Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update on the situation:   Following the run in with the police he has actually gone to the police station himself to question what he was told and was told there is no issue with him idling or moving the car around the car park, so the police officers who told him that were wrong.   As a side note, he knows who it is that's reporting him. Seems to be a bit of a feud between them, but the clarification he got from the police should at least stop them coming around every time a report is made.   Thank you to everyone who replied to this question!
    • I have had another good look around but still struggled to find any templates. I did find a defence on a thread that I have adapted below. I would greatly appreciate some input before I file it. Again, many thanks in advance.   Defence   1. I the Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   2. It is admitted that I have had a supply and service agreement with Co-operative Energy in the past. During the period, Co-operative Energy actively blocked me from hanging to a cheaper tariff or switching provider as there was an outstanding balance on the account.   3. Throughout this period Co-operative Energy served estimated bills. This is shown in the one copy of a bill that the claimant has been able to provide. The claimant has given no details as to the full breakdown of their claim and what dates it relates to, so I am unable to defend specifically until the claimant can particularise and quantify its pleadings.   4. Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges are now over 12 months old and relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging.   5. The claimant does not have access to the agreement nor was the Assignor required to retain a copy. Therefore their claim is unsubstantiated.   Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a written agreement.   1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement,  the original(s) should be available at the hearing along with a complete breakdown of how the charges accrued by date and amount.   With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: -   a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.   6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   7. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
    • why are you stuck with them?   do you not understand what i posted above?  
    • 😔 looks like im stuck with them. I am a bit wiser to this kind of thing now. Fingers crossed that something will change! 
    • Travel companies are concerned that providers of pre-holiday PCR tests are profiteering.   https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2021/apr/09/airlines-warn-that-the-cost-of-covid-tests-will-stop-people-going-abroad?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

DPA - Inspecting files for manual intervention?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5477 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

If a bank (or similar organisation) responds to a request for details of manual intervention as part of your DPA request by stating that it does not have to supply this - possibly due to a disproportionate effort - then do we have a right to view the information ourselves, at the bank's premises?

 

I ask because of THIS_WEB_PAGE

 

and this line of text...

"The data controller can refuse to supply a permanent copy of the data if this is not possible or would involve disproportionate effort. You are still entitled to inspect the information at the data controller’s premises."

 

If this is the case, how many of us would like to see those files ourselves? And how much time would those lovely banks have to put aside in order to assist us?!!

 

I guess it would also assist anyone who has to defend themselves IN COURT by being able to show that none occured...

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

A very interesting article. Unfortunately, I can't find any reference to this anywhere in the DPA itself, save where inspection is ordered by a court.

 

This would be a big stick to wield indeed for those people whose banks are being difficult about releasing information.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disproportionate effort was used as an excuse by an organisation that I requested info from, however they invited me to make an appointment to inspect the data at their premises.

A day or so before I was due to inspect, they telephoned me with the excuse that they would not be available on that day, they didn't know when they would be free and they resisted my request to allow inspection of the data in the presence of another member of their staff.

This company had been illegally instructed by our bank to act as LPA Receivers.

 

I realise this doesn't help with your question, its just meant to demonstate the dirty tricks they deploy at each and every stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Curioser and curioser. I've been having a trawl through Google looking for instances of "Data Protection Act 1998" and "inspect", and I would say that what relevant references I've found have been about 50/50 that you either do have the right or you don't. The fact that the web page quoted above is actualy the Liberty website tends to lend it quite a bit of credibility.

 

I'm about to make a DPA request to a bank which I know is going to try and get out of it. I want to make sure I send in a knockout blow, so to speak, so that they just send me the info.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another forum user - Lorraine - has used the text I quoted to her bank, who had previously replied with the typical "disproportionate effort" line....

 

POST HERE

 

Although no feedback on their reply yet.....

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google search on "disproportionate effort" threw this up as the first result:

 

http://www.dpa.lancs.ac.uk/approved/research.htm

 

Interesting to note that it is a DPA site...

 

See the steps I took to get my bank charges back.

Spiceskull v HSBC.

Thank you Consumer Action Group.

Read my blog.

 

Collage001.gif

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. If it isn't explicitly mentioned in the DPA I would expect them to be quite difficult about it. I imagine they would rather have bubonic plague than allow their customers to paw through their records.

 

I think I'll give the Information Commissioner a quick call tomorrow for clarification.

 

See the steps I took to get my bank charges back.

Spiceskull v HSBC.

Thank you Consumer Action Group.

Read my blog.

 

Collage001.gif

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Information Commissioner - DPA 1998 - Legal Guidance

Chapter 4.1 says -

Disproportionate effort is not defined in the Act. Accordingly it will be a question of fact in each case as to whether the supply of information in permanent form amounts to disproportionate effort. Matters to be taken into account by the Commissioner may be the cost of provision of the information, the length of time it may take to provide the information, how difficult or otherwise it may be for the data controller to provide the information and also the size of the organisation of which the request has been made. Such matters will always be balanced against the effect on the data subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Such matters will always be balanced against the effect on the data subject.
I would have thought that the effect on the data subject was of critical importance - the information is required to prove that the data controller has acted in an illegal manner, to the detriment of the data subject...when faced with that argument, 'disproportionate effort' should not even enter the equation.

 

See the steps I took to get my bank charges back.

Spiceskull v HSBC.

Thank you Consumer Action Group.

Read my blog.

 

Collage001.gif

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My over-riding thought to this is that if the bank DOES have any record of manual intervention, then surely it would be held in a manner that was easily accessible?

 

If so, then providing it would not require disproportionate effort.

 

If they hold such information of some archaic filing system, then fine, but why would an organisation like a bank revert to the 70's 'technology' of ring-binders?

 

I do realise that, most likely, banks just use this excuse because they don't have the evidence, and don't want to admit it, but the more we find out about this, perhaps the more amunition we have if anyone ever reaches a court room...

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a chat with the IC this morning, and apparently they are aware that because of the number of people now going to banks to get their statements - and then going to get their cash back - the banks' way of dealing with it is constantly evolving. The latest idea seems to be to make it as hard as possible for people to get hold of the information they need to recover their charges. Presumably, the reasoning is (probably correctly), that most people only have at most a couple of months worth of statements. The lady said that one of the teams at the IC is currently in the midst of a major argument with one of the banks about whether or not bank statements are covered by the DPA. As far as the IC is concerned, they are.

 

Interestingly, she also said that the bank is NOT obliged to let you come in and inspect the records yourself, but it might be unreasonable for you to refuse if they offer. Go figure.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't so long ago I read that the banks were using "the investment in all our technology" story to justify unlawful charges, but magically everything now seems to be paper based. Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5477 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...