Nat West

[Seminole]

I thought it might be helpful to give some detail on my experiences with the IC in relation to my Nat West claim. The issues here are very straightforward but it gives an indication of the process.

 

I wrote to Nat West in February using the original template letter that combined a demand for repayment with a DPA request. Because my account was closed some time ago I didn’t have my account number and so there was a short exchange of correspondence in which Nat West claimed to not be able to find my account details. Eventually I did their job for them but I then received a letter from Stuart Higley, a senior manager who wrote:

 

“The production of Subject Access information under the Data Protection Act (1998) is a snapshot of information held at the time of application. On the basis that your account is closed, there is no detail to share with you.”

 

This is clearly nonsense and I suspect that it was merely a play for time as, in this case, the charges mostly arose just over six years ago and every day that passed meant that the recoverable amount fell.

 

As a result of this I commenced an estimated claim against Nat West and used the complaints form on the IC website to make a fairly straightforward complaint that Nat West was mis-interpreting the Act. I added that I suspected that this mis-interpretation was willful.

 

After about two weeks, on 20 March I received a letter from Matthew Negus Casework and Compliance officer who said:

 

“The decision has been made to deal with the matter as a Request for Assessment under section 42 of the DPA.

 

On receipt of a request for assessment, we are under a duty, in most instances to assess whether it is likely or unlikely that the processing in question has been, or is being, carried out in compliance with the provisions of the DPA. However, we have discretion as to how we carry out the assessment and as to what action, if any, to take.

 

We have considered your request in accordance with this policy and we are of the view that the information you have provided justifies further investigation.

 

….

 

In view of this, I will now write to RBS…for their comments as to why you had not received a substantive response to your subject access request”.

 

On 13 April I received a letter from the IC upholding the complaint. The key paragraphs:

 

"RBS responded by confirming that you had been incorrectly advised by a member of staff that Nat West Bank no longer held any personal data which related to yourself. However, they assured me that the member of staff concerned had been advised of their oversight and that your subject access request would be dealt with in its entirety

 

On this basis it appears likely that there has been a contravention of the sixth data protection principle of the DPA. The rights to subject access under sections 7 to 9 of the Act fall within this principle, which states “Personal data…”

 

We are of the view, therefore, that is unlikely that the processing concerned has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the DPA. This is because your subject access request was not dealt with by Nat West Bank within the required time period of 40 days.

 

I will now write to RBS to notify them of my assessment. I shall make it clear however, that we do not consider that they need take any further action as a result of this assessment as they have confirmed that the staff member concerned was notified of their oversight and that your subject access request would be dealt with in its entirety.

 

It may be helpful for me to explain that a contravention of one of the Data Protection principles is not itself a criminal offence and the Commissioner has no power to “punish” a data controller. In such instances, the Commissioner will seek a resolution to the contravention and once satisfied that it has been remedied then in general no further action will be taken.”

 

I wasn’t wholly satisfied with this response and so I wrote back to the IC saying:

 

“I note that you have received a response from RBS and I am pleased to see that they will now be complying with my DPA request. However, I have not yet heard from them.

 

I am rather concerned that you have simply accepted their explanation that this issue arose from an oversight. I would accept that if the member of staff concerned had been reasonably junior. However, Mr Higley describes himself as a “Senior Manager”. Having dealt professionally with Nat West at that level, I find it hard to believe that this was an oversight.”

 

I received a response yesterday saying:

 

“I appreciate your concern regarding the explanation you were given by the staff member concerned at Nat West Bank in response to your subject access request. However, as RBS have assured me the individual concerned has been notified of their mistake and that your subject access request will now be dealt with in its entirety, we would not consider any further action to be appropriate at this time.

 

RBS were clear that they would deal with your request to Nat West Bank accordingly. However, at the time of writing they did no use language which suggested the request had already been dealt with.

 

If, after waiting a reasonable period of time, you do not receive a substantive response to your subject access request from RBS, I would be grateful if you could bring the matter to my attention”.

 

Overall, I suppose I got the result of making Nat West take notice and agree to process the request, However, if I hadn’t made the simultaneous court claim I would have lost two months of charge recovery. I am concerned by the IC's claimed absence of power and by their failure to address the issue I raised about the seniority of the person refusing the request.

[Seminole]

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

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