Freedom of Information and Data Protection section?

[harry.potless]

I couldn't find a dedicated section for this so I hope I haven't mis-posted.

 

If I have missed the proper section, please forgive me and redirect. If there isn't a section, maybe there could be one set up?

 

I find both the FOI and the DP rules a bit confusing, especially as lines between the two are often blurred and can be used to our advantage and disadvantage, accordingly. I surely can't be the only person who gets annoyed when some "official" or other either releases my details to someone else under the FOI Act or denies me details (even my own) under the DP Act.

 

Two questions, if I may:

 

Q 1) If I make a request for FOI disclosure, do I always have to pay £10? I want to request information of a more general nature from my bank (i.e. information that is not particularly pertinent to me, but of a wider subject matter). Can I simply put in a request under the FOI Act or, if I don't include a tenner, could they simply ignore it for not having adhered to customary practice?

 

Q 2) As the cosignatory of a joint bank account, can I request FOI disclosure solo or do both signatories have to request the information, jointly?

 

There's two to be going on with , if somebody(s) has the knowledge and time to offer his/her/their advice.

 

Thanks.

 

HP

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

Now I don't know much about FOI requests but I do think they only apply to public bodies, Government, councils, NHS etc. I don't think banks come under that banner.

 

The only way I know of getting data is a Subject Access Request and if it is for a joint account, both signatures would be required

[harry.potless]

Thanks for that.

 

Confirmed what I suspected, which is that I know even less than I imagined (and that wasn't much, to start with).

 

Is there any sort of guide as to who I can send a FOI request to (and how)?

 

Ditto for a SAR (is an Insurance Company required to comply with a SAR, for instance)?

 

Sorry to be a nuisance.

 

HP

Edited February 23, 2011 by harry.potless
Keyboard playing me up.

[silverfox1961]

This is from the Information Commissioner

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/application.aspx

 

If you have had PERSONAL dealings with any company, you have the right to the data they have about you. If you are acting on behalf of a third party, you will need a letter of authorisation from them to act on their behalf

[harry.potless]

Thanks again.

 

Very interesting read and seemingly designed to create as tangled a web of vagueness and ambiguity regarding a public body's responsibiilties and limitations as is humanly possible (why am I not surprised?).

 

I'm seeking general information that would not be covered by a SAR of Lloyds Banking Group.

 

Am I correct (I bet, for these purposes, I'm not) in thinking that Lloyds are now, at least part, owned by you and me via our erstwhile Government because, if so, are they ergo subject to FOI requests as would A N Other public body?

 

Regards,

 

HP

Edited February 23, 2011 by harry.potless
Typo

[harry.potless]

Hi again,

 

I'm presuming that no-one is able to answer the previous question for me regarding the likelihood or not of succeeding with a Freedom of Information request of Lloyds Bank.

 

Is someone able to tell me whether or not an Insurance/Assurance Company is obliged to comply with a Subject Access Request? Reason being that I believe I have been "ripped-off" by a certain company with whom I had Life-Cover for over 20 years.

 

Also, I'm informed that the customary £10 that is paid to a bank or CC company is not necessarily obligatory, but is the highest amount that can be charged and has, ipso facto, become the "generally accepted" figure (it WOULD be the highest, when it's to the Banks' favour, now wouldn't it?).

 

If I submit a SAR without including the aforementioned £10 fee, what is likely to happen? Can my entire request simply be ignored or must the respondent at least inform me of its refusal until such fee has been paid?

 

Thanks to everyone who takes the time to read this.

[silverfox1961]

Any company that you have a dealing with have a duty to comply with a SAR. They don't have to produce the actual data, just to inform you of the data they hold. It is however easier to produce the actual data.

 

The £10 fee is the maximum they can demand. If you made a request and didn't enclose the fee, they won't be obliged to begin the collation of documents until such time they do receive it. All you would be doing by not sending the fee is to delay things.

