Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would also take this opportunity to add that I don't really understand why you purchased an insurance policy for this watch – unless it offered you something like new for old, accidental damage or that the policy was transferable to a new owner in the event you decided to sell the watch. If there is not the features that interested you then you are perfectly adequately covered by your consumer rights contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and of course it would be unlawful for John Lewis to attempt to exclude or limit liability in case something happened to the watch and it ceased to be of satisfactory quality for a reasonable period of time. By and large these extended warranties are a waste of money
    • Sunak to new MPs at the Kings Speech debate. Rishi Sunak, in the king's speech debate, tells new MPs that "life comes at you fast" on the government benches. "Before you know it you end up with a bright future behind you and are left wondering whether you can credibly be an elder statesman at the age of 44," he adds.
    • Properly declared means that you declared the exact value of the item that you sent and by and large you are limited in the value that you can claim to that declared value.  It seems that you didn't declare the value of the accompanying insurance and so if you want, you can go ahead and claim it and we will help you but by and large although your chances of recovering the value of the watch are much better than 95%, The chances of you claiming the value of the lost insurance are much less.  It's up to you if you want to try . Please do the reading that we have advised and start preparing your letter of claim and post the draft here. I suggest that you think about posting up a draft letter of claim on about Sunday which will give you lots of time to do necessary reading  
    • The dealership is not the issue, the technician who I have known for a long time explained where the fault lies, the other garage for lack of a better word did a p**s  poor job of putting the brake pad on where the piston was not lined up correctly which caused uneven pressure on inner pad, the peg on rear of pad not sat ingrove of piston.
    • I Received a writ today from the sherif court there is form form 07 if intention to defend the solicitors are shoosmiths llp for Lowell portfolio    thanks please let me know your thoughts also much appreciated 
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Barclaycard defending DPA request in court


Nyati
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6384 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I received an allocation questionnaire from the court today where Barclaycard is defending their right to charge £3 per copy of their statements.

 

I cannot see anywhere on the website suggesting what to put on Other information. I don't want my case to be thrown out because of a technicality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) for my Barclaycard and they only sent me statements from May 2004. I claimed a refund of £2,000 or have all my statements. They only offered £300 and refused to pay any more. So I lodged a MCOL claim for Barclaycard to give me all my statements and pay my £30 court costs and £20 costs incurred.

 

Barclays have defended their stance and the court has sent me an allocation questionnaire. I know there is some help completing the AQ for refunds but I can't find suggestions for this type.

 

Could anyone help either by directing me to a place (on this website) were I can find the help I need or by giving a suggestion on what to write in the space for Other Information on the AQ. I don't want to lose this because of a technicality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks but my problem is that Barclaycard are not defending a refund claim as such but they are defending their charge to obtain bank statements. I have completed an allocation questionnaire for a refund claim before and I think this website offers fantastic support for that. But I am not sure if it offers similar support for this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nyati - pse read the FAQ's on this site from the beginning and I think you will get back on track - the DPA does not provide for you to get copy statements, it forces the holder of any data about you (in this case Barclaycard) to release that data. I don't understand why you have lodged a MCOL claim to get your statements - you seem to be doing things a little out of synch (unless I am misreading waht you have said, in which case I apologise)

If you think my advice has been helpful, please click on the scales to the left :) thank you!

 

Non illegitimi carborundum

 

 

I wish I was a glow worm,

A glow worm's never glum!

 

How can you be grumpy,

when the sun shines out yer bum?! :p

 

 

Amex * 2 *** WON *** Settled

Marbles ****WON*** In full settlement

Capital 1 ***WON*** In full settlement

MBNA ***WON**** In full settlement

Barclaycard ***WON*** In full settlement

Barclays Bank - ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey (Mrs Chorlton) ***WON*** In full settlement

Abbey (Mr and Mrs C) - MCOL submitted 16/5/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Below are the details I put on my MCOL claim which is what Barclaycard are contesting. Basically, in their defence they are saying they have given me sufficient information in the context of a "relevant filing system" and they are not obliged to give the data held in microfiche form. They are preapared to give me statements covering the period prior provided I pay £3 per statement. I know, and they know, what I want is not statements but details of charges. This is what I want to make clear in the allocation questionnaire. My fear is that if I repeat the staff in my initial claim the judge may be annoyed and throw my claim out. My apologies if hadn't made it clearer before.

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The Defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject.

 

2. The Claimant has an account number xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around [date].

 

3. On [date] the Claimant sent a Subject Access Request, pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to the Defendant.

