Barclaycard dragging their heels further.....this is a long one...

[Kruger]

After receiving the initial DPA microfiche fob off, I forwarded another letter as per my other thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=4431

 

Now had a very long and personal reply,

 

Dear Mr Kruger

 

Subject Access Request

 

With regard to your request that we provide a computer printout of your transaction on your account from the period 25 March to date we are unable to provide the information requested. Our computer systems do not permit us to print such historic data. Neither do our systems allow us to search for and identify individual charges applied to an account. It is therefore not possible to provide you with a printout of such charges. I would also add that Barclaycard did not introduce default charges on its account until mid 2001. the print out that has been provided to you (they must mean statements back to May 2004 as there is nothing else enclosed) contains the information that we currently have recorded relating to charges on your account.

 

As I explained in my letter dated x April, copy statements held prior to may are stored on microfiche. These statements are therefore not retained in a relelvant filing system and therefore do not fall within the class of documents required to be produced pursuant to a subject access request. Your reference to the case of Smith-v-Lloyds Bank PLC (2005) EWHC 246 (Ch) is puzzling in this regard as that case fully supports Barclaycard’s position. In that case Mr Smith made a subject access request to Lloyds. Lloyds did not disclose all the documents that it held as it took the position that a number of documents held loosely in boxes were not contained in a relevant filing system and therefore were not required to be produced. Mr Justice Laddie agreed with Lloyds and dismissed the court application of Mr Smith to have the documents produced. As with a box of documents the copy statements held by Barclaycard on microfiche are not held in a relevant filing system.

 

You also state that other customers have been provided with computer printouts of transaction information covering “this period”, which I understand to be the period prior to May 2004. As Barclaycard do not hold transaction information prior to May 2004 on computer I do not understand what you are referring to in this regard.

 

Accordingly we are unable to disclose any further statement documentation to you pursuant to your request under the Data Protection Act. As previously advised you may contact the Customer Services team for copy statements. There is a standard charge of £3 per copy statement.

 

Barclaycard is not attempting to obstruct you are delay you. We are however ensuring that all subject access requests made to Barclaycard are dealt with in the same way, whether or not they relate to default fees, so all requests are processed fairly and properly. Barclaycard have made it clear to customers for many years that copy statements held on microfiche are not required to be produced pursuant to a subject access request.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss the issues further

 

Yours sincerely

 

S Walker

 

Head of Data Protection and Legal Counsel

Data Protection Team

Legal and Regulatory Compliance

 

Need some help on a plan of action form here on.

 

Cheers

[Bookworm]

Well, I don't know about plan of action just now, but I'm apoplectic on your behalf!

 

The cheek of them! They're "comparing", not actually saying that their filing system is like the SMith case, eg a loose box... Their semantic evasions are unbelievable. Blink and you've missed it.

 

Well, I don't think you have any choice now. You have all the ammunition you need to lodge a complaint with the IC, and to start a court claim to force them into compliance. I'm about to post a rough draft as a separate thread which B/F kindly drew. Have a look and tell us what you think.

[BankFodder]

Actually, they are using the wrng argument. It clearly is a relavant filing system as the system is structured enough to allow retrieval of the info by reference to identifiers and this is evidenced by the fact that they will sell them to you.

 

their better excuse is disproportionate effort in producing hard copy. However, don't tell them that for goodness sake.

 

Read the DPA FAQ and send them a 7 day letter befor eaction.

read my replies to Clarkey in this forum.

 

It's about time that people started making their claims. it is very straightforward and that is what this secret forum has been set for to start a little trickle of litgation without letting lurkers know what is going on.

 

Let's get going.

[Kruger]

Cheers for the replies,

 

I'll get onto it by the end of the week, got a dissertation in this week so have got quite a bit on!

[dave]

I have, right in front of me at this very second - a print out of every transaction including charges on my Barclaycard account - for the past 6 years!!!

 

so,

 

Our computer systems do not permit us to print such historic data.

 

is a crock of sh*te!

 

You also state that other customers have been provided with computer printouts of transaction information covering “this period”, which I understand to be the period prior to May 2004. As Barclaycard do not hold transaction information prior to May 2004 on computer I do not understand what you are referring to in this regard.

 

Am I not a customer then????

 

Barclaycard is not attempting to obstruct you are delay you.

 

I, for one, believe them.

 

....and my IQ just slipped to about the same as my shoe size.

[rogerebaker]

Im waiting for the SAR to be returned by Barclaycard and I fully expect the Microfishe excuse to be used. I am puzzled as to the relevance of Smith V Lloyds PLC. Having read the judgement it appears to deal with loose documents held in a file and decided that this was not a relevant filling system. ( Much as barclaycard are saying)

 

It didnt deal with microfishe and as I can see it didnt take the issue of relevant filing system any further other than to say loose papers in a file where not.

