Jump to content


mickrick

SAR'd A&L over a month ago

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3524 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

Add so far have had nothing but a bunch of statements going back to April 2003. I have just rung them for the second time telling them I want ALL information pertaining to my account, going right back to when I opened it and the customer adviser tonight told me they only hold records for 6 years, which I do not believe and told her so. She says that a note was put on my account in late October that I was looking for everything on my account and that she will chase it up.

 

There are only about 8 days left to the statutory 40 days are up and I'm not holding out any hope of getting this information.

 

What is my next step if they don't come across?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Add so far have had nothing but a bunch of statements going back to April 2003. I have just rung them for the second time telling them I want ALL information pertaining to my account, going right back to when I opened it and the customer adviser tonight told me they only hold records for 6 years, which I do not believe and told her so. She says that a note was put on my account in late October that I was looking for everything on my account and that she will chase it up.

 

There are only about 8 days left to the statutory 40 days are up and I'm not holding out any hope of getting this information.

 

What is my next step if they don't come across?

I think you will find 6 years in the statutary limit on data retention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck, I made my SAR in January and only got statements too, even after chasing them. Going to the ICO has so far failed also. :mad:


I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I just got statements too, I sent a follow up letter, issued court proceedings and I got a list (no documents) of my data this week, 4 months after my original request. Its clear that A and L do not take the time limits seriously and no one makes them. Now they have lied by saying they had sent me default letters and notices but they didnt and cant provide any evidence.

 

Do they have to keep true copies of all letters and notices they send out, for 6 years? So If they cant provide a copy of something they said they sent the court will disregard it?

 

thanks for any advice

 

Toasted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi toasted

Would you mind sharing the POC you used when you went to court? I am considering court as my next step...

 

Cheers

Loz


I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Loz, No I dont mind at all, not sure how to post it on here tho...

 

Any advice on that?

 

cheers

 

Toasted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the simplest way would be to just paste the text in here, editing out any personal info of course :)


I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Loz, I am attaching my amended Statement of case, you will see that I am only seeking the removal of a default although I have claimed damages that is of secondary importance to me. Please feel free to copy any bits that might be useful.

I have no specific expertise in civil litigation so please have someone look at your pleadings.

 

Good Luck

 

 

Amended Particulars of Claim

 

 

1.The Claimant had a Premier Direct current account number xxxxxxx ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 1st November 2006 and closed on or around 12th February 2009

2.

1. The account was conducted on the basis of the Defendant’s own standard terms and conditions.

2. At all material times the Claimant was a consumer and the Defendant was a supplier within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

3. During the period in which the Account was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant.

4. Alternatively the charges were levied in respect of various purported services provided by the Defendant and relating to exceeded overdrafts

5. The charges were levied on the basis of certain purported contractual terms which apparently permitted the charges to be made.

6. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

3. The Claimant contends that:

Insofar as they may be unfair, the charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach, but instead act in terrorem to ensure contractual compliance and to deter a breach on the part of the Claimant.

 

Insofar as they purport to be services provided by the Defendant, the High Court and subsequently the Court of Appeal have held the services in respect of which the Defendant has levied charges are subject to tests of unfairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999.

 

4. The purported terms imposing the charges levied by the Defendant are invalid under UTCCR because

 

a. They are contrary to the requirement of good faith.

 

b. They cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer in that:-

 

 

* Bank accounts have become a basic essential service

* The Defendant is a wholly dominant partner in a non-negotiable standard-form contract.

* There are a limited number of providers of banking services all whom exercise similar dominance over their customers in non-negotiable standard form contracts.

* These banks exercise a collective dominance in the market.

* The charges of all banks are highly similar in nature and in cost and so the consumer in general and the claimant in particular has no real choice between banking service providers and is forced to acquiesce to the charges.

* The charges exceed actual costs by several thousand percent. The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of i) the The Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 particularly but not limited to Regulations 5, 6 and 8 and Schedule 2, 1 e) and ii); the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly but not limited to sections 3 and 11 and Schedule 2 and iii) the common law relating to liquidated damages and penalties in contracts.

* They are applied unilaterally in a standard form contract without the possibility of

negotiation.

* The Defendant raises the charges or restructures its charging scheme at will without discussion with its customers

* The Charges are of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Banking Contract as a whole and would not influence the making of the Banking Contract.

