Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Barclaycard & Microfiche


martynh99
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6376 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Ok, so a number of us are hitting the brickwall that is microfiche. Maybe it's time to all get a complaint logged(DPA / IC) against Barclaycard wrt their wriggling out.

 

Points to make in the complaint would be that the information must be in a relevant indexed filing system of some sort if they can offer to retrieve an individual customer statement from any given month for £3 - I simply do not believe that they would have someone site through 1000's of customers statements for that month looking for mine !

 

Also write a letter to our local MP's asking for their support.

 

Anyone up for this ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had their "microfiche" letter and informed them that if i do not receive the information by the end of the 40 days on the original timescale I shall lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner. The 40 Days is up at the end of October. I may well also lodge a non-compliance complaint in the County Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I filed my complaint with the ic today.

The form is a word document, you download it, fill it in then upload it back to them

Data Protection Complaints – Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)

In section 6 of the form I put the following, please feel free to use this and put your complaint in against Barclaycard.

I made a SAR to them requesting details of charges levied on my account for the duration it was open. They responded with some limited information in the form of statements from July 2004 onwards. They claim that information prior to May 2004 is exempt from the Data Protection Act as 'Statements are copied onto microfiche in date order and more than one customer statement may be held on an individual film of microfiche. These statements are not stored by reference to account number of customers name and are not "readily accessible" within the meaning of the Data Protection Act. These statements are not retained in a relevant filing system and therefore do not fall within the class of documents to be produced pursuant to a subject access request. They can be obtained from out Customer Services Dept at a cost of £3 per statement'. If their statement is to be believed then if I request a statement dated prior to May 2004, as they are only stored in date order and not customer ref or name, then they would have to manually search through ALL of their customer statements for that month and pick mine out. I believe that this is a blatant attempt to get out of their obligation under the act to provide this information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martyn

 

I had a word with the ICO yesterday the guy i spoke to said they wont do anything unless the 40 days has passed.

 

HTH

 

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martyn

 

I had a word with the Information Commissioners Office yesterday the guy i spoke to said they wont do anything unless the 40 days has passed.

 

HTH

 

 

Glenn

 

And 40 nights?

 

Presumably he did not indicate that the issue had already been addressed.

I believe that their offfer to produce statements from their Microfiche at £3 a go indicates that the system is much more easily accessed than they are trying to suggest and that can only mean an adequate degree of indexing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And 40 nights?

 

Presumably he did not indicate that the issue had already been addressed.

I believe that their offfer to produce statements from their Microfiche at £3 a go indicates that the system is much more easily accessed than they are trying to suggest and that can only mean an adequate degree of indexing.

 

Well I know that the issue of their fiche system is not clear cut, I also know they, the ICO that is, were expecting to send out letters on the 11/9/06 after their visit to Abbey to inform all those who had complained about the abbey.

 

I also know that they have introduced a delay subject to some further internal discussions.

 

Bottom line is that the decision has not as yet been formally made and we wont know until towards the middle or end of next week at least, what the ICO thinks of the Abbey systems.

 

The offer to send statments for a charge has nothing to do with the DPA and whilst we may believe it matters, ultimately the ICO will make their judgement and then its for the courts to decide on the matter.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I understand and agree that the ICO has no interest in charges made for reproducing statements. My reason for mentioning them was the relatively small sum involved. It does not take long to use up £3 worth of time and as I cannot see the Banks doing anything at a loss, it follows that the information must be readily accessible.

 

I will be interested in what the ICO says. My 40 Days is up at the end of October.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take the position that if they can access their microfiche records for £3, then they can do it for free.

 

It's not like they are paying it directly to the members of staff who have to carry out the work -- those guys get their salary either way.

 

If Barclaycard don't like losing man hours over a legally required process, then perhaps they should reconsider their line of business.

Barclaycard: LBA sent 06/09/06 - delaying response on 09/09/06 - reply mailed 20/09/06 - further delaying response 04/10/06 - partial refund 10/10/06 - responding with request for remainder.

Barclays: Preliminary letter mailed 20/09/06 - offer of £600 received 17/10/06 - rejected with modified LBA 19/10/06 - started MCOL process 28/10/06 - AQ filed December - transferred to Mercantile Court 26/01/2007 - Settled in full 02/02/07.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I understand and agree that the Information Commissioners Office has no interest in charges made for reproducing statements. My reason for mentioning them was the relatively small sum involved. It does not take long to use up £3 worth of time and as I cannot see the Banks doing anything at a loss, it follows that the information must be readily accessible.

 

I will be interested in what the Information Commissioners Office says. My 40 Days is up at the end of October.

 

This may be found to be the case, sadly I dont think it actually does 'follow' in a legal sense. If it did then the ICO would not have bothered going to the abbey since they offer multiple statements for ten pounds.

 

GLenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal decision that has to be established is whether or not the data in the Microfiche filing system is "readily accessible" for the purposes of the DPA. The cheapness of the price to produce the data will tend to suggest that data retrieval is inexpensive and thus easy.

In the first instance we must trust the ICO to properly investigate this question and arrive at an opinion about how "readily accessible" is the data and while their opinion is not a "decision" in the legal sense, it is likely that a court will pay attention to what they say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont dispute your logic, however, if you have time, or if you have read some of the recent cases pertinent to the fiche argument, you may not think its quite so clear cut, i find myself flipping one way then the other.

 

Whilst the courts may take notice of the Information Commissioners Office decisions that will be until or unless there is an appeal.

 

If it goes our way i wonder whether Abbey will challenge the decision, if it goes their way the path is far less certain because it would need to get into one of the higher tracks for case law to be made.

 

Not sure what finanacial and legal clout could be mustered by an individual or the forum if asked to mount a challenge.