 

It seems inconceivable to me that the Barclaycards microfishe is not stored in a relevant filling system but Im not sure of the relevance of Smith V Lloyds.

 

sorry if Im being a bit thick but Im Just trying to get myself prepared in advance.

[BankFodder]

Well, Dave's priuntout is brilliant. If dave would permit us to use it as evidence, then I would suggest a county court claim - but instead of disclsoing Dave statements to them in advcne - as we are meant to, we produce them only at the hearing. We tell the judge that they have only just come into our possession. the judge will be fine about it as forstly you will be acting in person - not a lawyer, so you weren't really expoected to know better - but also because the will be furious at BCard's deceit.

 

The beauty of prducing them in court is that they have no chance to prepare a reply, that they will have sworn a statement of truth - which will be false and therefore a serious matter - and also they will have no chance to pullback fromtheir lie by simply making the disloure to you beforehand and therefore avoiding the court action.

If you gave them advance dislosure, they would simply cave in and make the disclosure.

If they can get a pasting in court then we can complain to the IC, give the story to the press - and I think that would be the end of B'card non-compliance for ever and maybe the other banks would get a good shock as well.

 

Where are you in the country? I would be happy to try and come along and help you if you would like that and if it wasn't too inconvenient.

 

I think that we should keep this very quiet. Don't refer to it in any public forum.

if this succeeds - and it is difficult to see how it can't, then this private forum will have paid off wonderfully.

[moores2525]

In reference to the letters received from BarclayCard saying that they can't provide DPA information, I've just had the same reply this morning. First they sent me computer printouts from which I can see that I've paid 19x penalty charge (£20?) I wrote back and asked for full details and eventually they sent me the letter below. I've noticed a line I haven't seen yet in letters sent to fellow Consumer Action Group users......(see in bold below)

 

Dear Mr Moore

 

Subject Access Request

 

Thank you for your recent leter dated 21 April 2006.

 

With regard to your request that we provide a computer printout of your transaction on your account from the last 6 years to date we are unable to provide the information requested. Our computer systems do not permit us to print such historic data. Neither do our systems allow us to search for and identify individual charges applied to an account. It is therefore not possible to provide you with a printout of such charges. I would also add that Barclaycard did not introduce default charges on its account until mid 2001. the print out that has been provided to you contains the information that we currently have recorded relating to charges on your account.

 

As I explained previously, copy statements held prior to May 2004 are stored on microfiche. These statements are therefore not retained in a relevant filing system and therefore do not fall within the class of documents required to be produced pursuant to a subject access request. The statements are held in date order and more than one customer statement may be held on an individual film of microfiche.

 

Your reference to the case of Smith-v-Lloyds Bank PLC (2005) EWHC 246 (Ch) is puzzling in this regard as that case fully supports Barclaycard’s position. In that case Mr Smith made a subject access request to Lloyds. Lloyds did not disclose all the documents that it held as it took the position that a number of documents held loosely in boxes were not contained in a relevant filing system and therefore were not required to be produced. Mr Justice Laddie agreed with Lloyds and dismissed the court application of Mr Smith to have the documents produced. As with a box of documents the copy statements held by Barclaycard on microfiche are not held in a relevant filing system.

 

You also state that other customers have been provided with computer printouts of transaction information covering “this period”, which I understand to be the period prior to May 2004. As Barclaycard do not hold transaction information prior to May 2004 on computer I do not understand what you are referring to in this regard.

 

Accordingly we are unable to disclose any further statement documentation to you pursuant to your request under the Data Protection Act. As previously advised you may contact the Customer Services team for copy statements. There is a standard charge of £3 per copy statement.

 

Barclaycard is not attempting to obstruct you are delay you. We are however ensuring that all subject access requests made to Barclaycard are dealt with in the same way, whether or not they relate to default fees, so all requests are processed fairly and properly. Barclaycard have made it clear to customers for many years that copy statements held on microfiche are not required to be produced pursuant to a subject access request.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss the issues further

 

Yours sincerely

 

Lindsay P Hilton

Data Protection Manager

Legal & Regulatory Compliance

Dept LRC

 

*************

 

Like Bookworm I have details of the number of charges they have made from the initial computer printout they sent me, should I send them a claim letter for No of charges x £20 ? Should I report them to the IFO?

 

Help!

[Kruger]

Just an update to let you guys know I'm still alive! My dissertation is in this Friday and so has been ruling my life recently, then its back to fighting Barclaycard, the DPA 40 days passed for me today aswell.

 

Will update after the weekend when the hangover has cleared, lol

[Kruger]

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