Phil and Alison v The Co-op ***WON***

[richwhit1]

Hi Phatram,

 

Did you have any success in obtaining statements beyond 6 years as like you I've only received last 6 years statements and not those for the entirety of the account??

 

richwhit1

[phatram]

Did with MBNA, some from Coop no more at the moment.

[Glenn UK]

i recieved data from the Co-op which was over 9 years old after issuing a claim for no-complaince.

 

Glenn Vs Co-op

 

suggest that you check out my thread to see what i did and if theres anything else you need ask if i can help i will

 

glenn

[LES VOGEL]

Hi I got 12yrs from the woolwich(barclays) mortgage and that was after the account had been closed 2yrs!! so really they went back 14yrs if you see what I mean. another very important point is-- its in their best interest to get you the info, because if they dont or can't then how can they dispute your figures- albeit estimated, barclaycard were well known for refusing to send anyone's statements prior to 2004 and wanted to charge people £3 per statement,until ICO said they were wrong to do so, so we all got them sent by b/c free. so if you are told they can't send them to you for whatever reason just estimate in your favour and hope a judge agree's with you-even if they do turn up at c/court(which barclays did in my case) use it as a bargaining tool against them, but be sure to report them to the ico for non-compliance-(it is hassle for you paper-work wise) but the more complaints the better. cheers LES

[Glenn UK]

Les makes some interesting points but I'm not sure agree with the conclusions.

 

mortgage accounts are different and the limitations act gives you 12 years within which to raise disputes i believe so could explain why they have that much data.

 

Re estimated claims, you are mistaken the bank don't have to disprove the charges you claim, you have to prove them and this is always the case. those bringing the action have to prove their case not the other way round.

 

Re Barclaycard tuning up at court Les what was that for and what was the result please?

 

Glenn

[LES VOGEL]

My understanding is you can "obtain" all the info a bank has on you-but limitation act states you can only claim back 6yrs worth of charges!!! as the account is live they will have legally bound rules to keep all your info on file, for disputes like this. or criminal action via police- they would be destroying vital edvidence- (in a fraud case for instance) my case at court with b/card was estimated because they refused to send all statements-even though they knew how many charges they had levied against me on the account, my point was to use that situation to your advantage-so they have to come up with the info to argue in open court that what you are claiming isnt correct, as said above the judge will always need hard evidence to award damages, but b/card settled on the morning of court at cardiff for what I was claiming which was estimated,(they had charged me £520 in fees but I settled for £950) because I would not budge from the amount I wanted to close the case, out of all the banks that day--barclays were the only bank to turn up to argue their corner in open court- but believe me they "wanted to settle" before we got in front of the judge. the other people got awarded all they were asking for plus any costs on the day like car parking exspenses!! And the judge didnt like the idea that b/c had not complied with dpa, and they had no excuse for the delay either- which i think goes in our favour. You cant say a bank owes you £20,000 if they only really owe you maybe £2,000, but the point is if you are fair in your estimate and the bank cant prove you wrong then that is their problem, as long as you have done all you can to show your being fair. the thing is to keep going even if it means going to court and getting settled that day!!!! cheers les

[LES VOGEL]

added to above for mortgage accounts with deed = you can claim back 12yrs worth of charges as I am doing with woolwich as we speak--les

[Glenn UK]

Les

 

You are correct, if the bank holds data in a relevant filing system then they have to provide it when asked by the subject, in writing with the suitable fee. The terms data and relevant filing system have specific meanings within the act that does mean, in theory at least, they could have information about your account which they would not have to provide, i think this is a theoretical possibility but one which is not found in practice.

 

As far as i am aware there is nothing to stop the bank destroying your data should they so choose, it is rumoured that there is legislation requiring them to hold it for six years, but so far no one, including the ICO and IR, have been able to tell me what this bit of legislation is called. if you know i would be glad to hear of it.

 

I disagree with your assessment of Barclaycards appearance at court, if they wanted to argue their corner they wouldn't have settled.

 

They turned up with the express wish of settling all claims against them and nothing else.

 

If the bank had chosen to go into court the simple comment of 'prove it' would demolish the claim for estimated charges unless you have the evidence.

 

The banks dont go into court because you can prove your charges, they don't go in because they don't want to risk a judgement against them.

 

Estimating claims is risky when it gets to court, maybe the odd charge fine, but there are those who are talking about estimate all charges for the life of their account.

 

Anyway I'm glad you got your money back and lets hope that everyone else does.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[phatram]

Glenn,

did you take them to court for non-comp or just a complaint to info commissioner?

