Victimnomore's Second Case

[victimnomore]

Opening up a New Front in the War Against the Bank

 

I've been thinking!!

 

There is some debate going on about the six year limit. I really don't see any MORAL reason at all why the banks' liability should be limited to six years when they've put up such an utter smokescreen of "defence" themselves. They shouldn't be able to hide behind legal technicalities. I believe that there is an argument to be made under section 32 of the Limitations Act 1980 which allows postponement due to concealment by the defendant. And I wish to explore that argument.

 

There is also some debate about the rate of interest to be applied to the "debt" we have been owed by the banks. Should it be the statutory 8% simple interest, or "contractual" compound interest? There is a huge difference.

 

I've had a lot of trouble in my life, much of it financial. Barclays have been my constant companions - sticking the boot in at every opportunity - always ready to make a bad situation a whole lot worse. I was Barclays' victim long long before I joined this site and became Victimnomore.

 

It's pay back time.

 

I've sent in a Data Protection Act/S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) (I didn't need one before I already had six years of statements). My intention is to put together a claim going back as far as I'm able, excluding the period for which I am already claiming of course but including the couple of charges they've applied since my claim date, and to add interest at the contractual (unauthorised overdraft) rate.

 

 

Should be an interesting ride??

[victimnomore]

Well, surprisingly quick response from Barclays! (Although, apart from the speed, utterly predictable.)

 

They received my SAR on 6 October, their reply (bog standard Peter T letter) was received by me on 12 October, and statements were received on Saturday 14th.

 

But, of course, that's the end of the good news. The statements only go back to October 1999. I'm expected, I believe, to assume the earlier records are unavailable due to the microfiche waffle (or fishy micro-waffle??).

 

I've written back (full text of the long boring letter in my next post - feel free to skip over) saying in effect that I don't accept their "fichy" argument so "send them or I'll tell the IC!".

 

Let's see if it has any effect.

[victimnomore]

Text of my letter to Peter T;

 

Dear Mr Townsend,

Data Protection Act

 

I have received your letter of 9 October 2006 in response to my Subject Access Request (S.A.R ) under the Data Protection Act (DPA) of 5 October 2006.

 

Thank you for the return of my £10 cheque. I would remind you however that this in no way absolves you from your obligations to supply the information requested. Rather it is an implied undertaking to do so at no cost to myself.

 

Thank you for the first batch of information, which I have already received. You have so far only sent information relating to transactions since 14 October 1999 whereas my request was for information “for the period since the .. account was opened ..”

 

I note that you state that some older information is in microfiche form but cannot agree that it is thereby necessarily excluded from the provisions of the Data Protection Act. The choice of the format in which you keep your records is up to you but, as you are undoubtedly aware, if you keep personal data in an accessible relevant filing system it is covered by the DPA. Obviously you would not keep data unless it were accessible, and since your return of my cheque clearly implies that cost is not a problem, I must reiterate my request for the supply of all personal data relating to my banking history that you have on record, however old. A failure to do so could result in a complaint being made to the Information Commissioner.

 

I am aware, as I am sure you will also be, that The Information Commissioner has recently conducted an investigation at another bank which decided that they were breaching their statutory obligations and that their microfiche system is a "relevant filing system".

 

With regard to “manual interventions”, my letter required you to disclose evidence of such in relation to my banking business with Barclays. I accept your assurance that there is no such personally identifiable evidence but would remind you that should Barclays produce any such evidence at a later date relating to the period before my S.A.R it would be grounds for immediate complaint to the Information Commissioner.

 

Finally, I would remind you of the 40 day deadline for complying with an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) under the DPA. I therefore look forward to hearing from you by 14 November 2006.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

[sandbag]

Excellent! I have been with Barclays for 18 years and i dread to think what the actual amount of charges have been taken from me during that time given that in only 6 years they took nearly 5 grand!

I will be following this thread with interest.

Good luck!

Sandbag.

[victimnomore]

Well, I've been with them for 41 years!!

 

But how long have they been applying these penalty charges? I know they haven't always been there. I believe they were introduced at the same time as "free banking" (to pay for it of course!), but when was that? Anyone know?

 

Thanks for your good wishes, Sandbag.

