Discussion re DPA - Manual Interventions

[zubo]

All

 

I think this piece of legislation is widely overlooked or ignored. I have a dispute since May with Yorkshire Bank where I am chasing them for money but also I am trying to force them into compliance. I am doing this not only to make them work for each request but also because there maybe a way to prevent them doing us credit harm.

 

Allow me to elaborate. On about the third letter looking for this information from YB I sent them this:

 

Section 7 (d) where the processing by automatic means of personal data of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct, has constituted or is likely to constitute the sole basis for any decision significantly affecting him, to be informed by the data controller of the logic involved in that decision-taking.

 

You first tell me that I am not entitled to any manual intervention data, then say there is no specific mention of manual intervention in the act – whilst the act does not use that terminology it is clear that your are obliged to provide me with a lot more information than my statements – that specifically is the manual intervention I am looking for, please re-read the act and comply.

____________________________________________________

the point is that at various points your account may attract the attention of someone who reviews it, as in my case and withdraws my overdraft. The basis of information he uses must be provided to you because it significantly affected you. You must be given the opportunity to question the detail and if incorrect to get the decision reversed. What about where they decide to supply faulty information to credit agencies based on the manual interventions?

_______________________________________________________

their response:

please note that section 7 (1)(d) of the Data Protection Act 1998 allows an individual the right to have any automated process resulting in decision being made about him explained to him in layman's terms. This relates to Section 12 of the Act, which specifies the individuals right not to have automated decisions made about him, or, where these have occurred to to have these reconsidered manually. Where an automated decision has been made without prior notification to the individual, they must be informed as soon as possible of this. The rights of individuals under the Act do not extend to information on what, if any, manual reconsiderations of any automated decisions has been made.

We maintain our position on this matter. ie pursue this further with the IC's office.

 

 

 

I must say I disagree, but would appreciate any other views before I lodge a complaint. Can I ask for the IC to withdraw their information licence as bein an unfit body?

 

 

 

 

Thanks

 

 

 

george

[e28bigalbexley]

HI george.

Happy New Year

Sorry i may have miss read your post but surely all you require is a simple yes there have been, or there have been no instances of manual intevention which in most cases is likely, as now the bank CC co have told you all the charges on the statements/printouts have not been subject to manual intervention, you can quite happily file your Prelim letter and schedule of charges without them contesting certain penalties.

 

Have you got any money back or what stage are you at.

 

AL:)

[zubo]

Al

 

Happy New Year too!!

 

I may have misunderstood what you are saying - to me - getting your unlawful charges back is only part of what you can do with the legislation - just printed the act off - its about an inch thick....

 

I want to see what dodgy decisions they have made about my account, how or why did they decide to withdraw my overdraft - this is important since they literally forced me into taking a personal loan to pay off the overdraft...

 

all these are manual interventions as defined by the act

 

I will not accept the general sweeping statements made by finance houses that they use credit agencies and their own secret scoring to determine your financial future.

 

I believe that the Act provides you with powers which are much more far reaching - if you are the subject of anything which affects YOUR financial well being you are entitled to know the EXACT PROCESS and data used IN YOUR PARTICULAR CASE. You are uninterested in any other.

 

That I think will make for a healthier relationship between us all.

 

George

[e28bigalbexley]

Hi George

Is that not the purpose of an open ended Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)(subject access request):idea:

 

To request all data they hold on you

 

AL

[Glenn UK]

Couple of points

 

I think you need to be clear in your SAR what it is you want.

 

Please supply me with a complete list of transactions and charges relating to my banking history with your organisation. Alternatively, a complete set of statements for that period will be acceptable.

 

Additionally, where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my banking business with you.

 

As far as Im aware there is no reason for the bank or whoever to provide anything outside of these items specifically, so its not open ended as far as i can tell.

 

Regarding the banks decisions about you, the act seems to specifically inlcude this kind of item in its defintion of data.

 

This is taken for the guidance issued by the ico

 

2.2.6 What about expressions of opinion or intention?

The definition of personal data contained in the Act now expressly includes any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of an individual. This aspect of the definition was not included in the definition of "personal data" in the 1984 Act. The consequence of this may mean, for example, that an employer who processes appraisals of employees would have to disclose not only his opinions of the employees but also any intention to offer or decline promotion on the basis of those opinions subject to any exemption available at any particular time.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[zubo]

Al,

 

There is nothing open-ended - the Act is very specific. Also the Bank will try not to disclose information unless you make it very clear to them.

 

Which is the point in Glenn's post. The templates do state what you want but imho you can go a lot further by demanding information making reference to the appropriate sections and giving an example related to you if possible where that information was used.

So - in my case - you decided to withdraw my overdraft - ref soso in the Act says that you have to tell me exactly what information you used and when you used it.

 

Hope you agree.

 

Anyone else have suggestions - Glenn's guidance by Commisioner's is good.