* The customer had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges at the time of entering the contract

* The charges reflect a markup of several thousands of percent on the costs of dealing with the claimant's "delinquency" episodes. This is an extraordinary markup for any UK business. The normal markup on the High Street is less than 100%.

* The Defendant operates its high level of charges in order to cross-subsidise other banking services which it provides to other customers at less than cost price - "free-banking".

* The charges could be imposed repeatedly and interest at a higher rate could be charged on those accumulated charges

* The Defendant's charges structure depends upon the impecuniousity and vulnerability of its poorer customers to provide free-banking services for those in a better position.

* The overall charging regime operated by the Defendant is disproportionately applied to a minority of its customers, often those who are least able to afford it.·

As established by the High Court and subsequently by the Court of Appeal (OFT v Abbey & 7 Ors) the customer would receive no service or benefit in return for the imposition of charges.

 

5. In the premises the terms imposing the charges are unfair within the meaning of Regulation 5 (1) and thus not binding on the Claimant under Regulation 8.

 

6.The provision of an agreed overdraft facility of £900 created a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended by the 2006 Act. Insofar as it was a multiple agreement under Section18 the part providing the overdraft facility was a regulated agreement. The Defendant is in breach of conditions (b) (i - iii)

of the OFT's determination for an exemption under section 174 in that:

 

Section 174 of the Act provides that the OFT may exempt agreements allowing debtors to overdraw on a debtor-creditor current account, from having to comply with some provisions of the Act (sections 55 and 57-73). the OFT can only do this where it is not against the public interest and the creditor can be made subject to conditions to ensure this.

 

At the present point in time, banks providing debtor-creditor overdrafts are exempt from these sections of the Act subject to the following conditions:

 

(a) that the creditor shall have informed the OFT in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply;

 

(b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:

 

(i) of the credit limit, if any,

 

(ii) of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,

 

(iii) of the procedure for terminating the agreement;

 

and this information shall be confirmed in writing.

 

Additionally,the Defendant has failed to serve a default notice under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

7. The Defendants are in breach of the Data Protection Act in that ;

 

A Data Subject Access request was served on the Defendant on the 7th July 2009.

The Defendants provided copy bank statements on the 23rd July.

A further letter was sent to the Defendant requesting the remainder of the information on the 29th July.

A list of information held by the Defendant was provided on the 3rd November 2009 with no supporting documentation.

The Defendant took 4 months to partially comply with the subject access request in breach of the Data Protection Act which states that information must be provided within 40 days.

 

8. The late provision of this information has caused the Claimant significant delay in preparing this document resulting in an application having to be made to the court to amend the timetable and delay in bringing these issues before the court .

 

9. Despite the Claimant's original and further requests, the Defendant has failed to provide true copies of any correspondence alleged to have been sent to the Claimant after the 20th October 2008. During telephone calls made to the Defendant in June 2009 it is averred that it was clear from the conversation that the Claimant had no prior knowledge of the intention to or of the closure of the account.

 

10. The Defendant closed the account in February 2009 without informing the Claimant of either their intention to close the account or of their intention to make a reference to a credit reference agency, in breach of Section 13.7 of the Banking Code which states

 

“In these cases we will give you at least 28 days notice that we plan to give information about the debts you owe to Credit Reference agencies. At the same time we will explain the role of Credit reference agencies and the effect of the information they provide can have on your ability to get credit.”

 

The Defendant is also in breach of paragraph 32.4.8 of their own terms and conditions which states that 30 days notice will be given of closing the account for any reason.

 

Additionally,the Information commissioners guidance states as follows;

 

Notices of intention to file a default

32 Lenders should tell their customers about filing information with a credit reference agency as part of the account opening procedure, in line with the requirements of the ‘fair processing code’4. This explanation will not normally refer explicitly to defaults and will often be distant from the events which cause them. Therefore we strongly recommend that a notice of the intention to file a default should be served. Many lenders now subscribe to trade association codes of practice which require this. This practice helps the transparency of the credit reference process and may even prompt payment, so avoiding the need to file a default at all.

33 Notices to comply with Sections 13.7 of the Banking Code5 and 7.5 of the Lending Code6 should provide adequate warning. A notice of intention to file a default can be sent with a formal default notice served under Section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Where lenders are not required to issue these notices, they can send an intention to file a default through a final demand, letter or relevant account statement, which should make clear not only the intention to file but also the date of the intended default. The date should allow the customer enough time to respond properly. Lenders who have to provide a notice of intention to file a default under a relevant code of practice should be aware that not complying with the code may be taken into account in any assessment of the fairness of their processing.

