread started.

 

SAR sent on 7th May.

Reminder/LBA sent on 18th June.

Partial compliance on 23rd June.

 

They chose to send me 6 years worth of copy statements, saying 'this is all we have'.

I've written back saying that my SAR wasn't limited to copy statements, and that if they hold any data on microfilm/microfiche, they need to supply this too (I'm aware of other thread on here in which Barclaycard have admitted to holding data on microfilm, but claim the DPA doesn't force them to reveal it).

 

They've got another 7 days, so lets see what happens next week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Webby,

 

Are you looking to reclaim any charges from the last 6 years, or are you hoping to get sight of your credit agreement too.

 

If the latter, please don't hold ya breath !! ;)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Letter sent to Barclaycard on 23rd June (as describe in post #1)

LBA sent on 4th July.

 

No reply to either, so it's N1 time. I'll be using a standard template (http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/130-data-protection-act-non-compliance-particulars-of-claim-) as the basis of my PoC; but should I start going into detail about microfilm, or just keep it basic?

 

Barclaycard have already admitted that they hold customer data on microfilm, and claimed that it didn't fall under the scope of the DPA. Apparently the ICO investigated this a couple of years ago, and concluded that it *did*. Should I include this in the PoC, or simply say that they've failed to fully comply with my SAR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Webby,

 

I assume you've read the Sticky about BC, their Microfiche and the ICO.

 

I think you should add to the POC that you're aware that a/c data has been stored on Microfiche going back beyond 6 years and this data has been held to be relevant data to be disclosed in a SAR according to the ICO.

 

Please also see this Sticky about when BC started to charge so you can decide if it's worth digging further back - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/151305-barclaycard-charging-earlier-than.html

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, they've replied back:

 

Thank you for your letter dated 4th July

 

May I take a moment to advise that we did not receive your original SAR made on 7th May. We are in the process of actioning your request made 23 June and will be writing to you again soon

(by the way, does anyone else hate 'actioning' or 'we will action your request')

 

23th June was my LBA.

 

Considering that they cashed the cheque sent with my SAR of the 8th May, and have already partially complied with it, stating they didn't receive it is clearly rubbish.

 

Anyway, my N1 has been submitted now, so lets see if they try to use this as a defence

Edited by WebMaster
corected my speling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Barclays had until the 30th July to submit a defence or aknowledgement, and they don't appear to have done either (unless it went in right at the last minute and the court haven't yet mailed me).

 

Just to summarise, my claim was for 50 quid compensation, and I asked for a court order forcing them to comply with my SAR.

 

I can use the form supplied by the court (when they processed my N1) to ask for a default judgement. Do I need to do anything special regarding forcing Barclaycard to comply with the SAR? Will this automatically be dealt with if I ask for judgement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Webby,

 

First off, can I check that you filed in court citing Barclays Bank PLC - t/a Barclaycard and their Churchill Place address.

 

Second, have a quick word with the court and see if there was a last minute response.

 

Thirdly, if court's not heard from BC, apply for judgement in accordance with your claim as files, ie seeking an order for the production of data and for compensation.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say if it'll matter but we have seen BC wriggle out of a default judgement against BC.

 

Did your POC mention BC at all.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be all fine and dandy because, in this instance, you are probably fine litigating against Barclays who should supply all data including BC stuff.

 

But certainly, if you have to file against BC for charges or anything else, use the full name of B's t/a BC.

 

See what happens next, as you say.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

My fault. When I didn't hear back from the court after 14 days had elapsed, I assumed BC hadn't filed a defence (I assumed they'd notify me if they had).

 

Anyway, BC have submitted a defence. The two key arguements are:

 

1) Claiming they didn't receive my original SAR. They've cashed the cheque; I should be able to argue this.

 

2) Claiming microfiche is exempt. Their words are:

 

The Claimant's statements prior to 2003 are held on microfiche in the Defedant's National Records Storage Centre. The Defedant avers that information held on microfiche is not considered as part of a 'relevant filing system' as defined by section 1 of the DPA 1998. This is because microfiche does not provide the same or similar accessibility as a computerised filing system. S 7 of the act does not apply to this information.

 

Paragraph 5 is admitted, save for the statement that 'the iCO has rules such data is not exempt'. The claimant is put to proof on this point.

 

I'm aware of the sticky regarding this, but couldn't actually see anything from the ICO stating this (I've Googled).

