Me and LLoyds -SAR non compliance claim. **SUCCESS**

[Fedupandfightingback]

27th March 2009 - SAR posted

28th March 2009 - SAR received by Bank.

18th May 2009 - Postal Order cashed.

 

18th May 2009 - Claim issued by Bank against me.

 

21st May 2009 - LBA re SAR sent by me to Bank

22nd May 2009 - LBA received by Bank

 

11th June 2009 - Claim form issued by me against bank for non compliance.

18th June 2009 - Bank filed AOS indicating they would be defending in full.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Fedupandfightingback

[Fedupandfightingback]

This is the letter I sent in respect of the SAR

 

 

Attention: Data Controller

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

Account Refs:

Account No: 1

Account No: 2

Account No: 3

 

I understand that you currently hold details of my personal and financial information within your internal record systems with regard to personal credit cards.

 

Please supply me with a complete list of transaction and charges relating to my history with your organisation, including credit cards. Alternatively a complete set of statements for each of the accounts or associated accounts is acceptable.

 

In addition, I would be grateful if you would provide the following for the credit card accounts I have with your organisation, details as follows:

Full copies of all contracts which you believe exist or have existed between myself and your organisation, including true copies of any original documents and their original associated terms and conditions you hold in support of the same. I wish to make it plain I do not require or want any blank/generic documents, but only actual copies of signed documents and their associated historic terms etc. If you no longer hold these, or for any other reason cannot supply all of these documents, I require you to inform me of this in writing, including the reasons for not supplying anything mentioned, or for supplying anything that varies from the specific format I have requested.

 

A complete list of all transactions or statements relating to my credit card accounts held with your organisation.

 

Copies of all documents which include any of my personal information including copies of any contacts or invoices, emails or computer records containing my personal information, or any records which pertain to this information.

 

Full copies or transcripts of any correspondence in postal, email, telephone or any other format which you have entered into with me, or any other individual, organisation or third party which contains my personal or financial, or which pertains to me.

 

Where any previous information or records held have been deleted or disposed of, to inform me of the methods used to do so, including dates, certificates or references confirming details of destruction. Where you are unable to provide such certificates, please provide a declaration, signed by an authorised officer of your company, confirming the dates and methods of destruction of this data.

 

 

Full hard copy print outs of my personal or financial information, held in a digital, magnetic or any other format which is held in any archives, backups or other storage devices / locations.

 

I enclose a postal order in the sum of £10 (number 12345678) to cover your fee. This fee is to be used for this Subject Access Request and for no other purpose.

 

It seems a lot of banks are wrongly interpreting the Data Protection Act (Data Protection Act) 1998 as a requirement to only disclose six years worth of personal data, and this is wholly wrong.

 

 

The Data Protection Act clearly states that all information held must be disclosed and it has no correlation to the Limitation act 1980 at all.

 

IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO DEAL WITH ANY PART OF THIS REQUEST, YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY FORWARD IT TO THE PERSON WITHIN YOUR ORGANISATION RESPONSIBLE FOR DATA PROTECTION.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in the first instance of receipt.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Enclosed: postal order in the sum of £10 (number 12345678)

 

The bank were to have filed their Defence by 13th June 2009. Yesterday, I received the following letter.

 

Dear

Your request for information under the Data Protection Act 1998

Thank you for contacting us for details of charges on your credit card account.

We enclose a summary of those charges and hope this meets with your requirements. The Bank fully understands its obligations to Data Subject Access Requests, so if we have not provided you with the information you require, please let us know.

 

Yours sincerely.

 

There was one sheet of paper containing the few charges for one card account only.

Edited November 29, 2009 by citizenB

[Fedupandfightingback]

The bank are either being obstructive or facetious or both. Almost certainly they have not "Fully Understood" their obligations or even fully read the SAR request.

 

I would really like some help drafting a suitable reply please.

 

Do I also continue with my claim for non compliance ?