 

4. The Defendant has failed to comply.

 

5. By virtue of the Defendant's failure to comply with the Subject Access Request the Claimant has suffered damage.

 

6. The damage caused is:

Extra costs incurred in addition to court costs, due to the Defendants failure to comply - this includes the cost of additional correspondence and time spent preparing documents and seeking legal advice, I estimate this cost to be £20.00

 

7. The Claimant seeks an order that the Defendant do comply with the Claimant's Subject Access Request

 

8. Under the terms of Section 15(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998, where the Defendant contests that information requested under the Claimant's Subject Access Request is not included within the scope of Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Claimant requests that the Court inspects that information, and where it finds that the Defendant's opinion is unfounded, that it orders such information be included within the information supplied to the Claimant under the Subject Access Request.

 

9. Damages and costs within the discretion of the Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nyati

 

Can you also post the defence, i am finding your comments and questions confused as to exactly what it is that the bank are doing and what you want?

 

I f you used MCOL i am surprised its go this far since i was under the impression MCOL was for monetary claims only and you have asked for the court to enforce the DPA.

 

For what its worth the bank can charge for providing statements so when you say they are defending this issue, it seems to me you are not sure exactly what you want.

 

Sorry if this seems harsh but perhaps if you posted their defence it might shed some light on things.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nyati

 

Can you also post the defence, i am finding your comments and questions confused as to exactly what it is that the bank are doing and what you want?

 

Barclays refused to give me statements prior to May 2004. I filed a claim as advised by this site and used this site's particulars of claim. Barclays have defended (see below) and I do not know how to proceed. Obviously I need to complete the allocation questionnaire and sent it before end of this week, but at the same time Barclays wrote and asked me if I still wanted copy statements. I want them but if I tell them to give me what then happens to the court claim. The court has also sent me a court date 21/02.

:confused:

Barclays' Defence

  1. Save for any admissions made in this defence, the claimant's claim is denied and the claimant put to strict proof.


  2. As regards paragraph 1, it is admitted that the defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998.


  3. It is admitted that the claimant has a Barclaycard account with the defendant under number xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx.


  4. As regards paragraph 3, it is admitted that the claimant made a subject access request to the defendant for copies of his account, some of which were dated prior to May 2004. The defendant supplied copies of the statements from May 2004 onwards, for a fee not exceeding the prescribed maximum under the Data Protection Act 1998, of £10. However for the statements dated prior to May 2004, the defendant advised the claimant that a charge of £3.00 was required for each statement, due to such statements not being held in a relevant filing system, within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998.


  5. Paragraph 4 is denied and the defendant repeats paragraph 4 herein.


  6. Paragraph 5 & 6 are denied and the claimant put to strict proof. It is denied that the claimant has suffered damage and the claimant is put to strict proof as to his alleged loss and steps taken to mitigate the alleged loss and the steps taken to mitigate the alleged loss. The Defendant will contend that it complied with the Claimant's subject access request as referred to in Paragraph 4 above and is willing to supply copies of the statements dated prior to May 2004, upon payment by the claimant of the required fee. The defendant will contend that in the circumstances it is not liable for the extra costs, which it notes has not been pleaded by the claimant, as alleged or at all, and the claimant is not entitled to such alleged costs.


  7. Paragraph 7 is denied and the defendant will contend that it has complied with the claimant's subject access request as set out in paragraph 4 above. The defendant will contend that, if by paragraph 7a of the claim, the claimant is requesting copies of relevant information prior to May 2004, then upon payment of the required fee the defendant will supply such information. As regards paragraph 7b the defendant will contend that it requires clarification of the information sought by the claimant.


  8. Paragraph 8 is denied and the defendant will contend that the claimant is not entitled to damages and costs as alleged or at all. The amount claimed of £[less than £30] is denied and the claimant put to strict proof.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so no w ican see what you and they have posted at court, you said you had been told on this site what to do, have you got another thread with any mor einfo posted in it?

 

It would also be useful to know why they say the info isnt on a relvent filing system, do yoy have any data fro B/card on this matter?

 

FWIW have you seen the letter from the ICO re Barclaycards fiche system?

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I followed the step by step guide of the litigation process and info on other threads. I just did what most people said they had done up to the point I am at.

 

I only received statements from May 2004 to date. I have got no other data from them except that.

 

I have seen the letter from the Information Commissioner and I was thinking I could use some bits of what it says on the allocation questionnaire. I think I saw a letter someone wrote to Barclays (or another bank I can't remember) quoting bits from the information commissioner's letter.

 

Could i also do that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the allocation quesitonnaire isnt the place to make a case as such but perhpas you could prepare a draft order and offer it to the court, along with the ICO letter asking them ti simply order compliance.

 

FWIW I was speaking to the ICO today and they are very interested in the behaviour of barclaycard. not that it helps you at all.

 

When does the AQ have to be in?

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...