 

Given how long the ICO take, is it worth me taking the matter up with them, hoping they'll give me something to use as evidence?

 

Should I contact BC directly and argue my points, in an attempt to reach an out of court settlement? Or just fill in the AQ and forget about things for now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My fault. When I didn't hear back from the court after 14 days had elapsed, I assumed BC hadn't filed a defence (I assumed they'd notify me if they had).

 

Anyway, BC have submitted a defence. The two key arguements are:

 

1) Claiming they didn't receive my original SAR. They've cashed the cheque; I should be able to argue this.

 

2) Claiming microfiche is exempt. Their words are:

 

 

 

I'm aware of the sticky regarding this, but couldn't actually see anything from the ICO stating this (I've Googled).

 

Given how long the ICO take, is it worth me taking the matter up with them, hoping they'll give me something to use as evidence?

 

Should I contact BC directly and argue my points, in an attempt to reach an out of court settlement? Or just fill in the AQ and forget about things for now?

 

Think it would be worth giving ICO a ring, the sticky just contains a letter sent from the ICO so whilst useful its not the mind blowing evidence needed IMHO :-D

 

...........................Following our visit, we concluded that the microfiche system used by Barclaycard is a relevant filing system for the purposes of the Act. This means that in our view the information is personal data and should have been supplied as part of your SAR within 40 days and for a maximum fee of £10. As a result, it is our view that it is likely Barclaycard has contravened the sixth data protection principle, as this requires data controllers to process personal data in accordance with data subjects' rights.

 

If they give you a quote, give Sharks one last chance so the court can see your being reasonable, set a deadline for response prior to AQ having to be in.... if nothing doing file and wait imho.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If BC don't have to supply records kept on microfiche,then why did they send me my 1993 application form on microfiche--and I know I'm not alone.

 

http://photo-hosting.winsoftmagic.com/1/eyuq21iud8.jpg

 

unless this isn't a copy from microfiche?

 

 

As most banks usually offer to supply a copy of a statement for a fee,why not ask BC for a specific statement from before 2003 and see what they send you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Webby,

 

I think a quick letter to BC is the way to go here.

 

Say BC are still suggesting that their Microfiche data does not have to be disclosed. Say you are aware of the ICO opinion about this given to BC customers back in November 2006.

 

Ask if they would kindly confirm in writing that they still agree that BC's system is a "relevant system", for which they must supply data in response to a SAR.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I contacted the ICO a few days ago, but haven't had a reply yet - no doubt it'll be a month or two before anything happens). I've also put in a complaint regarding BC/microfiche - It'll allow me to say in court that it's the subject of an ongoing investigation.

 

Sadly someone was telling me that the ICO can be a bit reluctant to get involved with legal disputes, but we'll see.

 

In the meantime, I came across this very interesting PDF:

 

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1489/response/4800/attach/3/Letters%20sent%20to%20banks.pdf

 

, which contains letters sent by the ICO to Barclays, Lloyds, and Abbey

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2) Claiming microfiche is exempt. Their words are:

 

The Claimant's statements prior to 2003 are held on microfiche in the Defedant's National Records Storage Centre. The Defedant avers that information held on microfiche is not considered as part of a 'relevant filing system' as defined by section 1 of the DPA 1998. This is because microfiche does not provide the same or similar accessibility as a computerised filing system. S 7 of the act does not apply to this information.

 

Paragraph 5 is admitted, save for the statement that 'the Information Commissioners Office has rules such data is not exempt'. The claimant is put to proof on this point.

 

 

 

They didn't seem to have a problem when I requested my husbands statements in 2007. They sent the microfiche copies for 2002 to 2004 about a month after the computer stored copies were received.

 

 

enamae

Please note: I have no qualifications in this area and any advice offered is given in good faith.

 

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/Ombudsman-news/40/40_setoff.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Webby,

 

I've seen your post on the "BC Microfiche" Sticky thread and read the ICO's letters with interest.

 

Let's hope your complaint to the ICO now will confirm that nothing's changed and BC are obliged to provide older data which is stored on their MicroFiche system. :)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I've seen those threads cheers.

 

It seems to be standard practice for the banks to file a defence to claims, even if they have no intention of letting them reach court. So at this stage I'm still hoping they'll change their mind and cough up. But if not, I'll be well prepared

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...