[angeljen]

You're showing your age, victimnomore!

I didn't even notice the grey on your WeeMee until now!!!

[victimnomore]

Well I opened my account when I was very very very young you know!!!!!!!!! Actually it must have been before I was born because I'm sure I'm only eighteen, honest. (not sure why my daughter claims to be 23 though .. perhaps she's miscounting somewhere, eh??) :D

 

 

(actually the WeeMee's hair is about right for colour AND amount!!)

[victimnomore]

A reply from Peter Townsend!

 

I have a few ideas as to how I want to respond, but I'd very much like to hear other members ideas first.

 

Here's the letter in full;

Dear Mr. Xxx

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT

 

We refer to your letter of 16 October.

 

In reference to information stored in the form of microfiche, there is little to be added to our letter of 9 October. We would not agree that information stored in this way could constitute a "relevant filing system" as defined by the Data Protection Act. The Bank's service centre, which produces duplicate statements, does not refer to such records when producing statement data following a request for transactional information under the Data Protection Act.

 

Notwithstanding the above, you may wish to approach your local branch for assistance and comment. It may be the case that some additional information is in fact available to you that lies beyond the scope of this department to produce.

 

Yours sincerely

 

PT

Obviously, there are a number of points to argue here - but, please, what advice can others give as to how I should proceed????

[pauldean]

I would write something like...

 

You are the data compliance unit, if my local branch may have some more information then I would strongly sugest that you find it, that being your job and all? I remind you that you are required by law to provide that information. I would request to know what possbile format might my local brach use to store my personal information and explain to me why it has not been provided to me if in fact it can’t. If it can be provided then the 40 days is fast running out.... so pull your finger out mate!

 

Then an other reminder about the consequences if they don’t!

 

Good luck.

[bearo]

Personally I would just reply with the letter of non compliance and remind them that your initial 40 days still stands otherwise you will be foreced to report them to the IC and also to gain a court order for the info... their smokescreen of "microfiche" is starting to fade....watch this space!!!

[Spotted Dog]

Watching this with interest. Am pursuing claim for my step daughter who has been stitched up by the bloodsuckers for over 17 years.

I note that there has been some input from the Information Commissioners Office re Abbey and their microfiche argument. This should also apply to Barclays.

 

I am still waiting for a court date and will then start working on claiming back beyond the 6 year period. Contractual Interest from beyond 6 years would bring in a lot more cash.

Good luck with your claim

 

Spotty

[victimnomore]

Thanks for your help, advice and support.

 

I've sent in the Data Protection Act LBA today. I included this paragraph about the "local branch" business that PT tried on (cheeky banker);

You have stated " .. you may wish to approach your local branch for assistance and comment. It may be the case that some additional information is in fact available to you that lies beyond the scope of this department to produce." I would remind you that it is entirely your responsibility under the Data Protection Act to locate and supply any relevant personal data.

I sent it to Radbroke Hall, but with a copy to the lawyers' perch on Level 29 of Churchill Place.

[victimnomore]

Notwithstanding that I'm fighting hard to get my earlier statements (see above), I have to be prepared for the posibility that I won't get them.

 

In that case, I think that the next stage would be to construct an estimate, but I would apreciate any suggestions as to how to do that.

 

I can average out the number of each type of charge in each year for which I know the figures, and apply that average to the years I don't know about. But how much were the fees back then? (I know that "Unauthorised Ovedraft" was £20 in November 1999, and "Unpaids Out" was £25 in February 2002, but does anyone know what they were before?).

 

And, how far back can I claim? I know that my account pre-dates so-called "free" banking and the associated unlawful penalty charges, but can anyone tell me actually when they were introduced?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

[victimnomore]

Also, does anyone know the history of Barclays' interest rates?

 

If I'm going to claim contractual rate, then I think I need to apply the rates for the periods to which they relate (rather than just the current rate), don't I??

[victimnomore]

Sorry I haven't posted for a while, over three months I think.

 

I've been suffering two types of illness - personal and technological.

 

My computer had been getting more temperamental (yes I KNOW they're supposed to be 100% logical .. but .. well, they're just NOT are they!) for some time. Then it, well, sort of died actually. Slowly.

