Kriskros -v- Morgan Stanley / Barclaycard

[kriskros]

On second thoughts, I'll hold off until I see what becomes of the SAR

[kriskros]

Well Well!

I had a reply from Barclacard today after I SAR'ed them for all four of my credit card accounts with them. The advice from this forum was that a single tenner would cover ALL the data they hold on me. The Barks beg to differ. They state:

"We are processing the SAR on your account ending xxxx. Please enclose a further three chegues for the standard amount of 10.00 each and we will process the other three."

Can they do that? Any advice or opinions?

[the_shadow]

Well Well!

I had a reply from Barclacard today after I SAR'ed them for all four of my credit card accounts with them. The advice from this forum was that a single tenner would cover ALL the data they hold on me. The Barks beg to differ. They state:

"We are processing the SAR on your account ending xxxx. Please enclose a further three chegues for the standard amount of 10.00 each and we will process the other three."

Can they do that? Any advice or opinions?

 

Hmm it depends if each company is a separately registered company as per the data protection act I believe.

 

But yes if they are seperate companies then it will be £10 each.. JDWilliams's (parent company I cant remember the name of) and all its little offshoot companies give the same problem, a £10 to each company:eek:

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Enter in the names in this link and see if they are separately registered.

 

Information Commissioners - Data Protection Public Register

 

S.

[kriskros]

Thanks. That looks an interesting bit of kit. Will have to study it more as all the cards say Barclaycard on them

[the_shadow]

Thanks. That looks an interesting bit of kit. Will have to study it more as all the cards say Barclaycard on them

 

Then £10 is for all info they hold on you, not each account held with the one registered name... might be worth reminding them of this and suggesting you are happy to consult the ICO with a complaint if they dont comply

 

Are they really that desperate for money? [Rhetorical question, please dont answer , I already know its a YES]

 

s.

[kriskros]

Great stuff. I'll do just that today. Thanks

[noomill060]

£10 will get you all the info that Barclays PLC hold on you, regardless of the trading names used.

 

For example- "Barclaycard", "Woolwich", "Goldfish" etc are simply trading names of Barclays PLC and have the same data controller as defined by the Act.

[kriskros]

Thanks guys. I have drafted the following letter for them. Can anyone suggest anything I should change, add or remove from it?

I refer to your letter dated 10th August 2009 in which you wrongly demand a payment of £10.00 for EACH account that I hold with you.

I am sure that you are aware that "Barclaycard", "Morgan Stanley" and "Goldfish" are trading names of Barclays PLC and have the same Data Controller as defined by the Act.

Therefore, as you have already received the required payment of £10.00 from me, you are obliged to supply ALL the data that you hold on me for every account and for the entire period of my dealings with you. I enclose my original request again for your convenience.

You have forty days from the date you received my original request (4th August 2009) to provide this required information.

If you choose not to comply, I will be happy to consult with the Information Commissioners Office with a complaint.

[noomill060]

Change this to "If you choose not to comply, I will be happy to consult with the Information Commissioners Office with a complaint or begin legal action in the Courts to enforce your statutory obligation"

Lose the "Morgan Stanley" from the above- MS is not a trading name of Barclays. What happedn was that MS sold their UK credit card business to Goldfish- Goldfish was then swallowed up by Barclays and Goldfish became a trading name.

 

(MS allowed Goldfish to use the MS name on former MS accounts and credit card literature)

[kriskros]

Done and posted. You guys just rock.

[noomill060]

Ive always been a rocker.

[the_shadow]

Ive always been a rocker.

 

[sigh] started out as a teddy boy myself

 

S.

[noomill060]

Thats cool-Teds and Rockers were always mates.

 

(Its the mods, punks and skinheads that I couldnt stand)

[kriskros]

I say! Steady on chaps!!!

You'll do yourself a mischief

[noomill060]

 

I really, really loath and detest Mods and have done since 1979.

 

Fishtail parka wearing, scooter riding, wastes of oxygen.

 

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!

 

I'll go and have a lie down, now!

 

(I'm 45 by the way, but part of me is still 15!)

[kriskros]

Oh dear!

I was dragged up through the Rock 'n Roll years but from the bits I remember, these scooter riding chappies did not cause me much grief. I always thought that they were a bit... shall we say odd though.

Each to his own I suppose

[kriskros]

Hello again,

The Barclays folk are induging in some good old fashioned harassment now - using automated dialling to my landline and mobile- not to mention the continuous text messages as well. This happens several times every day and goes on over the weekend

I intend to send the following letter to them tomorrow but would appreciate any advice or comments first

Dear sir / madam,

I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the ongoing automated telephone calls and text messages that I am receiving from your company, which occur several times daily – starting early in the morning and continuing late into the night. This is distressing for me and my family and I am advising you that they are now being logged in order to gather evidence.

You are aware that the credit card accounts I hold with you are in dispute as I am still awaiting a proper response from you to my request for copies under section 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and also a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1988.

Your harassment places you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1970. I am therefore formally repeating my demand that all such harassment ceases immediately and further correspondence should be made in writing only.

You are also in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such, If you continue to call, I will report you to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading. Take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

You will be deemed to have been served notice of my request and I will deem it served by 27th August 2009.

[noomill060]

Cool, but they wont take a blind bit of notice. You'll just have to put up with this nonsense until their 40 days are up.

 

If you dont get all the info you want, sue them ASAP- the muppetry will cease as soon as your claim is served on them.

 

If you do get all the info you want, sue them ASAP, the muppetry will cease as soon as your claim is served on them.

[noomill060]

In the meantime, keep a log of the times and dates of all the idiot calls.

 

Are the calls "number withheld"?

[kriskros]

I see...

Your two options seem very similar.

Most of the calls are not withheld

These are the calls I logged for today. There may have been more:

Mon 24-08

08:29 Silent call Landline 0845 401911

13:01 Silent call Landline 0845 401911

13:51 Unanswered Mobile 0800 135333

17:03 Silent call Landline 0845 401911

19:18 Silent call Landline 0845 401911

19:47 Silent call Landline 0845 401911

[noomill060]

get on to the Ofcom site and find out how to make a complaint about silent calls.

 

It wont stop them, but Ofcom will monitor calls from 0845 401911 and complaint will contribute to another £50,000 fine for Sharkleys.

 

They can only legally get away with a small proportion of silent calls.

 

The info is on the Ofcom website.

[kriskros]

Ok. Will do that tomorrow.

[noomill060]

[kriskros]

The story so far.

After SARing the Barks and subsequently rebuking them for trying to extort a tenner for each of the four accounts I hold with them, they backed off and I eventually received copies of statements from August 2003 to August 2009 for all accounts. I also received some printouts of status codes etc

No sign of any agreements though and each account goes back six years even though all of them were in existence long before that. Seems dodgy or what?

Anyway, do I need to send them an LBA of some sort or do we head for the Courts without further ado?

On a seperate note, I had a most apologetic letter from them last week promising that the harrassment would stop by last Monday.

It didn't!