 

As to your previous point. Although the taxpayer do own xx% of the shares, they are still a bank and not a public body so no FOI to them

[harry.potless]

Thanks Silverfox,

 

I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and value your advice.

 

I have a few more questions, based upon your reply (not questioning your knowledge - just seeking clarification/expansion).

 

Any company that you have a dealing with have a duty to comply with a SAR. They don't have to produce the actual data, just to inform you of the data they hold. It is however easier to produce the actual data. How is that easier than simply confirming the data that they hold?

 

The £10 fee is the maximum they can demand. If you made a request and didn't enclose the fee, they won't be obliged to begin the collation of documents until such time they do receive it. All you would be doing by not sending the fee is to delay things. But would they be obliged to tell me that, or could they simply ignore my request and play upon my ignorance (were I not to know of the fee and were it not for the fact that I'm a bit of a Jack Russel when it comes to dealing with officious folk)?

 

As to your previous point. Although the taxpayer do own xx% of the shares, they are still a bank and not a public body so no FOI to them

 

The last point is a shame and I'll explain where I'm coming from.

 

I applied for a refund of "unfair" bank charges a year or so ago. Communications passed back and forth between us which I consider to have been a "delaying-tactic" on the part of the bank, pending the Supreme Court's decision. I don't consider that they met what was, at least then, their obligations under the hardship clause as laid down by a previous court, through their tactics. Once the Supreme Court found in the banks' favour and the OFT dropped it, the bank feels it is all done-and-dusted........

 

.............But.........I'd like to know how many claimants they DID settle with during the period that they denied my claim in order to show that - as they were settling other cases, they should have properly settled mine, too. If my argument holds water then the same would surely apply to other cases that were denied under the hardship rule (providing such meet its criteria - which mine indisputably did/does), so may well open up a whole new angle of attack for those of us that were denied justice through the banks' delaying tactics. This would probably be very many people, indeed.

 

How else might I find that information, do you know?

 

Much obliged.

 

Harry P

[silverfox1961]

If they were to just confirm what data they hold, they would still have to trawl your data to find it then write it all down in a letter It is easier to just print off what is already there.

 

With your SAR, they would write back and ask for the tenner before they would progress your SAR

 

As to getting the info you require-ain't got a clue

[harry.potless]

If they were to just confirm what data they hold, they would still have to trawl your data to find it then write it all down in a letter It is easier to just print off what is already there. Got ya. Makes sense.

 

With your SAR, they would write back and ask for the tenner before they would progress your SAR Good. I ain't in no hurry. They been robbing me for years and I learned to live without that which they purloined, so far - getting it back (if I do) will be like a bonus. But if they spend more than a tenner on staff time replying to me to ask for the tenner, then it's just further evidence as to their mealy-mouthed behaviour. Might not make me look good, but it sure does make them look bad (and inept as well as inefficient).

 

As to getting the info you require-ain't got a clue

 

As regards the third point. I'm sure that the data must exist somewhere. Guess I'll have to cast my fly in other waters and see if I get a bite.

 

Just such a shame that, at the moment, we don't know of a mechanism that would require the banks to declare how much they have repaid and to what number of claimants. Not interested in breakdown figures of how much to whoever, simply the overall picture. As I said, if they settled with some but not others on the hardship basis then questions regarding why so would appear valid and might open another door for claimants.

 

They have only "won" when we give up. So long as we don't give up, they will never have won.

 

Thanks for your continued patience, Silverfox.

[enaid]

Our Ref: FOI0914

13 May 2008

 

Dear Sir

 

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), for information in relation financial hardship data that forms the exemption from FSA's complaints handling waiver for banks:

 

1. To date, or from the latest date available, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many customers making complaints have been identified by the banks as being cases of financial hardship since the introduction of the waiver?

 

2. To date, or from the latest date available, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many identified cases of financial hardship have been offered a partial or full refund of charges claimed?

