Barclays use devastating anti-charges claims tactic!!

[BankFodder]

It seems that they are now sending out some statements with the charges figures crossed out!!!

 

Will their cunning and sophistication know no bounds? They have obviously got themselves a new and very hotshot lawyer to have thought this one up.

 

 

Have you ever seen a judge laugh himself to death? We will let you know when the DPA claim is listed

[PPMAN159]

What planet do these people come from?

 

I am picturing an office staffed entirely with little people who all look the same as the aliens in the old Cadburys Smash adverts.

[BankFodder]

Actually, I think that is the way they look at us.

[crashbandicoot]

Shocking....well actually, not really! Thanks for sharing BF

[PPMAN159]

The money that they have had from me could buy a small spaceship!

[animaleyes76]

Surely that breaches the DP SAR laws?

[photoman]

..... Perhaps we should start sending our SAR requests with a cheque with the £10 figure crossed out ?! !

[PPMAN159]

They might send the cheque back to you as not valid and then charge you £30 for the covering letter.

[Glenn UK]

I have heard people allude that banks were sending out info incomplete with charges missing, i never though banks would be that stupid>

 

Oh how wrong i was.

 

Glenn

[Bookworm]

Surely, that conclusively proves deliberate concealment? SOLA 1980, s.32b anyone?

[PPMAN159]

Not sure what that means Book but if is true then surely the Information Commissioner will come down on Barclays like a ton of bricks and drag their sorry ass through the courts.

 

As to the implications of this will be we can only wait and hope.

 

Serves them right!

[dar£n]

dont know about SoLA but good possiblilty of failings in Freedom of Information act Section 4:

4. Information that has been deleted or amended

4.1 The right of access applies to information held by LJMU at the time the request was received. Information must not be deleted or amended after the request has been received in order to avoid complying with the FoI request. Altering, defacing, blocking, erasing, destroying or concealing information in these circumstances may constitute a criminal offence and an individual committing the offence may be held personally responsible.

 

 

Freedom of Information (FOI)

[PPMAN159]

Lets just hope that the people that Barclays have sent these statements to report them to the authorities.

 

How can a Bank as big as Barcalys be so dumb?

 

A few years ago maybe it might not have been looked at in an unfavourable light but bearing in mind the current high profile of these issues what must they have been thinking when theys ent these out?

 

I can almost hear the floodgates beginning to open.

[photoman]

dont know about SoLA but good possiblilty of failings in Freedom of Information act Section 4:

 

 

 

Freedom of Information (FOI)

[/size][/indent]

 

Just looked up the actual act, and sorry, but it appears it only applies to Public Authorities, Government bodies and institutions such as colleges, hospitals etc.

[djdave]

I'm pretty sure the DPA says they can blank out the information if it's a Trade Secret.

 

Is it any secret that they charge £30?

[animaleyes76]

lol.. can't be though as it's in the terms and conditions.. although yhou may get some historical ones wrong but surely they would just correct them in court if they disagreed? Or would they try to use to strike out?

 

Glad i got all i need from them.. Barclaycard however is a different matter.... eeek

[djdave]

If they refuse to disclose the information, would it be unreasonable to "assume" that all the charges are at the current rate (£30)?

 

Many of mine were as low as £20 six years ago, bless 'em!

[Bookworm]

Sorry, not really thought this one all the way through, but my thinking on SOLA was along the lines that if the charges are deliberately concealed (and obviously they are if crossed out) then the 6 yrs no longer apply. Whether the fact that they are concealed on less than 6 yrs could be used as an argument to go on the attack for charges older than 6 yrs, I'm not sure... But why not? Concealment is concealment...

 

Just threw that idea in the pot, feel free to tear to shreds and demolish if it doesn't stand up... That's how we'll defeat them in the end, by working out the best ways to go after them.

[Glenn UK]

i think their concealment comes under the heading of 'fraud', I'm pretty sure there is no specific section in the DPA that covers this with the exception that they have in effect failed to comply with relevant sub-sections of Sec 7 and are therefore guilty of an offence

 

it would also seem to me to open the doors for claims for damages even wider if they have deliberately concealed data.

 

I think the concealment under the SOL is a non starter in this context, they never concealed the charges per se, only the lawfulness of them, and concealing the fact that charges have been levied later would only be relevant in the context of SOL if in fact they never told the claimant in the first place IMHO.

 

So the fact (in my claims at least) that they put the charges in writing at the time and in their terms and conditions, would negate the later concealment i think in the context of S.32 SOL and the crossing out of the charges in the data supplied. Edted

 

As i said earlier people have often said 'i am sure i had charges but they don't show on the info provided' and i never believed they would go to the bother of concealing their data. But this confirms some banks have, i also have confirmation that other banks have mislead their customers re data retention in writing too.

 

all in all I'm starting to think that they are stirring up loads of crap for themselves, i am glad i joined this site, even more now i can see their house of cards starting to crumble around their ears.

 

Glenn

[oneofakind]

not before time.

 

stupid bankers!

:D