Mbna Sar

[ltc1607]

Hi sent an SAR request to MBNA they have returned it saying they require a copy of my driving licence or something with my signature on it.what should I do ?

[angry cat]

Nowhere, within s7 of the DPA does it state that one has to provide one's signature when making a SAR.

 

MBNA are talking RUBBISH!

[ltc1607]

anyone, what should I do..

[maroondevo52]

Hi,

 

You could try sending them this...........

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

You have stipulated that you require proof of my identity/signature before you comply with my Subject Access Request, may I bring the following to your attention;

 

Data Protection Act Good Practice Notes:

 

2. Do you have enough information to be sure of the requester’s identity?

Often you will have no reason to doubt a person’s identity. For example, if a person with whom you have regular contact sends a letter from their known address it may be safe to assume that they are who they say they are.

 

Suffice to say that if the Information Commissioners Office are satisfied that if you have previously corresponded with me at this address then it is reasonable that I am the person I say I am, therefore there is no leglislation nor guidelines that you can hide behind in an attempt to avoid fullfilling my legal request.

 

If you still fail to comply to my legal request, I will have no other option than to complain to the Information Commissioners Office & if my complaint is upheld you will be liable to a £5000 fine.

 

Yours,

Print name do not sign.

 

 

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[ltc1607]

Thanks Scott

[ltc1607]

Hi sent the letter that scott provided they have written back with the same answer we want identification.

[maroondevo52]

Hi,

 

You could try this................

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/digitalsignature.php

 

Think it's £4.

 

Or something similar.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[Braveheart12]

MBNA have sent the same responses to me. I wrote back asking them to send the documentation to my nearest branch so that I could show them my identifcation when I collect. This was sent 2 weeks ago and they have not responded!

 

also the 40 days are up!

[someone_else]

They did the same to us even after pointing out the ICO guidelines, not unsurprisingly they don't feel the need to follow them as they don't follow the DPA or OFT guidelines either (they also stated that the 40 days doesn't start until they confirm your ID, not sure if the ICO will agree with them on that though) in the end we just gave them a call on the number on their SAR rejection letter, which turned out to be a Bank of America rather than a MBNA number which caused a lot of confusion, as sending more Recorded letters would be time consuming and costly.

 

Still waiting to see what 'sensitive information' they are sending as we haven't received anything yet.

[havinastella]

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/129-data-protection-act-non-compliance-template-letters-

 

Use and adapt these.

 

MAKE sure you issue the court papers.

 

Jogs

[Redfish]

Hi sent the letter that scott provided they have written back with the same answer we want identification.

 

They did that to us as well, we wrote quoting the OFT: Here's the text -

In your letter you asked me to provide further identification in the form of a driving licence or passport which would seem to be a standard request, as the letter states: “Due to the amount of personal information MBNA will be sending in the Subject Access Request, including bank details, security information, places of birth and dates of birth, we would require extra identification from out customers.” The request for extra identification therefore has been asked for, not because there is exceptional cause to doubt my identity, but rather as standard of any and every requester because of the nature of the personal information provided under any SAR.

However, I would point out to you that this stated extra identification requirement runs counter to the Good Practice Note issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding Data Protection. In these official guidelines, on the question of ‘Do you have enough information to be sure of the requester’s identity?’ the ICO states: “Often you will have no reason to doubt a person’s identity. For example, if a person with whom you have regular contact sends a letter from their known address it may be safe to assume that they are who they say they are”(Checklist for handling requests for personal information V1.0 09.01.07).

You will see from the above official guidelines that the normal practice, if you have regular contact with a consumer at their known address, is that you will have no reason to doubt a person’s identity when they make a Subject Access Request from that address.

The note explains that you would only need to ask for further evidence of identity where you might have “good cause to doubt the requester’s identity”. So while MBNA’s standard response perversely implies every person’s identity is in doubt, the ICO guidelines do not allow for this. I therefore suggest that MBNA’s standard automatic response letters to SARs are inappropriate and should be withdrawn.

In my particular case, you will be aware that you do have regular contact with me at my known address, you have customarily used this address without hesitation for the past [x] years to send my statements, replacement cards and PIN numbers, all very sensitive financial products, where the maintenance of strict security and confidentiality is essential. I can therefore only presume your standard response for extra identification is, at the very least, an attempt to frustrate me from obtaining information I am legally entitled to under the Data Protection Act.

Furthermore, I am also sure you do not already hold a copy of my driving licence or passport on your records. Therefore, your request for these particular forms of identity, even if you were to have stated ‘good cause’ to doubt my identity, would be inappropriate. According to the ICO guidelines you would only be entitled to ask for identification to confirm information you already hold on your files. As you do not hold either forms of identification on file, I cannot but question MBNA’s motivations for demanding such new data, and I feel I have to treat this demand with suspicion. I have consequently chosen not to provide such extra identification to minimise the potential of fraud."

I repeated this in a second letter, and they finally in the third letter they said they would accept an identification over the telephone with me answering 'security questions'. I rang them and obliged, but followed it up with a letter explaining that I was just doing it out of goodwill but it didn't allow them any delay in the 40 days because they had not given good cause to doubt my identity.

[ltc1607]

MBNA have sold my debt to Experto Credite even though the account is in dispute as the cca is not legible.I have just receieved a letter from Experto asking me to contact them any ideas as to what letter to hit them with as the account was in dispute.

[B3rty]

Dear Sir/Madam

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Account number:

 

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to you, as it is in dispute with [DCA Name] and has been since xx-xx-xxxx

 

Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

 

As [DCA Name]are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law consequentially any legal action you may pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to [DCA Name] for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as you cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If [DCA Name] chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit by yourselves will be a direct violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines and I will also file reports with the aforementioned bodies.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter and I look forward to hearing from you in writing to confirm your discontinuance in this matter.

 

Yours faithfully

[ltc1607]

Thanks for that .MBNA know the cca is dodgy they have not really tried hard to get payment from me and it is not a small amount yet they sell the account.Is this a sign they are just selling on cases they know they cant win.

[cashins]

Thanks for that .MBNA know the cca is dodgy they have not really tried hard to get payment from me and it is not a small amount yet they sell the account.Is this a sign they are just selling on cases they know they cant win.

 

Good question, I don't think anyone has figured out MBNA's logic on this - assuming there is some!

 

david