 

Many thanks:D

[johnnymitch]

Hi fuafb ,

 

They are being totally obstuctive and insulting your intelligence - to say they fully realise the meaning of SAR and then send you pathetic rubbish is unacceptable ........

 

So, just to be clear in my mind :

 

You are taking them to court for non-compliance with your SARs - yes? ,

 

You've already sent the non-compliance letter - have you also reported them to the ICO ?

 

Do you know if they've actually filed a defence ?

 

Based on your replies I can try to put a suitable letter together for you ........

[alanalana]

Hellofuafb,

 

You could perhaps use something along the lines of this from my thread...

 

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

This is one of many letters you can use to get your own up and running.

 

The only thing is I did not use the Court option but the ICO who eventually upheld my complaint (details in post 290 from the above thread)

 

I can now confirm receipt of copies of three statements in regard to the above loan accounts.

I would wish to point out that the full extent of information requested in my original letter Subject Access Request (Subject Access Request) dated 7 Jan 2008 and the follow up letter of 16 February has not been forthcoming. By law under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 7 sub section (1) ( c ) ( i ) and (ii) you are required to communicate to me in an intelligible form the information as requested within the requirements of the Act section 7 (2) (a) and (b), which as the data subject I have met.

I stated in my Subject Access Requests the following:

“Alternatively a complete set of statements for the accounts or associated accounts is acceptable. I would be grateful if you would provide the following for ALL accounts or associated accounts I have held with your organization:

- Full copies of all contracts which you believe exist or have existed between myself and your organization, including true copies of any documents you hold in support of the same.

- A complete list of all transactions or statements relating to ALL of my Loan Accounts including all details of payment protection insurance premiums applicable to those accounts with your organization.

When I request all details, I take that to include all data applicable to the loan accounts including the data on payment protection insurance (PPI) including the Terms and Conditions applicable to the insurance applied to the loans.

- Copies of all documents which include any of my personal information including copies of any contracts or invoices, emails or computer records containing my personal information, or any records which pertain to this information.

- Full copies or transcripts of any correspondence in postal, email or any other format which you have entered into with any individual, organization or third party which contains my personal or financial information, or which pertains to me.

If you are then unable to trace the information on these loans then I will require the following action to be taken by your organisation.

- Where any previous information or records held have been deleted or disposed of, the methods used to do so, including dates, certificates or references confirming details of destruction. Where you are unable to provide such certificates, please provide a declaration, signed by an authorised officer of your company, confirming the dates and methods of destruction of this data.

 

- Full hard copy print outs of my personal or financial information, held in a digital, magnetic or any other format which is held in any archives, backups or other storage devices / locations.”

To date I have not received this full information. I await the following:

1. Full details of PPI including the terms and conditions as applicable to the loans as above.

2. Full transcripts of all telephone conversations that have been recorded between your organisation and myself.

3. Full copies of all credit agreements and contracts between the RBoS and myself.

4. Full copies of any and all postal or email correspondence.

If there is no information available then I will require written confirmation of this together with as stated before full details on your methods of erasure, disposal or destruction signed by an authorised officer of your company.

Failure to respond to this third request in a fully comprehensive and satisfactory manner within 14 days, will result in the submission of a formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Office detailing your failure to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Yours faithfully

 

alanalana

 

I would also advise you to proceed with the Court action. If it ever gets to court and you produce the one pager as in your previous post it will look a bit silly after you have specifically requested information on more than one account in your SAR and they have cashed the PO.

 

Also concur with JM.

 

aa

[alanalana]

another one to look at.

 

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

Thank you for your letter Ref: SARxxxx dated 25 March 2008.

I am extremely disappointed that despite having issued my original Subject Access Request (Subject Access Request) on the 7 Jan 2008 that you still seem to be using delaying tactics in providing the information I am entitled to by Law within the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. Under Section 7 sub section (1) ( c ) ( i ) and (ii) you are required to communicate to me in an intelligible form, the information as requested within the requirements of the Act section 7 (2) (a) and (b), which as the data subject I have met.