 

My own health hasn't been at all good either. Nothing life-threatening you understand. I won't bore you with details - mostly just all part of the "yukkiness" that goes along with the money-related stress that many members here will understand only too well.

 

Anyway, here I am, feeling better than for a while, sitting at my new computer .. .. look out Bankers!!!!

 

I'll update my case details soon (hopefully tomorrow). But for now let me apologize to any members who have asked for my input, either in open forum or by PM, who have gone unanswered. I'm sorry, I hope you understand I wasn't just ignoring you - I hope you found any support you needed elsewhere.

[mooreda]

look forward to your update..

[victimnomore]

So, let's bring things up to date here. ..

 

What with one thing and another (see above!) I didn't get round to making an estimated claim. I decided to report Barclays to the Information Copmmissioners Office (ICO), to see what their take was on Barclays' "microfiche" excuse.

 

The ICO sent me their assessment dated 17 January. It's a two page letter which contains the phrase " .. it does appear that there has been a contravention of .. .. the Data Protection Act 1998." The letter also stated that they would "write to Barclays to advise them of the outcome of this assessment and to instruct them to provide you with the outstanding documentation as a matter of urgency". How's that?

 

I have another letter from the ICO dated 30 January stating that they have received confirmation from Barclays that the missing documents had been despatched to me on 23 January.

 

I DID receive a letter from Barclays dated 23 January, and sure enough it accompanied a stack of statements .. .. but, sadly, not MY statements!! The idiots had sent me statements for a completely unrelated account for a lady I have no connection with, at a branch a hundred miles away!!#@*!! I wrote and told them of this disgraceful breach of another customer's confidentiality and asked where my own statements were - and sent copies to the customer involved, to my local Barclays branch (where I handed over the statements), and, of course, to the ICO. I've since heard from the other customer, that she has received her statements, and will be making her own complaint. The only good thing about this was the enjoyment I got witnessing the bank's embarrassment when I took the misdirected statements in.

 

Of course, that still leaves me waiting for my statements. I think I'll give then 14 days from when I notified them of their error. Then, if they don't turn up, it'll be LBA time again.

[victimnomore]

Another day - another letter from Barclays - another stack of statements!!

 

The letter apologizes for sending the wrong statements, and blames "human error" (well what the hell else could it be??).

 

But now they claim they've "lost" my original SAR (another "human error"??) - so they've somehow decided to send statement info for Jan 1998 to Oct 1999.

 

So I had to fire another letter off to them, enclosing a copy of my origanal SAR asking for ALL statements since I opened my account. I also sent a cc to the Information Commissioners Office, to keep the pressure on.

 

My account was opened in september 1965. Obviously I can't expect them to produce data going back all that way (the statements were on stone tablets then!!), but I'm damn sure they can go back a lot further than 1998.

 

Let's see what happens next .. time is running out Barclays ..

[victimnomore]

And here's what did happen next ..

 

First, a letter from the ICO. They state that Barclays have told them that they hold statements for TWELVE YEARS. This means I should have been sent statements from 1994/5 to the present so the ICO have passed the case to their "Regulatory Action Division" to be reviewed by one of the ICO's "Remedies Officers". I don't know what that means, but it doesn't sound good for Barclays, does it?

 

Next came a letter from Barclays; "blah, blah, waffle, blah .. I understand that copy statements for the period prior to January 1998 have now been issued to you. I would like to advise that Barclays only keeps copies of such documents for a period of 12 years." So, it's definite then - Barclays keeps data for 12 years (yah boo to Peter Townsend!!)

 

And finally, a batch of statements arrived. Woo hoo? .. er .. no! They only sent, for some reason, statements from 10/01/1996 to 13/1/1998. So we're not there yet!!! I expected the rest would arrive separately within a day or two, but so far nothing.

 

Having had to take a couple of days in hospital last week (nothing serious) I haven't chased them up yet.

 

The plan now is:

1. see if they arrive in Monday's post (they won't of course)

2. phone them so they can give me a sensible reason (they won't of course)

3. County Court claim for non-compliance.

 

I'm fed up.

 

 

 

 

so far I only have statements going back to 10/01/1996 -

[MrsFroogle]

I admire your 'dog with a bone' technique. Keep going, your going to win this one (I can feel it in my waters).