Barclaycard & Microfiche - they are wrong - OFFICIAL

[deadsquirrel]

Just write to them saying something along the lines that following the Information Commissioners Office decision that their microfiche is a relevent filing system you now expect your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to be satisfied in full otherwise you will issue proceddings for non compliance without further notice.

 

Letter went today - a 7 day LBA special. Suggested they supply information as per my SAR of August, or I'll see them in court.

[noomill060]

Phoned Carl Nuttall today about the IC's view that Braclaycrud's microfish red herring was relevant.

 

Carl said Barclaycrud would be meeting with IC this week and if Barclaycrud were ordered to comply with our SAR's they would do so next week.

[tamadus]

Thought the ICO had already told them its relevant. Guess they are trying to wriggle out of it again lmao. Going to be a bit difficult for the iCO to change their mind after telling so many of us that it is relevant

[noomill060]

Indeed, tamadus. Funny thing is, young Carl knew exactly what I was talking about.

 

I expect Barclaycrud have made an appeal against the IC's decision and he has indulged them with a meeting where he can chew their nads off over a pot of Earl Grey and chocolate Hob Nobs.

 

Oh, how the other half live...

[pobat]

Its about time.:D:D:D:D

 

 

Seems Barclaycard have been very naughty, they deserve a spanking!!!

CAG --->

[noomill060]

gordon- not magical. As i stated, they are taken from the profesionally written POC in this thread where the banks solicitor's bowels moved when they read it. They gave up, waved the white flag and coughed up a final settlement of £4500 (including damages) over a charges claim of a little over £1350.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/rbs-bos-successes/49470-contractual-interest-details-case.html?highlight=justwon

[noomill060]

Click on the link, Gordon and see how this charges issue SHOULD be approached.

[AllanLyn]

Hi JLW61

Congrats. on your work with the IC.

I recieved a reply from Barclays on Friday stating the usual about microfiche ... I have drafted the following reply quoting from the response you got from the information commissioner. Is it ok to quote your reference number? do you have any further advice regarding the letter. Any comment woul be appreciated.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Thank you for your prompt reply to my SAR.

I am concerned that you say it is not possible to provide details that you hold on microfiche and I would like to point out the following information relating to an investigation by the Information Commissioner.

I am aware this relates to Barclaycard, however, logic states that youshould also act on the Information Commissioners findings, that “Following our visit, we concluded that the microfiche system used by Barclaycard is a relevant filing system for the purposes of the Act. This means that in our view the information is personal data and should have been supplied as part of your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) within 40 days and for a maximum fee of £10. As a result, it is our view that it is likely Barclaycard has contravened the sixth data protection principle, as this requires data controllers to process personal data in accordance with data subjects' rights.”

Below are highlights from the report.

Case Reference RFA0129130.

“It may first be helpful to clarify that although the information contained within your bank statements, such as details of transactions, is considered to be personal data under the Act so must be supplied in response to a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), the Act simply states that personal data must be supplied in an 'intelligible form'. This means that the information you have requested must be provided if it is held as personal data, but not necessarily in its original format i.e. as a bank statement.

 

As you may be aware, the Act only applies to 'personal data' i.e. information which is processed electronically and which relates to a living, identifiable individual. Information which is held in some manual (non-computerised) records can also be personal data for the purposes of the Act if it is stored in what is known as a 'relevant filing system'.

 

The Information Commissioner's Office (Information Commissioners Office) produced guidance to help data controllers such as Barclaycard decide whether or not manual records were stored in a relevant filing system; however this was amended following a Court of Appeal ruling a number of years ago (Durant v FSA 2003). In light of the outcome of this case, the Information Commissioners Office revised its guidance and narrowed its interpretation of what constitutes a relevant filing system. This guidance suggests that unless the filing system is highly structured, it will fall outside the scope of the Act and led us to conclude that in our view most manual records fall outside the definition of personal data.

 

We recognise that the definition of a relevant filing system is open to interpretation and that not all parties will agree. During recent months we have once again been reviewing our interpretation of what constitutes a relevant filing system and intend to publish new guidance in the near future, although this is not as a direct result of the recent issues surrounding bank charges. The new guidance is likely to represent a significant shift in emphasis from our existing guidance and our view will be that many more manual records are likely to fall within the scope of the Act.

 

Following your complaint and others like it we contacted Barclaycard for a detailed explanation of its microfiche system, including how the information in it is stored and retrieved. It was not clear from the response whether or not the system was a relevant filing system; therefore Barclaycard invited me and a number of my colleagues to inspect it and see the system in operation.

 

Following our visit, we concluded that the microfiche system used by Barclaycard is a relevant filing system for the purposes of the Act. This means that in our view the information is personal data and should have been supplied as part of your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) within 40 days and for a maximum fee of £10. As a result, it is our view that it is likely Barclaycard has contravened the sixth data protection principle, as this requires data controllers to process personal data in accordance with data subjects' rights.

 

We have informed Barclaycard of the outcome of our investigation and I will now write to it under separate cover with details of your complaint. If it has not done so already, I will instruct Barclaycard to provide you with the personal data you requested as part of your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

In addition, section 13 of the Act gives individuals the right to claim compensation if they have suffered damage as a result of a contravention of the Act.