 

I would point out that the Act allows you 40 days in which to provide the information I have requested. You have failed to meet this timescale by 38 days to the date of your letter Ref (as above). Despite the assistance I have provided to your establishment on 22 January 2008 and 16 February 2008 you have still not responded in the statutory timescale.

My letters of 7 January 2008, 16 February 2008 and lastly 12 March 2008 seem largely to have been ignored up until your letter Ref: SARxxxx received by me today 28 March 2008.

 

Your letter is now asking me to provide further information in regard to transcripts of telephone conversations, i.e. dates, times, who I spoke to, which departments or telephone number. I note your comment that “Please note that not every telephone call is recorded”.

 

I require full transcripts of all telephone conversations between your Peterhead branch and myself and specifically calls from any of your Peterhead branch staff Customer advisors or others, to my home or workplace telephone numbers for as far back as you hold data on me and at least for the past 6 years up to 7 January 2008, the date of my Subject Access Request.

 

My letter of 12 March was specific in detailing the information I required. I required all details.

To date you have only provided copies of statements of my current account and three loan accounts.

 

In my letter of 12 Mar 2008 I stated the following:

 

“Failure to respond to this third request in a fully comprehensive and satisfactory manner within 14 days, will result in the submission of a formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Office detailing your failure to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998“.

 

This 14 day period expires on 30 March 2008 and if the information I have requested is not received by then, the formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Office which is quoted above from my letter of 12 march 2008 will be submitted shortly thereafter.

 

Yours faithfully

aa

 

aa

[johnnymitch]

:)I'm in agreement with aa here fuafb, keep your court claim going , - when you produce the sad timetable and content they have supplied you with over a nearly 4-month period , when they're allowed 40 days to produce the lot, any court is going to take a dim view of it .

 

Any of these letters of aa's would be OK by me fuafb , you can tailor them to suit your circumstances ...... and they've got a bit of punch to them , which is what's required at this stage .......

 

Let's know how you get on , or if we can help you further........

[johnnymitch]

btw fuafb,

 

I don't know if you've seen adason's thread on HSBC - but it may give you some encouragement to continue with your case ...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/181084-hsbc-reclaim-hardship-extra.html

[Fedupandfightingback]

Thank you, alanalana and Johnnymitch:D

 

That was the main concern.. should I continue with the claim.

 

I didnt go the ICO route because the bank issued a claim on me.. the same date as they cashed the bliddy postal order

 

As they hadnt supplied me with any documents with their claim form, or responded to the CPR, I decided to bypass the ICO and issue the LBA and claim form in respect of the non compliance.

 

The final date for them filing their defence in respect of the non compliance is tomorrow:D

Edited November 29, 2009 by citizenB

[havinastella]

Hi Fedup

 

Have a look at these threads

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/143154-ashwall-lloyds-tsb.html

 

 

And my one from here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/49571-havinastella-lloyds-tsb-2.html#post1591195

 

 

Hope this helps

 

JOgs

[lexis200]

Hey fuafb - not much to add really as I think the above advice just about covers it!

 

I'd carry on with the claim, but also send the letter stating they're sorely mistaken if they feel they've complied, just to keep them on their toes;)

 

I've just sent them a non-compliance letter so I'll let you know if that does anything, but judging from your timescales re court it'll be too late to be of much use to you.

[Fedupandfightingback]

Hi Jogs,

 

Thank you, I did use the information on your thread for the basis of the original claim

 

I will phone the court today to see if they have filed their defence if not, I will work out what the next step is and move forward.

 

alanalana, I have used your drafts and concocted a letter to go to the Bank today.

 

Thank you everyone for your input.

Edited November 29, 2009 by citizenB

[alanalana]

The harder hitting the letter the better IMO. I have my own fight commencing with the bank among others. If I come up with any titbits of info I will of course post up of pm

 

aa

Edited November 29, 2009 by citizenB

[Fedupandfightingback]

Just updating this thread.