 

I just had a thought - if you hit a brick wall as I have with YB, could you challenge the Bank to prove their competence at administering the Act and hence their worthiness under the Act of being able to be a data administrator? I mean, for them to completely misinterpret some of these fundamental principles does lead you to that conclusion.

Thoughts?

 

thanks

 

george

[e28bigalbexley]

Hi Zubo

Thanks to you and Glenn:)

Ok yes i think i see what you mean now, if you dont specifically ask for it they are not at liberty to disclose

 

Cheers AL

[thecornflake]

Section 7 (d) where the processing by automatic means of personal data of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct, has constituted or is likely to constitute the sole basis for any decision significantly affecting him, to be informed by the data controller of the logic involved in that decision-taking.

 

I'm not sure whether you need to mention a specific incident, as we don't do that with the manual intervention, we just ask for any evidence of manual intervention on the account. So maybe the following would suffice:

 

At any point during the time I have held an account with yourselves, whenever the processing by automatic means of my personal data held by yourselves where I have been the data subject, for the purposes of evaluating my creditworhtiness, reliabilty or conduct, has constituted the sole basis for decisions significantly affecting myself (for example but not limited to: Returning of direct debits or removal, addition or amendment of credit facilities such as overdrafts) I require you to provide me with information as to the logic involved in that decision taking.

 

I don't think they could argue about this, as long as it's clear which information you want (the logic involved) and which incidents you are referring to (using data they hold on you for the purpose of evaluating bla bla...).

 

I'm just about to send my DPA to Natwest, I might try putting this in and see what happens.

[soldier girl]

Hello All

I received this response when I requested details of manual intervention on my account

 

"....We consider 'manual intervention' to mean an action that is not automatic or computer driven. Not all manual interventions are recorded, for example if a member of Staff looks at a paper document relating to your account, a record is not always required. Similarly some interventions may relate to work carried out by a department rather than individuals where no central record of activity is kept because this is not the kind of information we need, or more importantly, that a customer would usually request"

 

(I would make the point that the charges made on our accounts are unlawful regardless of manual intervention or not because of the unrealistic amount charged )

Regards Soldier Girl

[Glenn UK]

SG

 

The problem is that the cost of our breaches can be recovered, if there is manual intervention then the cost will be higher than if the action the bank takes is completely automatic.

 

By asking for this information we are effectively stopping the banks from using this as an excuse in court should it get there.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

 

PS if you knew this sorry for teaching you to suck eggs.

[soldier girl]

Point taken If it was the case that the amount charged was fair then I can accept that it would only make sense that manual intervention admin would cost more.

What I wanted to point out was that the banks (Abbey in my case) appear not to have this information available when requests for it are made RE: DPA Access request

SG x

[Glenn UK]

SG

 

 

I agree with that entirely, but you know the sneak so and so's might just change theyre mind in court if we dont ask the question, this is something that could catch people out who dont need to do a SAR.

 

At least it could put some claimants off if they dont have the support of a forum like this.

 

Glenn

[soldier girl]

That's true - I was forgetting that some of us are very organised and have all our statements !! But a good point made Glenn.

SG

[zubo]

SG

 

I would most definitely challenge any Bank putting out a response like that. All Finance houses review the risks they have every month - and that is not an automatic process.

 

These sly b+++ards rely on us not knowing their processes and not asking the correct questions and prodding deeper. Every decision taken must be recorded - manually. The bank statements imho give you a tiny piece of information.

 

There is a treasure trove to be explored and mapped for our friends here to exploit.

 

While I like the previous posters suggestion - in generic terms - this is what I mean - AND I have used it, you need to really paint the picture and say that - how often do you review my account? what is recorded? what decisions did you make?

 

PUSH PUSH PUSH THEM!!!

 

Nothing is given freely - and always remind them you are entitled to it and whinge and complain if you think you havent got it to the DPA Commissioner

 

george

[soldier girl]

I hear you George and I did get the data I requested after I challenged them for same. With regard to the denial of manual intervention, I have their written word as detailed above regarding this. Yes of course it's questionable but equally, it goes against them in court (were it ever get there!) because they would not be able to make a higher cost claim for it if they say they have no record of it.

SG x

[thecornflake]

Yes manual intervention would increase the loss of the breach of contract. However, they either -

 

1) Keep records of manual intervention and therefore have provide them to you. If this happened I doubt they would be very happy about their decision making methods being made public - I'm sure they are not very fair or reasonable and would probably constitute breaches of banking standards and possibly human rights laws.

 

2) They don't have records of intervention and therefore CANNOT CLAIM IT BACK EVEN IF IT DID HAPPEN AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. They would have to prove the costs (plus any others) to the courts in order to prove their charges recover only incurred costs.

 

So it doesn't matter whether it happens or not, what matters is that they can't prove it ever happens anyway.