[Glenn UK]

Phatram

 

i took Co-op to court for non-compliance, initially i had a couple of years worth of data from them under the SAR then got the run around.

 

So i submitted a claim for non-compliance in court and got back data which was over 9 years old.

 

Funny thing was they sent a letter saying heres your info and thats all your entitled to and thats all we have.

 

This seemed and still does seem strange to me.

 

My take is that either they still had data and i wasn't entitled to it, in which case i wanted to know why.

 

Or they had supplied me all the data for the account history, which was it?

 

The entered a statement into court the day before a directions hearing, which i received the morning of the hearing.

 

I was not entirely happy with the statements but on balance it was probably all o was going to get and the judge indicated he thought that the matter should be closed.

 

He did give me options but in truth it was clear he thought it was over and i wouldn't want to risk being branded unreasonable.

 

Hope that helps. if you want to see more details on my claim check out Glenn Vs co-op where all the details have been posted.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[phatram]

Thanks

[phatram]

We have finally received a letter from the Co-op.

Dear Mr & Mrs xxxxxxxx

Account Number : xxxxx xxxxxxx

Thank you for your letters dated 13th and 18th December 2006. I am sorry that you have had cause to write in to us and for the delay in my reply.

I can appreciate that you are unhappy with the charges applied to your account. As you are aware, the charges are valid and in line with the Terms and Conditions of your account. It is the responsibility of the customer to monitor the account and ensure that it is kept within agreed limits at all times.

After review, I have credited your account with £5,289.17 as a gesture of goodwill on this occasion only. This figure includes interest at 8%, which is in line with Financial Ombudsman Service guidelines for fair and reasonable reimbursement.

If you have any further enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact Customer Services on 08457 212212 and an adviser will be happy to assist you. We are here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Please find enclosed for your information details of our complaints escalation process.

Yours sincerely

 

Christopher Cardwell Customer Relations Adviser

 

We find it annoying that we have always been charged interest at their unauthorised rate of 20% plus and yet they think we will be happy with 8%, how wrong they are !!!!

And we are going to be making another claim and charging them the rate they have charged us !

[dx100uk]

well it seems to me that they have only paid interest [8%] after you [legally for want of a better word] added it after getting to MCOL stage, where you can add interest.

Am i reading this correct?

i have accepted my charges as a partial payment & sent off a letter about the 16.9% compounded i asked for, giving them 14 days to make a meaningful response in moving the claim forward, else i will process to the next stage. they said when i got my letter informing of GOGW, there is nowhere in the OFT statement that makes REf to interst, so did not have to pay it.

 

now, i am wondering if it might not be better to again accept the new payment as partial & keep this one going till you get what you want, rather than starting a new one?

i am unsure on this...just my thoughs.

 

keep in contact

 

dx100uk

[phatram]

anyone else please?

[phatram]

bump

[phatram]

Dear Mr Cardwell

Account Number: xxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your letter of the 25 January 2007.

We do not consider the charges applied to our account to be fair and just, as they do not reflect the true cost to yourselves. We are happy to accept the £5289.17 as part-payment of the total monies owed to us, but please be aware that our intention is to continue with our claim for charges and compound contractual interest at your unauthorised overdraft rate and any settlement must be unconditional. Once again we enclose a schedule of charges for your attention.

We trust this is to your satisfaction and remain,

Yours sincerely.

Mr xx & Mrs xx xxxxxxxxxx

Enc

[phatram]

Co-op are defending, details to follow, also

letter received from Co-op concerning SAR etc.

[phatram]

MrXX & MrsXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

Customer Care Executive Office Head Office

 

P.O. Box 101 1 Balloon Street Manchester M60 4EP

Tel: (0161) 8295156 Fax: (0161) 8195892 Redirecting to Production Site

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr and Mrs XXXXXX

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST - ACCOUNT NUMBER XXXXXXXXX

I write with reference to our recent correspondence via e-mail regarding your Subject Access Request (SAR) of 24 October 2006.

I am disappointed you feel that we have not fully complied with your request and that you are now intending to file a complaint with the Information Commissioner.

Firstly, I can assure you that there has been no attempt on behalf of The Co-operative Bank to withhold or delay any information to which you are entitled within the scope of the Data Protection Act 1998.

It may be helpful if I explain that, under the Act, a Data Controller has 40 days (calendar days not working days) from the date of receipt of a valid request to completion of the SAR. A valid request is defined as a request in writing enclosing the necessary fee and sufficient information to enable the person to be identified and enable the Data Controller to find the personal data held.