 

11th June 2009

 

Claim issued against the bank for non compliance of Subject Access Request

 

 

 

 

 

 

Court fee was £30.00

 

Click on image for larger view

Edited November 29, 2009 by citizenB

[Fedupandfightingback]

Bank elected to file a defence.

 

In it they deny categorically that they had not received the SAR or the postal order in the sum of £10.00.

 

I had in my possession the following

 

Proof of posting and signed receipt of SAR (which included the postal order)

 

Letter from Post Office confirming Postal Order had been banked and when.

 

So, I wrote to the acting solicitors. I enclosed copies of the proofs and suggested that their client might like to stop messing around, provide me with the Data requested, settle my costs to date and we could stop wasting court time.

 

Letter ignored

 

So I decided with the help of Car2403 and pt2457 to apply for a summary judgement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click on image for larger view.

 

This cost £75.00

Edited November 29, 2009 by Fedupandfightingback

[Fedupandfightingback]

I also enclosed a Witness statement which detailed what I had done from the start of sending the first SAR letter, the Letter before Action, Issuing the court claim, etc.

 

Meanwhile I had received from the Bank, a letter dated the day after their original Defence was signed, from their Data Comliance Department.

 

They had headed their letter "In response to your Data Subject Access Request". Which kind of gave lie to their claim that they hadnt received the SAR and £10.00

 

they enclosed a statement of charges, which wasnt what I had asked for at all.

 

So I went ahead with the SJ application.

[Fedupandfightingback]

Right.. my morning in court.

 

I was there for 10.45am.. Allotted time is supposed to be 11.30am.

 

At 11.35 I was wondering if it was all done and dusted because I was the only person in the waiting room.

 

At 11.45am, the usher called FUAFB and Bank . ... Damn, he must have been hiding outside the waiting room. LOL

 

Anyway, this snotty little so n so shoved past me into the Judges chambers and slumped himself down in a seat, I had to scrabble round the back of him to get to another seat.

 

The Judge said hallo to both of us and said:

 

Bank Solicitor , you have something to say so perhaps you had best go first if it is ok with FUAFB.. I was ok with that, I wanted a few more minutes to get the trembling under control !.

 

The Judge then asked the solicitor if he had spoken to me .. the solicitor said.. "I dont speak to LiPs.. outside the court room.. especially those who take advice from a consumer Website" he then went on to say…. Consumer Action Group... However, the Judge stopped him by raising his hand and said... Does it really matter where FUAFB has taken advice from, she has here the most well presented paperwork I have seen from a Litigant in Person".. strike one for CAG.

 

Solicitor then went on to say, that Bank are saying they hadn’t received a proper DPA Request and they were treating it as a CCA Request made under CCA1974, there was no proof that the letter had been sent, there was no proof that it had been received and there was no proof that the postal order had been cashed.

 

The Judge said... One moment.. and rifled through my paperwork and said....

 

Right, Mr Solicitor, FUAFB's letter is properly headed as a request made under the DPA 1998. It would also appear that it was properly sent via SD, she has also enclosed Proof of receipt and signature, she has also enclosed a copy of the Postal Order which is correctly made out (and I would not want it suggested that FUAFB has tampered with this copy), she has also enclosed a copy of a letter from the Post office to say that it was paid through a bank.

 

Solicitor butts in.. Ah, but it doesn’t say which bank

 

Judge.. well your client would be pretty upset if the Post office had advised FUAFB which bank wouldn’t you.. Data protection act and all that.

 

Solicitor shuts up.

 

The Judge then goes on to say.. You (solicitor) say your client hadn’t received a proper DPA request and the postal order, however on 9th July, your client partially responded to the request, heading their letter "In Response to your DPA 1998 Request” That would suggest to me, that they had received both the letter and the postal order and chose not to treat it as such.

 

Solicitor ignored that and started to quote bits from the DPA 1998 Part II

 

(3) A data controller is not obliged to comply with a request under this section unless he is supplied with such information as he may reasonably require in order to satisfy himself as to the identity of the person making the request and to locate the information which that person seeks.

