Duggie264 Vs CB

[dUGGIE264]

Duggie264 Vs Clydesdale Bank.

 

SAR (modified from template - removed last line as I have no intention of travelling to Scotland to pick up any statements/lists of charges, they can post them,!) posted today 22 May 2007. £10 Cheque included to prevent any timewasting about costs.

[zootscoot]

Good luck duggie!

 

keep us updated

[dUGGIE264]

Well 14 days later and not a peep from the bank, however they cashed the £10 Cheque on the 30 May 2007. I continue to wait with bated breath!

[dUGGIE264]

Mon 16th July. Recieved a letter from CB RE: SAR.

 

 

"Dear Mr James Douglas

 

Re: Subject Access Request

We write to update you with regard to your request for statementdetails.

 

Requests of this nature are taking longer than anticipated to process due to the higher than normal number of requests recieved and the fact that the data ias stored in archive and needs to be retrieved manually. Whilst approximately 70% of requests have already been posted, work is still ongoing to dispatch all outstanding requests as soon as possible.

 

Please be assured that we are dealing with your request and are looking to resolve all outstanding issues within the minimum possible timescales. Unfortunately we cannot deal with enquireies on an individual basis however telephone number 0113 288 2726 is a dedicated telephone line and will be updated with information on a regular basis should the situation change

 

In the meantime, we thank you for your patience in this matter.

Yours Sincerely

 

[electronic copy of signature]

 

David Robinson

Manager

Customer Relations"

 

NB ANY SPELLING ERRORS ARE MY OWN, HOWEVER THE PATHETIC GRAMMAR IS ENTIRELY ORIGINAL!

 

 

I have now printed and am about to send the non-compliance with SAR template, followed by a Phone call to the Code Compliance Officer!

[dUGGIE264]

Telephoned Code Compliance Officer number (Well the switchboard) and asked for the Code Compliance Officer.

I was asked if this was reference Charges, replied that no, it was in connection with the CBs failure to comply with the Data Protection Act. Was told OK and transferred to Advice Quality Unit.

I then asked to speak to the Code Compliance Officer. I was informed that I had come through to the wrong section (Which I was fully aware of!), to which I replied that I would like to be transferred BACK to the swithboard so that I may speak with the Code Compliance Officer. I was then transferred.

At this point I started recording the call.

Receprion answered and then transfered me to "Susan" in the Code Compliance Section. I was informed that they would have to look into the details of my charges etc. before they could go any further.

I reminded her that I was not telephoning regarding my charges, which I was dealing with seperately, but that I was phoning as the CB had breached the Banking Code, by failing to abide by the DPA and I wished the Code Compliance Officer to ensure that the Banking Code was properly enforced in this case.

 

I was then told by "Susan" that she was too Junior, and that if she could take my telephone number, she would ensure that I get called back soon by someone more senior.

 

I am awaiting the call with bated breath!

[dUGGIE264]

Recieved a call from Tracy Rainer, the supervisor of the SAR Dept. on the 18 Jul 2007 at 1141. She basically reiterated what was written in the letter above. I informed her that I was only interested at that time in speaking to the Code Compliance Officer, in order to have the Breach of the Banking Code, caused by her departments failure to comply with the Data Protection Act, enforced. I informed her that I was recording the call, and asked her her full name and position, as I may use the recording ni my forthcoming legal case against the Clydesdale Bank. She told me (as per first line above). I then thanked her for her time, wished her a good day and ended the call.

 

At 1640 I recieved a call from a Data Protection Officer at National Australia Group (The parent company of CB/YB etc) I missed his name and position as I started to record the call.

When I asked him to repeat the information I had missed, He asked if I was recording the call, I informed him I was, and he said that he would HAVE to terminate the call if I coninuted recording.

I asked him for what reason he was not willing to be recorded, whereupon he became very unsure and simply repeated that he did not want to be recorded, and that he would terminate the call if I did.

I asked once again, and he replied that it was his right to ask that he not to be recorded, and he started asking why I wanted to record it anyway as there was no reason for me to do so!

I informed him that I was well within my legal rights to continue recording, and if there was no reason for me to do so why would he not allow me to continue?

He continued to refuse to speak while being recorded, so for courtesy's sake (and to find out what he was going to say) I would cease.

 

During the conversation afterwards he explained that they had all my statements for the last 6 years bar one (No 127) that they could not find, and were looking for it. I restated my point that they had had 40 days to provide this information, and instead, 41 days after my cheque had been cashed, they simply informed me that they were going to be "Delays".

I informed him that I considered this to be a breach of the DPA and that, in turn, was a breach of the banking code, and that I wanted the Code Compliance Officer to enforce the Banking Code, in order to prevent Breaches such as this occuring in the future.

 

He then replied that this was due to the vast number of requests they were getting, and that the delays were caused in part by the large number of requests, in part by the old microfiche system that requires manual intervention, and also as they were transitioning thier records to a more computerised system.

 

I then informed him that at no point had I requested only 6 years woth of statements, indeed I had not mentioned 6 years in any coprespondence with the CB either verbally, elctronic or written, and that I had, in fact, requested ALL of my statements and interventions since the account was opened.

 

He then informed me that all my statements would be put in the post first thing tmoorrow morning (Less No. 127 which is still missing and they are still looking for) and that he would speak to the Dept. and ensure all the rest were sent ASAP.

 

I thanked him for his time, informed him that I had kept a written transcript of the call as well as the initial electronic recording, and that it would form part of my court case WRT a claim for damages relating to the failure to comply with the DPA.

 

Hmmmm He was really unsure and nervous, would not speak whilst being recorded and sounded like he had wet himself when I mentioned Legal Proceedings for damages.

 

I wonder if the letter giving them 7 days will be taken a little more seriously now ROFL.

 

Oh, and I have every single statement and transaction regarding this account since it's inception, I just want to check that thier records are as accurate as my own!

 

Yet again the breath becomes bated.....

[dUGGIE264]

Still have not recieved any communication from the CCO, although there was a thump on the floor this morning as copies of my statements from Feb 2001 arrived (First Class by jove!).

I am still awaiting the previous statementd, as well as the records of intervention, and either transcripts or digital/magnetic recordings of all callls made to th CB. Will be back in touch with CB on Monday to continue my attempt to speak to the CCO!

[dUGGIE264]

Oh and scanning through them it's upto approx 2,631.50... and another 5 years to add lol