 

Your request has now been considered and I will respond to each point below. Please be aware that we have used the term ‘financial difficulty’ in place of ‘financial hardship’.

 

1. For the period ending 29 February 2008 (latest date available) all of the firms (that is, banks and building societies) who were granted the waiver, reported a total of 22,191 relevant charges complaints where financial difficulty has been claimed by the customer. The FSA has observed that claims made by customers to be in financial difficulty, were subject to an assessment by firms in conjunction with their own criteria for accepting financial difficulty.

 

2. The FSA has asked several larger firms to provide information relating to how they have handled relevant charges complaints where financial difficulty had been accepted. Based on the data sample received from these firms in February 2008, we found that 64%* of relevant charges complainants, who were accepted as being in financial difficulty, received a refund offer.

 

(*Refers to 101 cases from a sample population of 157 complaints where financial difficulty had been confirmed. N.B. A high proportion of customers had not responded to a request for details of their income and expenditure)

 

Yours sincerely

K. Edwards

Information Access

Financial Services Authority

[harry.potless]

Hello enaid and thanks for your input on this matter, which is pretty much what I was after.

 

A few of the points it rasies are extremely interesting:

 

1) Someone (the edited copy does not reveal who, but no matter) did indeed request information based upon the FOI Act "right to know" of the FSA, to which they complied. I hadn't thought of taking that particular route, but it is probably as good as any.

 

2) Are they saying that of 22,191 claimants under the "Financial Hardship/Difficulty" waiver only 157 were deemed to qualify? If so, I cannot believe that only 0.7 (that is less than three-quarters of one percent) of such claimants would be deemed to qualify. And judged to qualify by which "firms in conjunction with their own criteria for accepting financial difficulty"? And whose "own criteria" - the "firms'" or the banks'? And who paid these "firms"? The banks? If so, might these "firms" not be in risk of undue influence of their paymasters?

 

Whether the 157 figure is a total or a representative mix, I would find it unacceptable that less than two-thirds of them had been offered a settlement. After all, it has already been determined that they all DID qualify under the Hardship waiver. For example - If 157 people are on a sinking ship and the quartermaster is in possession of 157 life-jackets, and all 157 people have requested a life-jacket, when would it ever be deemed acceptable for said quartermaster to dispense only 101 of those life-jackets?

 

3) The timing of the communication provided is a while ago now. Please could you tell me whether or not I or A N Other could put in another request and have more up to date figures provided. I am thinking of the specific time between the waiver date (June 2007) and the last Supreme Court ruling, in favour of the Banks. Also, is that information provided freely or is there a charge, do you know?

 

Thanks so much for the information. It's really appreciated.

[enaid]

1) The FoI request was made by a colleague.

 

2) The 22,191 figure represents the number of claimants that initially claimed they were in financial difficulty and not the number of claimants that were subsequently deemed to actually be in financial difficulty by the banks. I suspect that figure would be a lot lower.

 

The important figure, for your purposes, is that the sample data indicates that 64% of claimants who were recognised as being in financial difficulty were offered a refund and I suspect this figure would have increased over time for the reasons set out below. But it would be interesting at least to know what proportion of the 22,191 claiming financial difficulty actually were recognised as such by the banks.

 

The criteria for which banks should judge financial difficulty was requested in a separate FoI request by the same person and in response the FSA claimed that the ‘’definition’’ was set out in the then banking code. But on investigation the banking code standards board declared that what the FSA were describing as a ‘’definition’’ was only in fact guidance and shouldn’t be used to define financial hardship. As a result the FSA published their own detailed definition in the next waiver extension. The criteria is set out in Annex 2 here http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Re...nthly_0790.pdf

 

‘’Firms’’ means all regulated companies ie banks.

 

3) As far as I know no further request was made to update the data. I would suggest you make one yourself. Normally no charge is made for this kind of information. It’s easy to do by e-mail Request for information

 

In making an FoI request it is important to consider the wording of your request carefully as the FSA will only release the information you specifically request. They will only provide aggregate data and won’t release firm-specific information which is exempt for commercial confidentiality reasons. Under the FoI Act they are obliged to release information within 20 working days.