 

Fortunately, I thought to copy the whole of Part II “Rights of Data Subjects and Others).. 3 times last night.. So slid a copy over to the Judge.. Along with a copy of the ICO Data Protection Good Practice Notes , with the bit ….. which says ….. Do you need any other information.. You will need to ask the individual PROMPTLY for any other information… highlighted

 

I had also highlighted the bit about there would often not be a reason to doubt who a person is if you have been in regular contact.

 

The Judge then repeated.. However, Mr Solicitor.. Your client had already responded to FUAFB's letter which as I have already said.. Clearly states which act she is making the request under and your client has partially responded.. And again as I stated earlier.. your client headed the letter "In Response to your DAP 1998 Request” How can they deny they received it ?

 

I don’t have a copy of that letter says the solicitor, I will need to take instructions from the instructing solicitor.. you may have 5 minutes said the Judge..

 

Solicitor mumbled something about not being sufficient time and he feels it is a triable issue and would like an adjournment.

 

Judge said to me... how do you feel about this FUAFB? Then went on to say.. he was rather surprised that there had been no response to my Witness statement for the Summary Judgement and he felt that there should have been. He then raised his eyebrows at me to respond.. I said I felt it was unfair on me as I had come prepared, however, if the Judge considered it necessary in the interests of justice, then I would agree.

I can kiss A** with the best of them

 

He agreed, that it was extremely unfair, it was obvious I had put a lot of thought and effort into preparing.. Had properly submitted the Application for SJ, etc.. however it would be remiss of him not to give the Bank a chance to reply.

 

Judge then said .. hopefully, Mr Solicitor will go back to his client and make them understand that you ARE well prepared and this might go away.. ie , you might get the information you require without the need for a further hearing.

 

He suggested that the Bank respond to me in 14 days.. the solicitor said he wanted 21 days. Judge said ok, and he will set a new trial date for 4-6 weeks time. An order will be in the post this evening.

 

Judge then went on to say he was minded to award me costs for today and the solicitor butted in and said what costs has she incurred ?? .. Judge gave him a snotty look and said that was for him to decide.. FUAFB, how much are you out of pocket for today’s little outing.. Ummm, says, Mrs idiot, erm, nothing sir, I was planning on coming into town anyway today.. DUH !!

 

Judge said that was an extremely honest, albeit a foolish remark and laughed. So, no costs then.

 

I do so hope I get this Judge next time if there is a next time. So not a disaster, but no result, no costs and an adjournment

Edited November 24, 2009 by Fedupandfightingback

[Fedupandfightingback]

Fast forward a couple of weeks and I receive in the post...

 

Nope, not the Subject Access Request.. but a new Witness statement from the Bank. I nearly died laughing.

 

They have changed tack entirely.. If, they say.. If, they did receive the SAR then they correctly treated it as a CCA1974 request As we all know these are two entirely different requests.

 

The bank didnt see why they should be penalised for this oversight, as they had proceeded with all due diligence

 

CCA 1974 - Requests a copy of the agreement, statement of account and any other document mentioned within the agreement. You enclose a £1.00 postal order.

 

SAR - Requests EVERYTHING, statements, communication logs, transcripts of telephone conversations, terms and conditions, copy of the Agreement (hopefully).. absolutely everything. You enclose a £10.00 postal order.

 

I had in fact made a CCA request over a year earlier. As it looked as though they werent going to provide a copy, no matter how many chase up letters and requests through the various DCAs and Solicitors they set on me.. I decided to make the Subject Access Request. I knew they had received the earlier CCA request because .. yes, I had the proof of posting, signed receipt and a copy letter from the post office advising the PO had been banked... sigh...

 

I thought long and hard whether to submit a rebuttal Witness statement and thought to leave it until I had a new hearing date.

 

Meanwhile, the bank started to dribble through bits and pieces. Each time I got a few more bits of Data, I wrote to the solicitor advising that the request hadnt been fully complied with.