34 When a default occurs in line with the criteria in this guidance, and the lender has given the customer 28 days notice of the intention to file a default, then subject to paragraph 37, the lender may supply this information to a credit reference agency despite no advance warning when the account was opened.

 

Accuracy of a lender’s default records

39 Records

Any default record should be accurate. We normally expect a lender to keep records that are necessary to show an agreement exists and to support filing a default. We would also expect a lender to be able to produce evidence to justify a default record they had placed on a credit reference file. Not having any supporting records may indicate a breach of the data protection principle requiring personal data to be adequate, relevant and not excessive for the purpose for which it is processed.

 

43 If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly if a default has been filed. Defaults filed in these circumstances may also be inadequate for the purpose of credit referencing in that they do not provide meaningful information about the creditworthiness of the customer.

 

11. In June 2009 the Claimant applied for funds to be released under a mortgage arrangement with Barclays Bank. Upon obtaining her credit report she discovered that adverse information in the form of late payment markers had been passed to the credit reference agencies by the Defendant.

 

12. The Claimant was unable to obtain the previously agreed mortgage causing embarrassment and great financial difficulty for the Claimant forcing her to borrow £19,000 from friends and family to continue with a partially completed building project. She has had to sell a property quickly at a reduced price to obtain funds to repay the debts.

 

13. The Claimant contacted the Defendant in June 09 as soon as she became aware of the situation however the Defendant refused her offer to pay the amount alleged to be outstanding at the time they closed the account.

 

14. Any purported permission to share the Claimant's information with third parties was revoked at the point the account was closed and the contract terminated.

 

15. The Defendants passed information to the credit reference agencies in March 2009 which is in breach of Principles 3, 4 and 5 of the Data Protection Act which states

 

Principle 3

Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed .'

 

The Data provided to the credit reference agencies by the Defendant was not about the closure of the account. as claimed by the Defendant. It was recorded as a series of late payment markers relating entirely to bank charges charged to the account by the Defendant.

 

Principle 4

“Personal Data shall be accurate and where necessary kept up to date”

 

The data currently processed on a daily basis is not up to date being dated March 09. No figures or amounts are recorded.

 

Principle 5

"Personal data processed for any purpose shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or purposes'.

 

The Defendant is still processing data after the termination of the contract, whether or this is a simple renewal process of the information daily or by some other timing factor. As the contract is no longer in situ, any permission has also ceased from the date of termination. The report states that the information will be kept on the Claimants file for six years. The Claimant asserts that this is excessive and disproportionate to the amounts involved

 

16. The Claimant also relies on principle 2 of the Data Protection Act which states

'Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purpose and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes'

 

The Claimant asserts that the term 'specified and lawful purposes' means those within the contract and no more.

 

17. Additionally, the Defendant is in breach of the Banking code to which the Defendant and which is incorporated into the contract.

 

Section 13.6 of the Banking Code which is incorporated into the contract states

 

“ We may give information to Credit reference agencies about the personal debts you owe us if:


 1. you have fallen behind with your payments

2. the amount owed is not in dispute

3. you have not made proposals we are satisfied with for repaying your debt, following our formal demand

18.All unauthorised overdrafts which comprise wholly or mainly of bank charges are deemed to be in dispute since the issue in 2007 of the OFT test case. The late payment markers on the account refer to an unauthorised overdraft which comprised only bank charges. These charges are deemed to be in dispute and referral to a credit reference agency is a breach of the Banking Code.

 

19. Additionally, in the light of the High Court decision of the 24th April 2008 which found against the banks, it is now almost a certainty that this decision will be confirmed and that it will be made clear that the banks level of charges are unfair and therefore unlawful.

 

20. Insofar as any debts which the Claimant may owe to the bank are comprised of bank charges, these debts are invalid. Any information which the bank has recorded against the Claimant which suggests that she owes them this money is untrue and is therefore held by the Defendant unlawfully. It follows also that any passing of this information to any third party is also an unlawful act as is the holding of that untrue information by those third parties.

 

21. The Claimant seeks an order of the Court that all information relating to the disputed sum be removed immediately.

Furthermore , by virtue of the Defendant's breach of contract, breach of the Data Protection Act and breach of the Banking Code the Claimant has suffered loss and distress.