 

Anyway it is kind of academic becuase the Information Commissioners Office have delayed the decision to some time this week, or at least this was the info i got on friday last.

 

It would be nice to think the decsion was as clear cut as many think, if it was my contention still stands there would be no need for the ico to have visited.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

PS i hope my pessimism is misplaced and they ico comes down on the side of comon sense.

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

So the microfiche is an issue. How does one get around so that we can claim charges. Does it make sense just to issue a claim for an amount based on the information you have at hand and if your amount is higher than they actually owe, I am sure they will inform the judge of this in there defence?

Just some guy. I try to help, but all advice is my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have some statements you can use these to provide an estimate.

 

On a personal note i would prepare the estiamte for the maximum i thoght reasonable since its likley that the defendnat will tell you if youre wrong and would have tp [rodcue the statements to validate that.

 

if they dont dispute your figures then presumably you have underclaimed.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I'm doing Glenn - an overestimate. Its up to B/card then to defend the claim and produce the 'oh-so-difficult-to-retrieve' information. This is the essence of my letter. They sent me the 'puzzled' bog off letter. This is going off today so any thoughts welcome

 

Dear Deborah Woodcock,

 

I wrote to you on 29th August regarding your failure to comply with my subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. Unfortunately, I received only a standard template letter [note: they say its an email! LOL] from Carol Jones which seems to be sent to anyone requesting details of charges levied against their accounts.

 

I am sorry that you have decided to flout the law by refusing to comply with my request; please note that I am making an official complaint to the Information Commissioner.

 

Furthermore, I have made an estimate of charges and penalties levied against my account based on the information that you did manage to supply. I am now giving you 14 days to repay me XXXX. Following the expiry of this deadline I shall file a claim and you will also be liable for costs and interest.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

mr impatient

 

Now I know it seems harsh but it seems like the only way to deal with them. If they decide to defend it they will have to explain why they didn't comply with the SAR. Any thoughts on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be careful using the term overestimate, im not sure how to phrase it, it has to be logical but i guess what im saying is dont give anything away. As you say they have to produce the data to refute your claim if they wish to.

 

Re your letter, i have written letters along the same lines, it made me feel better, not sure it wil have any effect though.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi,

 

I agree with Glenn UK the only way to get round the microfiche argument is to Overestimate the charges and then Barclaycard will respond. I have done that and awaiting reply on 19 October 2006. Barclays have accessed their microfiche library and they had no difficulties.

Abbey:

Settled in Full after 1st Prelim letter 23 January 2006 :D

Halifax: :D

Settled in Full at court 21 June 2006

NatWest: :D

Settled in Full at court 22 June 2006

Barclaycard:

Data Protection Act Letter sent 09 June 2006, Microfiche letter 20 July 2006, response sent 10 Aug 2006.

Monument:

Data Protection Act Letter sent 09 June 2006. Kept up to date with delays for info. Statements rec'd 12 August 2006

Barclays (Mother):

DPA Letter sent 14 June 2006. DPA cheque sent back 23 June 2006 will provide statements for FREE:-) . Statements rec'd 12 August 2006.

Lloyds TSB:

Coming next

Capital One:

Coming next

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi I received a response from Barclaycard and the over-estimation letters of charges was not effective. They did not provide any statements and instead said they will refund the charges, the difference of £12 and the original charges. They have placed the refund in my current statement. The route to go is a County Claim Court.

Abbey:

Settled in Full after 1st Prelim letter 23 January 2006 :D

Halifax: :D

Settled in Full at court 21 June 2006

NatWest: :D

Settled in Full at court 22 June 2006

Barclaycard:

Data Protection Act Letter sent 09 June 2006, Microfiche letter 20 July 2006, response sent 10 Aug 2006.

Monument:

Data Protection Act Letter sent 09 June 2006. Kept up to date with delays for info. Statements rec'd 12 August 2006

Barclays (Mother):

DPA Letter sent 14 June 2006. DPA cheque sent back 23 June 2006 will provide statements for FREE:-) . Statements rec'd 12 August 2006.

Lloyds TSB:

Coming next

Capital One:

Coming next

Link to post
Share on other sites

No joy for me as i cant estimate any charges because i setteld my account before may 04 (and they still gave me blank statements till i closed it!) So i still need to get hold of my earlier statments. I have a complaint ready to go now to the commisioner office but im not holding my breath that i will get any statements withought paying £3 for them.

Nadia.

 

 

------------------------------------------------

Barclays Current Account - S.A.R 22/09/06 - Prelim sent 23/10/06 - part pay accepted - sent LBA 16/11/06 - Payment out of court March 07. Hooray!

Capital One Credit Card - Sent S.A.R 22/09/06 - statements recived 30/10/06 - Settled Dec 06.

Egg Credit Card - Sent S.A.R 22/09/06 - statements recieved 30/10/06- about to send prelim

Barclaycard - S.A.R 22/09/06 - Microfishe letter - non com. 29/09/06. - wont comply letter - 16/10/06 16 days left- getting nowhere letter back! 16/11/06 Information Commissioners Office compaint - 18/12/06-Statments sent - prelim going out 24/5/07.

Virgin/MBNA - S.A.R 22/09/06 - part pay accepted - settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well firstly would it be possible to pay the £3 per statement and then claim this figure back on an overall claim of charges ???

And secondly how does this new 'tact' all the credit card companies are employing of reducing their tariff of charges from £20 to £12 affect us in terms of what we can reclaim. Where has this new figure come from because personally I still think £12 is excessive in relation to the actual costs incurred by them ! However there must be a reason why they have all reduced to the same amount......

In summary are we still claiming back the whole £20 or the difference..... i.e. £8 ???

 

MrP

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...