 

So 10 days before the new hearing date, I decided to send the rebuttal witness statement. This time, I went right back to the CCA request and detailed the whole sorry story.

 

On the day before the hearing, I received one more package. There was still some data missing. The letter that came with the pack suggested they didnt have some things I had asked for, so I checked with other CAGers who had received their SAR data and discovered that it was quite possible the bank were fibbing.

 

So off to court we go. They hadnt left me any time to contact them in any case.

[Fedupandfightingback]

Another day at the County Court

As mentioned in the previous post a package of data arrived from the Bank’s solicitors, the day before the hearing. I thought darn and blast it, does this mean I will have to discontinue? However, on looking through the paperwork I realised there was still a lot missing.

Diary of events only went back as far as October 2007 (account opened in 2005). There was only the front page of the application form although they had copied that 3 times. Although it looked a lot of data, they had duplicated all the statements !!.

Anyway, I went through the diary of events and noticed there were was something decidedly dodgy.

If you recall , the Bank in their first WS denied categorically that they had NOT received the Subject Access Request or LBA. Then when faced with a seriously on the ball Judge at the first hearing, they were advised to either “make it go away” or file a WS statement in rebuttal of my SJ WS.

They decided to go with a new theory, that if, they had received the SAR, they were in fact treating it properly as a CCA1974 request.

They had screwed up with their exhibits. They said in their WS that a particular letter dated 9th July 2009 would prove they were treating the request properly as a CCA. Then went and put in a letter dated 19th March 2009, which was prior to the SAR request (27 March 2009) and after the CCA request which was made in April 2008.

So I sent in a rebuttal WS, which pointed this out and attached as an exhibit the letter they mentioned in their WS (9 July) which was quite clearly headed “In response to your Data Subject Access Request” and which had been their downfall in the earlier hearing.

I also enclosed a copy of the original CCA request, which looked nothing like the SAR !!.

Anyway, onward to today’s hearing. I was there at 11.30am for a 12 noon hearing. The Barrister this time round couldn’t have been different to the hostile creep last time. She was incredibly nice.

Called in to court at 12.05. Different Judge this time as well.

He opens up with, FUAFB, this is your application. Tell me have you received all the data you requested.

Me: No sir

Judge: What are you missing ?

Me: Diary Events from prior to October 2007. I received a letter from the Bank’s solicitors to say they weren’t available due to an upgrade in their systems. Having spoken to several other people who have had SAR’s, I have been made aware that they are in receipt of Diary events that go back to 2001.

Judge: Were these recent requests.

Me: Yes, in the last 6 months, Sir.

Judge: Miss Barrister. I am mindful to hear both the SJ and the hearing and because of costs, I intend to keep this in the Small Claims, do you have any problems with that?

Miss B: My client feels they have a strong case in the CCA aspect, Sir.

Judge: Actually, Miss B, no you don’t. Have you not read FUAFB’s rebuttal statement?

Miss B: No Sir, I don’t have a copy of that.

Judge: FUAFB, did you send a copy to the solicitor.

Me: Yes, sir.. Pulls out covering letter and SD receipt and signature page from RM site. However, I do have a spare copy of the WS (smug cow that I am) and passed it over to Miss B.

[thank you, thank you BRW EMPTY DESK TRICK ]

Judge gives her a few moments to read through it.

Judge: Your comments, Miss B.

Miss B: Sir, we have proof of the postal order in one pound. My client couldn’t possibly assume that the request was a genuine SAR when the fee was for a CCA1974.

Judge: Did your client not supply you with the previous WS from FUAFB?

Miss B: No Sir

Judge looks at me, raises his eyebrows, I smile smugly and pops across the table a copy of the previous WS !!

Judge: At the last hearing, I believe Judge ?? made it quite clear to your client Miss B, that he really, really wanted this to go away for FUAFB. She has quite obviously prepared thoroughly for this claim. She has also thoroughly destroyed your client’s latest WS. Now it is left to me to decide whether to keep this in the Small Claim track or move it upward for damages and costs, which will involve another hearing date.