Your request and fee were received on 31 October 2006 and the SAR was therefore due to be completed by 10 December 2006, this being a Sunday we brought the due date forward to 8 December 2006. The SAR was issued on 6 December 2006.

Under current legislation we are obliged to retain personal data for a minimum of 6 years, however, we are obliged to provide all information held to the Data Subject as part of their SAR, including any information still held in excess of the minimum retention period.

Notwithstanding this, your request of 24 October 2006 specifically requested "a complete list of transactions and charges relating to my banking history" or "alternatively, a complete set of statements for that period", together with details of manual intervention.

You will no doubt be aware of the current focus placed on the issue of default charges. As your letter of 24 October 2006 was partly compiled from a template available to the general public to assist with claims for a refund of such charges, and as such only requested limited information within the scope of a SAR, we assumed your SAR pre-empted a refund of charges claim. Indeed, we subsequently received your claim on 13 December 2006.

It is also appropriate to mention at this point that any such claim for a refund of charges will be limited to 6 years under the Limitations Act 1980. This is why the information initially provided covered this period only.

Following your letter of 28 December 2006 we forwarded copies of the additional statements held for the period 1 December 1999 to 27 September 2000, and I now enclose additional notepads which remain on our database.

I apologise for any inconvenience or confusion caused in this matter and hope that I have been able to clarify our actions regarding your SAR.

 

 

Thank you for returning to us with your ongoing concerns. Yours sincerely

 

 

Jackie Lloyd

Customer Care Officer

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We find it amusing that Ms Lloyd says what she does about compliance, as in the envelope with the letter was two more pages of info detailing manual intervention ! So did they comply or not ?

 

 

 

[phatram]

Does anyone think we should reply to this letter from Ms Lloyd or shall we save it all for court? e.g

She says SAR request was received on 31/10/06 and we have proof of delivery for 26/10/06 etc

[dx100uk]

i think the tone of the letter is for information to you, and , as such, needs no reply if taken in that context.

 

they gave you what you wanted within the alloted time as far as i can see, though you make no mention of getting just a list in the first place in your thread, nor when you got the list.

is it in another thread?

 

i think the point on previous to 6 yrs claiming making ref to 1980 act is worthy of note too.

must find that and read it

 

dx100uk

[phatram]

They did NOT comply within the time scale, more info has arrived today !!!!

Thats nearly two months late !!!

[dx100uk]

i still think you are trying to split hairs here.

don't get me wrong though,

i am doing the same as your are with the co-op.

 

in the letter above, it explains quite resonably & logically that your request was viewed as ultimately going to result in a claim for unfair charges, indeed this is qualified by your use of a standard template sar letter & your latter claim speadsheet back 6yrs.

 

there is also a thread about banks only having to supply a list of charges, thus again this tallies, as it would only be a list for last 6yrs, the other data would be irrelevent to a claim.

 

so her dates are correct, & they did meet the deadline.

 

i would concerntrate on trying to get com/cont int as i am, i do not think any establishment body would entertain your non compliance to sar claim.

 

sadly i think she has covered it nicely. she sounds one of the more intelligent & helpfull ones.

 

dx100uk:wink:

[phatram]

They have to supply ALL information they have within 40 days of receiving the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). They did NOT, so they did NOT comply. It's quite straight forward as far as my wifes uncle has informed us( he's a solicitor).

[Guest bong]

Hi Phatram, I am just subscribing really to try and offer help with your claim if needed. I don't have any experience with S.A.R.s so I can't offer any advice as to what to do in that respect.

 

How much is now outstanding on your claim (since their payments) and is all of this over 6 years?

 

why did you say in an earlier post that you're going to be making another claim for the interest at the rate they have charged you - was this not already included in this claim?

 

what does their defence consist of?

 

As regards your post in the consolidated loans thread, I can't really help until you calculate how much of the loans related to the charges & interest part of your debt.

[phatram]

Hi, and thank you for your reply,

We have made one claim for charges and compound contractual interest to be repaid for the period oct 2000 to nov 2006. They have eventually repaid the charges and interest at 8%,this was done in bits and bobs and the last payment and letter was made/sent to us after we had filed at court. We have always been charged at their unauthorised o/d rate so feel it is right they pay us interest at the same rate.They, obviously to us, feel they are superior and don't have to. But after reading Bankfodders thread about such interest, we think we have a good case.