 

Particulars of loss

 

The Claimant has had to borrow £19000 from friends and family.

The Claimant has been unable to repay expensive credit cards in full, causing her to incur interest

The Claimant has had to sell a property at below market value to obtain funds due to the Defendant's Actions.

 

 

Particulars of distress

 

The Claimant had hitherto the Defendants actions an impeccable credit history.

The Claimant has suffered damage to her financial reputation.

The Claimant has been unable to obtain credit to continue with her renovation works to her home causing all works to stop and leaving her with no kitchen or bathroom facilities

The Claimant has had to cease the employment of tradesmen booked to carry out work causing considerable embarrassment and financial loss to the claimant.

 

The Claimant further seeks damages under the Data Protection Act for distress in the

discretion of the court pursuant to Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998

 

Plus Costs

 

Statement of truth

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true.

 

 

Signed......................................

 

 

Dated.......................................

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow toasted, that is amazing! Thanks for sharing that POC, there's a hell of a lot that I can draw on when I rewrite my existing claim - I think I need to combine A+L's DPA failures with their charges and go all guns blazing!!

 

Thanks again,

Loz


I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)you are very welcome Loz, I will post the defence when i get it. I am expecting them to say they did send me the notices. They havent been able to send me any copies so it will probably be down to who the judge believes. Good luck with yours.

toasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I got a letter on Saturday saying that the statements were sent as "part of your Subject Access Request" - so where is the rest?

 

Anyway, I went through all my statements back to Jan 2001 and the total amount they have fleeced me for is £2869.50. They were sometimes charging me unauthorised OD fees TWICE on the same day. One month alone they took 3 x £25 and 2 x £34, a total of £143!

 

Last month they took a further £55 and they will slap another £25 unauthorised OD fee on top of that as well. You would think that after all that has happened they would have learnt their lesson, wouldn't you? I have raised this as putting me into hardship (it has!) so I am interested to see if they accept this. Who am I kidding, I'm just interested to see if they even acknowledge it!

 

I have just today submitted my claim to have my charges refunded back to then, plus 8% interest, a total of £3099.06. I am absolutely gutted at how much they have robbed me if over the years.

 

I see people are saying that Santander has now begun refunding their customers. I wonder what the chance of me getting all they owe me back would be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, just realised I sent the claim to the Narborough address and not Bootle. As long as my recorded delivery is signed for, will it be ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks have been given carte blanche to impose charges at whatever rate they like. God help us all now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering what to do now, way back in Jan 07 I started a case against A&L did all the MCOL paid my court fees and the case was dueto go to court the friday when the announcement came in all cases were being put on hold. I'm not going to get anything back now, the money I paid for the court case is wasted, I don't know how to stop everything. Rubbish news doesn't cover it :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wondering what to do now, way back in Jan 07 I started a case against A&L did all the MCOL paid my court fees and the case was dueto go to court the friday when the announcement came in all cases were being put on hold. I'm not going to get anything back now, the money I paid for the court case is wasted, I don't know how to stop everything. Rubbish news doesn't cover it :(

Today's ruling might actually turn out to be good news for you then. All your charges are under historic T&Cs which say charges were to cover costs. Today's ruling only says the OFT could not assess the fairness of the prices of a bank's services.

Your claim has nothing to do with the price of a service, its a dispute over whether you were being told the truth about how much their costs were. The PCA report will win that argument for you.

 

The stay may even be lifted soon as there is no longer any basis for it.

 

Chin up, you might just win yet! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today's ruling might actually turn out to be good news for you then. All your charges are under historic T&Cs which say charges were to cover costs. Today's ruling only says the OFT could not assess the fairness of the prices of a bank's services.

Your claim has nothing to do with the price of a service, its a dispute over whether you were being told the truth about how much their costs were. The PCA report will win that argument for you.

 

The stay may even be lifted soon as there is no longer any basis for it.

 

Chin up, you might just win yet! :)

 

Thanks for remaining positive on my behalf, I'm just not going to be in a position to pay any more court fees or anything ever, and am sorely tempted if I can jack it all in now for free to do that. Almost wishing I'd cashed their paltry offer of goodwill at the time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you have every reason to be optimistic, tudays ruling has no baring whatsoever on the principle of your claim..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...