My heart sunk at that stage.. I truly did not want to come back again.

Miss B: Gulp, I don’t have directions for that, Sir.

Judge: 10 minutes adjournment.

We went outside and Miss Barrister shot off to a corner to telephone the instructing solicitors I sat as far away as I could feeling thoroughly miserable. I could hear Miss B was having problems getting through to them, but finally she did. She didn’t sound too happy either.

When she had finished speaking to them, she came over to me and nice as anything said we can go back in now. Chin up !!

When we back inside the Judge said he had been looking at the revised Bill of Costs. Miss B said she didn’t have a copy, sigh.. This is getting to be a bit of a habit.. I passed a spare copy over.

He said that it was difficult in that there was no actual damage, stress would be dealt with under a different section and that would mean another hearing and he was of the opinion that FUAFB in particular is getting pretty fed up with dragging backwards and forwards to Court. He got that right

He was going to award the costs under CPR 27.14 (2) g

Anyway, he said what he had to decide was.. Had there been a serious breach? Yes, without doubt there had been. Had the Bank been unreasonable? Decidedly so. In fact he felt that the Bank should be looking to their procedures for handling Subject Access Requests. He was quite astounded by their submissions and admissions. So.. !! He had obviously come to a decision.

Judge: FUAFB, there are some pre litigation costs, which I cannot allow, nice try though (delivered with a smile) so for the original claim you can have the fee for filing which is £30.00. I will then award the filing fee for the SJ application, which is £75.00. Then I will give a global award of £XXX.XX.. I make that a total of £XXX.XX. Miss B, FUAFB ??

Both of us: Yes Sir.

Judge: Right, to be paid within 21 days, please inform your client Miss B.

Good bye and thank you.

I couldn’t get out of there quick enough; I almost fell over the chair

When we got outside Miss Barrister said could she speak to me. She said she was incredibly impressed with the way I conducted myself and the way my paperwork had been produced. Even copies, she said, it was obvious great care had been taken to present them professionally. She would be giving a full report of the Judges comments to the Bank and had I considered a legal career. .. I don’t think so. She is self employed barrister and I kind of got the impression was less than happy with the Bank She had had to email them that morning for a copy of their 2nd Witness statement ??

[Fedupandfightingback]

You will all be pleased to hear that I have received the Bank's cheque and it has been banked

[lexis200]

That's excellent FUAFB - kind of makes my pm to you redundant, which can only be a good thing!

 

Also makes me want to have a pop at them for what they sent me!

 

Well done:D:)

[johnnymitch]

That is an excellent report FUAFB .......well done !

 

It should stand as an example to those going to court that , if they are well prepared .... it will help their case .... you stymied the bank's barristers at every turn ... Brilliant !

 

It should also serve to warn the banks 'legal departments that they can't get away with just sending unprepared ,unbriefed junior barristers along to waffle their way through cases ................

 

And now you've got the costs money! Icing on the cake , eh ? :D

[citizenB]

Excellent result

[mkb]

Nice one!!

 

Must ask though - what about the SAR info? Were they given a deadline to produce it?

[Fedupandfightingback]

Nice one!!

 

Must ask though - what about the SAR info? Were they given a deadline to produce it?

 

In court, when asked if I had all the information, I told the Judge I didnt think so. There were no diary events prior to October 2007. I said that having checked round consumer forums, I noticed that peeps had said they were in possesion of this information as far back as 2001.

 

I explained that I had been receiving dribs and drabs of information, but felt it was only the above information I required and that I had written to the Bank advising if they maintained their assertion that due to the upgrade of computers then I would be happy to accept this in writing. The Judge seemed quite happy with that and no order was made in respect of the outstanding diary events.

 

It is my opinion that having advised me in writiing, twice now, that they do not have this information then it would be foolish of them to suddenly "find" it.

 

Plus, the information would in any case, be more beneficial to my side of things.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Fedupandfightingback