[zubo]

Yes manual intervention would increase the loss of the breach of contract. However, they either -

 

 

Cornflake, this darn ManFlu is addling my brain... could you perhaps elaborate simply what increase the loss - so a very big loss of breach of contract - what breach of contract? me no understand...

 

I guess I am being so singleminded in pushing for this information....

 

yeah I don't give a damn if it exposes all their secrets - my data is much more valuable than their trade secrets - and I will go to court to fight it!

[thecornflake]

Cornflake, this darn ManFlu is addling my brain... could you perhaps elaborate simply what increase the loss - so a very big loss of breach of contract - what breach of contract? me no understand...

 

I guess I am being so singleminded in pushing for this information....

 

yeah I don't give a damn if it exposes all their secrets - my data is much more valuable than their trade secrets - and I will go to court to fight it!

 

Ok,

Quick answer as I'm sure someone else can elaborate.

 

1) The basis of our claims is that failing to keep enough money in your account and therefore direct debits failing and going over your limit breaches the terms of your contract with your bank (based on their terms and conditions)

 

2) In UK contract law for breach of contract you can only cliam back 'liquidated losses', i.e. what it costs the bank when this happens.

 

3) This is widely agreed to be the cost of automated computer processing, likely to be pence rather than pounds.

In fact and investigation on a recent programme worked out the MAXIMUM cost would be £2.50 for a failed DD, and £4.50 for a bounced cheque.

 

4) The banks are legally entitled of course to recover these costs but they won't give away their costs (hence no court cases) and instead charge us ridiculous amounts of money. Unlawfully.

 

5) If manual intervention was involved in failing direct debits the cost of human workers time would be claimable by the banks, increasing the cost. However this is unlikley, at the very least because they would probably need thousands of staff to handle each one manually. Some occassional manual intervention no doubt does occur from time to time but they can't prove this.

 

Hope this makes sense, sorry for any typos - I'm busy doing somehting else at the moment.

 

Reply any quesitons and I'll be happy to answer. However you should read the FAQs properly to understand the full process and you will get more info on the exact legal terminology and laws involved.

[e28bigalbexley]

Ok,

Quick answer as I'm sure someone else can elaborate.

 

1) The basis of our claims is that failing to keep enough money in your account and therefore direct debits failing and going over your limit breaches the terms of your contract with your bank (based on their terms and conditions)

 

2) In UK contract law for breach of contract you can only cliam back 'liquidated losses', i.e. what it costs the bank when this happens.

 

3) This is widely agreed to be the cost of automated computer processing, likely to be pence rather than pounds.

In fact and investigation on a recent programme worked out the MAXIMUM cost would be £2.50 for a failed DD, and £4.50 for a bounced cheque.

 

4) The banks are legally entitled of course to recover these costs but they won't give away their costs (hence no court cases) and instead charge us ridiculous amounts of money. Unlawfully.

 

5) If manual intervention was involved in failing direct debits the cost of human workers time would be claimable by the banks, increasing the cost. However this is unlikley, at the very least because they would probably need thousands of staff to handle each one manually. Some occassional manual intervention no doubt does occur from time to time but they can't prove this.

 

Hope this makes sense, sorry for any typos - I'm busy doing somehting else at the moment.

 

Reply any quesitons and I'll be happy to answer. However you should read the FAQs properly to understand the full process and you will get more info on the exact legal terminology and laws involved.

 

 

Thankyou Flakey, Now if only i could express myself like that:)

[zubo]

Ok,

Quick answer as I'm sure someone else can elaborate.

 

1) The basis of our claims is that failing to keep enough money in your account and therefore direct debits failing and going over your limit breaches the terms of your contract with your bank (based on their terms and conditions)

 

2) In UK contract law for breach of contract you can only cliam back 'liquidated losses', i.e. what it costs the bank when this happens.

 

3) This is widely agreed to be the cost of automated computer processing, likely to be pence rather than pounds.

In fact and investigation on a recent programme worked out the MAXIMUM cost would be £2.50 for a failed DD, and £4.50 for a bounced cheque.

 

4) The banks are legally entitled of course to recover these costs but they won't give away their costs (hence no court cases) and instead charge us ridiculous amounts of money. Unlawfully.

 

5) If manual intervention was involved in failing direct debits the cost of human workers time would be claimable by the banks, increasing the cost. However this is unlikley, at the very least because they would probably need thousands of staff to handle each one manually. Some occassional manual intervention no doubt does occur from time to time but they can't prove this.

 

Hope this makes sense, sorry for any typos - I'm busy doing somehting else at the moment.

 

Reply any quesitons and I'll be happy to answer. However you should read the FAQs properly to understand the full process and you will get more info on the exact legal terminology and laws involved.

 

Hey Cornflake

 

No manflu, lots of reading and prepping on my debt mountain and I thought - let me get back to chasing MIs - re-read everyones great comments and realized the subtlety of why we ask the question and demand an answer....

 

hohoho

 

Relaxed now, lets get on with the main task in hand - kick some CCAa++e