I look forward to your confirmation that the information requested in my Subject Access Request is provided in full including any information held on Microfiche.

[tamadus]

Allanlyn,

 

You dont need to quote case numbers at all. The letter posted here by JLW is identical to letters recieved by a lot of people. The ICO carried out the investigation into Barclaycard as a result of a lot of complaints.

 

All you need to do is remind them of the ICO stance regarding their microfiche and tell them that unless the comply with your SAR then you will report them immediately.

[AllanLyn]

Thanks for your advice Tadmus... The reason I was asking is because io am sending this to Barclays Bank not Barclay Card....

[tamadus]

Thanks for your advice Tadmus... The reason I was asking is because io am sending this to Barclays Bank not Barclay Card....

 

I think the ICo's decision will apply to Barclays as well as Barclaycard. If they try getting that picky then I guess the ICOP have another mass complaint on their hands

[gordonhall]

noomill060 - Short on time at the moment, but I'll make sure I take a good look over the next few days. Thanks for that. Cheers.

[noomill060]

Barclaycard is simply a trading name of Barclay's Bank PLC. They are one and the same company.

[CodyCalling]

A bit of good news.

 

Just phoned Barclaycard regarding how the cheeky b*stards had charged me twice for the Data Access Request. All ready to kick off with them when this nice customer relations lady told me that in light of what the Information Commissioners Office had found they were going to provide me with the microfiched statements from June 2001 to May 2004. Apparently about to be ordered. Don't know why they won't give me pre June 2001. Is that when the charges structure was introduced?

[Bicester1]

Hi.CodyCalling VICTORY!!!

 

Like you just phoned the nice Mr Nuttall. All statements in the post! Barclaycard are caving in!!!!

 

Happy Christmas Barclaycard!

 

Bicester1

[noomill060]

Amazing how a threat of a prison sentence concentrates the minds of guilty people, isnt it?

 

Couldnt really see Carl and Peter lasting long on B block.

 

"Hello, I'm your new cell mate, do have internet access?"

 

"Shut the *@#& up, yo MY b!tch now, microfish pretty boy....":eek:

[noomill060]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....=43&Itemi d=2

 

 

Non disclosure imprisonment threat against RBS Data Controller! [/url] [url=http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=43&itemid=2]

A Consumer Action Group User was today (21/11/06) granted a County Court order in respect of the failure by the Royal Bank of Scotland to comply with his disclosure request under the Data Protection Act.

 

District judge Forrester, making the order commented that had the claimant been able to supply him with the name of the data controller

at the Royal Bank of Scotland that he would have added a threat of imprisonment for non-compliance.

 

The Royal Bank of Scotland now has until January 2007 to comply with the users subject access request. The District Judge has indicated that if the Bank has not complied with the order by that time that he may make an order for imprisonment

[deadsquirrel]

Well, I've had my response to a LBA on the basis of not complying with an SAR from b/card. I will copy the contents this evening, but they will supply statements within 28 days. I'm umming and arring about whether to proceed with claim (including damages) now or on the expiry of the 28 days. Anyone got a view?

[deadsquirrel]

Letter contents from Barclaycard:

 

Dear ....

I write further to your recent letter regarding your request for copy statements.

 

As you are aware the Information Commissioners Office is likely to revise its guidance on non-computerised filing systems and believes that our microfiche records are held on a relevant filing system. Although Barclaycard reserves its position on this matter, as a goodwill gesture I have requested the statements you require from our National Records Centre. You will receive this information within 28 days. Please accept my apologies for the delay.

 

Our position not to provide these documents further to your earlier Subject Access Request was taken as the Information Commissioners Office had previously felt that most manual records fell outside of the definition of personal data. It now appears that their interpretation of what constitutes a relevant filing system is likely to change and they intend to publish new guidance on this in the near future.

 

Should you have any further questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. If my reply does not meet with your expectations you may ultimately be eligable to refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Further details ofthis service are available, blah blah blah

[Bookworm]

I'd write back and say: "You are having a laugh, you are x days gone beyond the 40 days actually allowed to comply with a SAR. I expect my information within 7 days." or words to that effect. The bloody cheek of them

[JLW61]

A further update..

 

today received a letter from B'Card..

 

Basically.. they say they *were* right... but now they are wrong...

 

All statements ordered to comply with original SAR.

[noomill060]

Or in other words- "we're a bunch of wusses and we know we wouldnt last ten minutes in jail."

[TANZARELLI]

I have just writen back to Barclaycard as they are trying that with me feel free to have a look at the letter which I have sent them and adapt it to suit. Its in my therad.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/50532-tanzarelli-barclaycard.html

 

Tanz

[nads75]

YES! Letter in post thismorning, they have bowed under the pressure from the ICO, they will now send my statements even though they dont agree with thier findings blah blah. hehe. Merry Christmas!

[pobat]

Yes i got a letter as well. they are asking for another 28 days from the date of their letter that they just sent me.

ANOTHER 28 DAYS!!!!

 

But i think that have kicked themselves in the nads because that have also sent me a second letter - as a goodwill gesture we will credit your account with the difference between charges you have incurred and the £12 fee recommended by the OFT. This would be £136.

 

It seems that they already have got access to the microfiche and still holding onto it for another 28 days.