Jump to content

MINT being extremely awkward - breaching DPA?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3468 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

Hi everyone. I'd be interested in hearing some opinions on this situation:


I sent off my first Subject Access Request letter to MINT in May 09, requesting a list of all my transactions and charges, and enclosing a £10 note.


They sent me one A4 sheet with a list of charges and the month they were each applied to my account, but not the exact dates, and my £10 note. The accompanying letter said they were returning it to me as they didn't charge anything for this information.


I wrote back to them, asking for the exact dates for each charge, and as they had already informed me that they didn't charge for this info, I didn't re-send the £10.


They replied, saying that they would be happy to provide a complete list, but that there would be a £10 charge for it. Grrr!


I wrote back AGAIN and sent off my £10 note AGAIN, only for them to return it AGAIN with a letter informing me that they couldn't accept cash. Extreme Grrr!


I wrote back to them YET AGAIN, this time with a cheque for £10 (and an extremely bitchy letter asking them why they hadn't informed me right from the outset that cash was not an acceptable form of payment.)


I'm still waiting to hear back from them.


What I'm wondering is... As I made my initial request way back in May, and as they didn't tell me straight away that they couldn't accept cash, and they are obviously WAY outside the 40 day limit and I still don't have my info even after FOUR letters... Is this a breach of the terms of the Data Protection Act and can I make a complaint about their obstructive behaviour?


The initial SAR was made back in May and was clearly headed 'DPA - SAR' and worded as per the standard letters available here on the forum to request 'a complete list of transactions and charges...' etc etc


What does everyone think, is it worth making an official complaint about them?

Edited by sharkfin

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't think they were obstructive as such, though they are being clever, obv, by not giving dates to avoid int claim on charges.


when did you send off the std SAR with the cheque?








1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think they were being dishonest in a sneaky way by not telling me they didn't accept cash until I sent them FOUR separate letters. And their 40 days aren't up yet, offhand I can't remember when I sent the cheque off but I know it's not that long yet :-)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • always plead guilty and say yo will attend that way if you cant settle OOC on the day you are there in person to covey your remorse to the judge personally.   it will be more than the £225 quote with victim surcharges etc on top but that does rule out the possibility of still settling on te day by talking to the TfL prosecutor before you go in   there are various threads here that has had that happen.   if you can find them, i'll do it later
    • Along with this is a: tomlin order schedule customer account transactions summary customer account transactions listed between November 2008 and jan 2019 - the last payment being March 2017 then further items on invoice listed between November 2008 and September 2010   2019-04-18_195659.pdf
    • Just an update since I received a letter for a SJPN today... so I am being charged under "...Byelaw 17(1) of the Transport for London Railway Byelaws made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962."   Application is being made for a £225 contribution towards the costs of TfL. Further costs may be incurred if additional documentation is required or if the matter is not resolved by a SJ.   What would peoples recommendation be, pleading guilty with or without going to court? They did put on the cover letter that if I plead guilty then "...you will usually get a 33% reduction...' But obviously it's not guaranteed since they used the word usually.   Lastly is the fine going to be the £225 they've stated in the SJPN plus the fare avoided? Or is this the cost of raising the SJPN.   Thanks      
    • Yes and I think I pointed out that the enforceability of the CCA is dependant on more than the document you posted. On its own, the agreement sites all the correct terms and is compliant with section 77. However, it also has to comply with the agreement(copy) you signed, how can anyone who as not seen that document say one way or the other. I went on to explain how it would be impossible to calculate the terms on the second agreement from the first as the first did not exist. I seem to be constantly repeating myself, and I do not see you doing anything to move this case forward. 
    • Thanks dx, will have a look. Thank you.
  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
        • Like
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 57 replies
  • Create New...