Seminole v Abbey: £10,235 RECEIVED

[Seminole]

In case anyone's morbidly curious, here's a breakdown of the charges month by month and year by year...

Charges.pdf

[Odd Fellow]

edit.... So either they're relying on sheer bulk (like an oil tanker) to intimidate (thus breaking the law anyway) or they really have absolutely no clue what they're doing...

 

They know exactly what they're doing. They're just playing the game in the hope that people will give up. For some this will work. For most BAGers, they don't stand a chance of us giving up until it becomes an unwinnable thing for us.

 

They know that the charges are unlawful but they have no option but to come out fighting. If they didn't the landslide would start here.

 

The landslide will start when the OFT publishes its findings on these charges as it did with CC charges. Only a few months after this, a number of CC providers have drastically reduced the penalty charges.

 

Until the landslide, we just need to keep pushing and wading through all the carp(sic) from Sputnick, Trollop and Wastrel until their client realises that they can't steamroller the case any more.

 

Forcing disclosure would be geat, but it won't happen. They'll just settle out of court before disclosure gets anywhere close.

[Lula]

No wonder you have been quiet tonight, but I have to say, you have my admiration for turning it all around relatively quickly

[Seminole]

Actually the table was very easy. Quick pivot table in Excel and then chucked it into Adobe. I need to double check the figures although if I've made any errors they're likely to mean the total is understated.

[fivelaws]

In case anyone's morbidly curious

 

Sweet baby Jeebus, December 2000 and February 2001 must have been a veritable paperstorm of "bounce" letters...

[Lula]

Actually the table was very easy. Quick pivot table in Excel and then chucked it into Adobe. I need to double check the figures although if I've made any errors they're likely to mean the total is understated.

 

I didnt mean it like that , LMAO I meant your financial situation , I am still struggling with an o/d

 

understated !!!!!!!!!! OMFG:o

[Seminole]

I didnt mean it like that , LMAO I meant your financial situation , I am still struggling with an o/d

 

understated !!!!!!!!!! OMFG:o

 

Oops, it's late.

 

In the end it was a very simple solution. I sold my house, paid off everything and moved into a single room in a friend's house for a few months. I'm still there but I now have a whole floor. I jointly own another house nearby where my Dad lives and which I use for storage and the net proceeds of the sale went into buying an investment property in the States that's gone up 60% in value since 2004. Having said that it only works because I have a good income. I was just so far gone in debt that even my income couldn't sustain it.

[Lula]

proceeds of the sale went into buying an investment property in the States .

 

ahhh would I be right in presuming that the said property is in florida? (hence Seminole?)

[Seminole]

ahhh would I be right in presuming that the said property is in florida? (hence Seminole?)

 

Bingo

[Zannie]

I am following your thread as my bank charges will be a similar amount to yours I am waiting on some statements from shABBEY, they have sent me the last 2 years statements but still awaiting the rest, but I know it will be close to 10 thousand and I am not sure if I should fast track or do 2 smaller claims through the small claims court... are you going to fast track?

[Lula]

Well? have the jury come to a decision yet?

[CrispDust]

Seminole, dude, are you selling tickets for the court show, if it ever gets that far? Put me down for one....

[Seminole]

Well? have the jury come to a decision yet?

 

No, still ruminating.

[Seminole]

One quick update. The following is in response to my letter to the ICO:

 

Our Reference: FOI/ 370

Dear Mr Seminole,

Re: Your Request for Information

Thank you for your correspondence dated 14/06/2006 which was received by the Information Commissioner’s Office on the 19/06/2006. Your request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We will respond by 17/07/2006 which is 20 working days from the date we received your request.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of the Information Requests Team

I think they have their dates confused. I faxed and posted my letter to them on 14 June buy hey ho. It will still be interesting to see what they send.

[Lula]

Seminole, dude, are you selling tickets for the court show, if it ever gets that far? Put me down for one....

 

get thee behind me CrispDust, I want to be there too , if it ever gets that far, which I doubt:D

[Seminole]

OK, decision made.

 

I am pursuing Abbey for my costs for the DPA claim which means that that claim will proceed if they don't pay up.

 

I will be amending my estimated claim to the full £11k as soon as I can. Fast track here we come.

[Lula]

OK, decision made.

 

I am pursuing Abbey for my costs for the Data Protection Act claim which means that that claim will proceed if they don't pay up.

 

I will be amending my estimated claim to the full £11k as soon as I can. Fast track here we come.

 

 

OOOOO changed your pants yet???

 

Good luck, we are all behind you

[joneshousehold]

Yee hah! Ride 'em cowboy

[fivelaws]

OOOOO changed your pants yet???

 

Good luck, we are all behind you

 

I'd prefer to stand in front...

 

Good luck Seminole.

[Movingon]

Bloody hell semi... nice one mate. I can't state my admiration enough for your strength... the times surrounding these charges must have been some of the darkest days.

 

Kudos to you pal and I wish you all the very best. I'll be watching this thread like a hawk.

[cwoj]

Good man..go get them!!

[Seminole]

Email to the Information Commissioner regarding their failure to properly respond to my letter demanding confirmation of whether they have examined Abbey's microfiche system:

 

Dear Sir

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I wrote to you on 14 June 2006 and sent the letter by fax and post. I am therefore somewhat surprised that you have not acknowledged receipt of the fax on the next working day (ie 15 June 2006).

 

Whilst I accept that you are entitled to deal with this matter as an Freedom of Information Act request, I am very concerned that you have chosen to do so. In my letter I outlined the circumstances in which I was making the request. I am a current litigant against Abbey National plc whose solicitors have stated in writing that your office has given a preliminary assessment that their microfiche system is not a relevant filing system under the Data Protection Act. I also mentioned that the litigation timescales are not within my control. As you will have seen from the solicitors’ letter they made explicit threats to me if I choose to pursue the litigation. As it stands your timescales for a response to me will be significantly beyond the date at which I have to decide whether to proceed.

 

My understanding is that the role of the Information Commissioners Office is to protect Data Subjects and not Data Controllers. I would also suggest that it is not your role to act, or allow yourselves to be portrayed, as a private witness for a Data Controller. That is, nevertheless, your position as I see it.

 

I would be grateful if you would, by return of email:

 

• Confirm whether you were requested to provide a preliminary assessment of the microfiche system used by Abbey National plc to archive bank statement and transaction information
  
• If you were asked to make such an assessment, set out the terms of reference for that assessment
  
• If that assessment was completed, provide a copy of the results.

I see no reason why this information cannot be provided immediately. If you do not do so I will pursue a complaint against your organization and also draw your actions to the attention of the judge hearing this case.

 

Yours faithfully

[Lula]

Semi's gone in all guns blazing LOL

 

You dont take any prisoners do you Pussycat ))

 

 

Well done

[Seminole]

DLA seems to have dropped any reference to the ICO in the current version of the threatening letter that they've sent to at least one other person. However, they still made the point to me and I don't want to let it go.

 

I think there are two possibilities:

 

1) DLA were not being wholly truthful in their letter; or

 

2) The ICO has been drawn into the position of being cited as privately providing evidence to support the argument of a Data Controller against a Data Subject. I suspect that this isn't deliberate and it wouldn't susprise me if they are very annoyed that they've been put in this position. Nevertheless, I don't think that they can allow the current position to continue. Any report that they have provided cannot be private to the Data Controller and they cannot hide behind the Freedom of Information Act to delay providing a copy of that report to the Data Subject and other litigant. If they continue to fail to provide it then one has to draw some very disquieting conclusions about how they interpret their role.

[CrispDust]

Go Seminole, Go

 

PS who/what is DLA? Nub question I know...