__________________

[harry.potless]

Nice one!!

 

I'm off down the shops for a new ink cartridge (for my fountain pen - not my laser printer - lol).

 

Will get back to you later.

 

Thanks, thanks and thrice thanks.

 

Harry P

[harry.potless]

Hi,

 

That link to the FSA's definition of hardship is broken/moved.

 

Would you happen to know the Document Title at all, so that I might track it down?

 

Cheers.

 

Hapless Harry.

[harry.potless]

Strange.

 

When I click on the link you kindly provided ending: ....fsa-gov-uk pages Doing......etc (I'm not allowed to post a full link, yet), I get the following:

 

404 Error:

 

 

File not found The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Please try the following:

• If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
  
• Open the ............. home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
  
• Click the Back button to try another link
  
• Or use the search facility
  

 

However, searching for it as you suggested has resulted in my now having the document, so thanks for that.

 

Harry

[harry.potless]

1) The FoI request was made by a colleague...............................Good for him (and us).

 

But it would be interesting at least to know what proportion of the 22,191 claiming financial difficulty actually were recognised as such by the banks................Agreed, very interesting!

I would suggest you make one yourself...............................I have decided to. Knowledge is power.

 

In making an FoI request it is important to consider the wording of your request carefully as the FSA will only release the information you specifically request.........................See below:

__________________

 

Would it be at all possible to be provide me a draft (even a rough one) of the original letter so that I can amend/update it and send it off? You can PM it to me if you prefer and I am happy to either PM my proposed request or post it on the board as you prefer. I am also more than happy to provide you with a draft for approval, prior to forwarding it.

 

Cheers.

 

Harry P.

[harry.potless]

Harry

 

Sorry, Enaid asked me to respond but it had slipped my mind...........

Good luck!...........

 

Thanks for that Contador.

 

Sorry I've not gotten back to you before now ("Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans").

 

I really appreciate your guidance and intend to "tweak" the draft a little - to see just how much information I'm able to elicit from them.

 

Promise to let all you guys know how I get on and what my next move will be, in due course.

 

One question, though.......

 

WHO is allowed to make a request?

 

The reason I ask this is two-fold.

 

1) By accepting requests on-line, with the applicant only required to enter an email address (as opposed to a "true" address) are they not opening themselves to all sorts of requests from all sorts of quarters? Surely they could not reply to them all (especially in these most austere of times) so, if so, the logical conclusion must be that email requests (and possibly/probably even postal requests) are filtered to, rightly, sort the genuine from the misguided, belligerent, misdirected or plain nonsensical (insert your own filter-criteria) Which makes me wonder how seriously will they "choose" to take my enquiry and equally, how seriously I should take my own on-line application being treated "seriously".

 

2) Although born and bred on the UK Mainland I reside and am now considered a resident of the British Isles but am also considered both a UK resident and a non-UK resident (as it suits them) and an EU citizen and a non-EU citizen (as it suits them), am I, therefore, qualified to submit a FOI request? If so, who is and who isn't? Can Colonel Gaddafi submit a FOI request, for instance (being currently bored with time on his hands, I'd imagine)? Whatever, I can get around it, by proxy, if necessary but I would like to know, so as not to need to do that, if possible.:???:

 

Thanks for your help, thus far.

Edited March 5, 2011 by harry.potless
Needed editing

[harry.potless]

Thanks, Contador.

 

I'll crack on then.

 

If they refuse on the grounds of my domicile, I'll get one of the offspring, based in the UK to put the request in.

 

Will report back ASAP.

 

Harry.

[harry.potless]

You don't have to give your own address, just a 'contact' address, and so to avoid any potential problems I would use one of your UK offspring's addresses.

 

Thanks.

 

Will take your advice on that.

 

Harry.