Information commisioner finds against Abbey

[livelylad]

Excellent news.

[lesser1010]

brilliant news,let's hope it stops them messing people about now

[barracad]

About time too

[Guest Niklowe]

That's quick, I only complained to the Information Commissioners Office yesterday about Abbey! LOL. 7 day Letter off first post monday then.

[BaldyBaldwin]

just tagging on

[lickthewallfatboy]

bet that has wiped the smile off of Abbey faces!!

[Glenn UK]

I want to know what the people at Barclaycard are thinking too!!!

 

I wonder if their grinning still?

 

Glenn

[welly]

At long last :):)

[bish]

Did not need my SAR to make a claim but still requested one, still not received it. Oh abbey you are going to suffer if I have anything to do with it. Great news, Just need the OFT to do their job now, sort out the crooks from the thieves.

 

Regards bish.

[wayne.hunt]

Still waiting for microfiche after four months, But they took the ten pounds off me fast enough.

This is really good news!:grin:

[joebloggs]

Doesn't apply to me, but great news in any case.

Just another chink in the armour of the those that have had the benifit of our money for all these years.

[pollyjohnson]

where can we see the findings or report from the ICO?

[Pandapa]

This is fantastic news. Its no wonder the Ladys at Abbey were so helpful.

A Lady by the name Louise Phoned me at work on friday to inform me she was going to prepare the statements that where on the system right away and those that are on microfiche will follow in a weeks time.

Well Abbey thought they had it all. I'm so pleased.

[GaryH]

Great news! Just as well too, I've already filed against them for non-compliance on the assumption their argument was bull****, before I found out the ICO were investigating. They've just acknowledged it, so I'll expect the statements soon!

[saddler10]

Well done to everone who has worked so hard on getting this result. Barclaycard have been using the Microfiche argument for my partner's account. I think it's the right time for a little reminder!!!

 

Paul

[7givenchy]

Great news!! I hear the same may apply to to Barclaycard

[victimnomore]

Great news indeed.

 

A couple of questions ..

 

1. (seconding pollyjohnson above) has anyone got a link to a quotable reference? (couldn't find anything on the IC site),

 

2. Has anyone any idea what implication this has for other banks (e.g Barclays) who also use "the microfiche argument"?

[Glenn UK]

Great news indeed.

 

A couple of questions ..

 

1. (seconding pollyjohnson above) has anyone got a link to a quotable reference? (couldn't find anything on the Information Commissioner site),

 

There is not as yet a report, the information published has arisen as a result of discussions which have taken place between the Information Commissioners Office and the CAG.

 

The Information Commissioners Office told the CAG about this matter last week i.e that a decision had been made in principle but Abbey were supplying further info.

 

Abbey themselves broke the story and it was agreed that the CAG could inform its member of the situation.

 

It is my understanding that the Information Commissioners Office will be writing to all those who have complained informing them officially in the next 7 - 10 days.

 

2. Has anyone any idea what implication this has for other banks (e.g Barclay's) who also use "the microfiche argument"?

 

It is my understanding that one of the issues which has changed the ICOs view from one where manual filing systems would not normally be a relevant filing system to one where they would not automatically be excluded from being a relevant filing system, is the fact that Abbeys systems are in daily use.

 

As to what this may mean for other organisations well thats difficult to say, it is of course entirely feasible that if Barclaycard are using their system on a daily basis then it will be relevant.

 

I should add that its more than likely that Abbey will endeavour to test this interpretation in court at a suitable opportunity.

 

It is also worth pointing out that Abbey have told the Information Commissioners Office that although they did not agree their system was relevant and that they would have provided peoples statements for a single £10 fee.

 

The ICOs office is interested to find out if Abbey were in fact providing this information, since my view is that the information was being provided but only on an as and when basis, this is what I told them.

 

I cannot say what would have been a reasonable time for them to supply the data, but it wouldn't seem unreasonable to expect them to provide it within a similar time frame to that for a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request.

 

If people have been waiting longer than this kind of time frame I would suggest you write to Abbey asking them politely for it and see what response you get.

 

If you still don't get it or get a refusal then you can write directly to the Information Commissioners Office or you can drop me a pm and Ill forward to the relevant person.

 

If you do decide to PM me then you need to give me the date you sent the original request, the date of any follow up letters and confirm any responses from the Abbey. PLEASE DON'T BOTHER TELLING ME IF YOU HAVEN'T SENT A S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) OR THE 40 DAYS HASN'T EXPIRED NEITHER I NOR THE Information Commissioners Office IS INTERESTED UNLESS A S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) HAS BEEN SENT AND THE 40 DAYS HAS EXPIRED.

 

If there are loads of you then Ill revise this idea.

 

It follows that anyone who submits a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) post the decision will either get their data within the 40 days or Abbey will refuse to comply and will ultimately try to get case law on the status of their systems.

 

Hope that helps

 

Glenn

 

Edited following BWs questions.

[bp]

About bloody time! Even going by their own time frame, Abbey have still not provided the info after 8wks. I'll be on the phone tomorrow.

[ellemmjay]

Credit to Glenn - the amount of work that he put in to influence the Data Commissioner's decision was superb

 

Many thanks on behalf of us all - specially me who now understands the attitude and actions of Abbey staff last week

 

Brilliant

[Mike220359]

Still can't find a link, can anyone point me in the right direction

 

Mike

[Glenn UK]

Still can't find a link, can anyone point me in the right direction

 

Mike

 

A Link to what?

 

Glenn

[Bookworm]

I cannot say what is a reasonable time, Abbey do not have an obligation to provide data that falls outside the Data Protection Act within 40 days, but it wouldn't seem unreasonable to expect them to provide it within a similar time frame.

 

If people have been waiting longer than this kind of time frame I would suggest you write to Abbey asking them politely for it and see what response you get.

 

If you still don't get it or get a refusal then you can write directly to the Information Commissioners Office or you can drop me a pm and Ill forward to the relevant person.

 

But surely, the ICO says that it DOES fall within the DPA? Therefore, the 40 days DOES apply, and this is what Bankfodder says:

 

 

 

If you have been waiting longer than 40 days for disclosure or have been refused, send a 7 day Letter before action to Abbey requiring immediate disclosure failing which you will go to court without any further notice.

 

Which I must say, "asking nicely" after being given the run-around for so long, would not be my first thought. ;-)

[Glenn UK]

BW

 

I guess there are a couple of things that make life difficult for us, 1st the Abbey have historically told the ICO that they are providing Data although they didn't believe they had to.

 

If you have submitted a SAR where the 40 days has expired and Abbey haven't provided the data either within the timeframe or afterwards and you have followed it up they would like to know.

 

If you submit a SAR now and the 40 days expires then you have the usual routes to follow.

 

I was trying to make the point, perhaps not clearly, that between submitting SARs and the decision, a lot of people have not had data despite Abbey telling the ICO it was supplying that data.

 

The ICO would be interested and members can send the ICO a complaint which will end up in the stack with the rest or the CAG can compile a list of members and hopefully get them dealt with en masse by the contacts we have.

 

I will go back and review what I have written previously to see if I can make it clearer.

 

I understand your first thought, I guess an individuals interpretation of what 'nicely' means could vary a lot, I suppose its a turn of phrase rather than an intent to stop people being positive and asking for their data in any legal fashion they think fit.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[neilbass]

Great news - well done all!

 

Hopefully this will apply to Barclaycard too, and at least seems to set a precedent.

 

Do we know if the Information Commissioners visit to Barclaycard is still going ahead as planned?