mcuth v NatWest ***WON***

[mcuth]

Received a letter from NatWest today (via Special Delivery, but I didn't sign for it!):

 

Dear {mcuth}

 

{mcuth} v National Westminster Bank Plc

Claim number: 6SN05488

 

We believe that, given the amount of your alleged claim, it is not commercially viable or cost effective for the Bank to defend this claim.

 

Therefore, we enclose a cheque in the sum of £100.00, plus the statements requested by you in your letter dated 12th June 2006 in full and final settlement of these proceedings. I would draw your attention to the bottom of the pages of the requested statements, specifically the instruction "Please Destroy, Do Not Dispatch". This instruction is written for the benefit of branches to ordinarily prevent the sending out of statements on closed accounts, or in your case where a debt has been written off. Please note also that no instances of manual intervention relating to bank charges were found on your account and that this payment will be made with no admission of liability.

 

I ask that you confirm to Swindon County Court that the proceedings have been settled in full.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ashley Taheri-Kadkhoda

Litigation Officer

 

Very strange this is.

In the envelope was a cheque for £100 and literally 3 statement pages, showing maybe 11 transactions in 2002 & 2003 up to account closure. Now I know that's not right, but what's all this debt written off malarky? I was still paying the debt between 2003 & the beginning of last year

 

I think I'm going to ask the court to stay the case for a month while I get to the bottom of what's happened.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Ok, so I've written to the court asking for a 1 month stay while we try and get this sorted:

 

The District Judge

Swindon County Court

The Law Courts

Islington Street

Swindon

Wiltshire

SN1 2HG

Dear Sir/Madam

{mcuth} v National Westminster Bank plc

Claim number 6SN05488

Please be advised that the Defendant in this case has satisfied the damages part of the above claim. Although the Defendant has sent some statements regarding the account, there are still several outstanding issues with regards to the requested order under the Data Protection Act and that part of the claim should remain live.

However, now that the Defendant appears to be willing to supply some information, it appears that we do have some chance of resolving this outside the courtroom. Accordingly, I would respectfully request that the court stay proceedings under this case for one month to allow for further discussions between the two parties.

Many thanks

Yours faithfully

{mcuth}

 

Advised the RBS Group people accordingly:

 

Ashley Taheri-Kadkhoda

Litigation Officer

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

Group Litigation

1, Princess Street

London

EC2R 8PB

Dear Ashley

{mcuth} v National Westminster Bank plc

In the Swindon County Court, Claim number 6SN05488

Your ref: XXX/XXX

Thank you for your letter of 16th January, received yesterday.

In my Data Protection Act Subject Access Request, the first paragraph states:

“Please send me the information which I am entitled to access under Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘1998 Act’) in relation to all transactions & charges which you have applied to the above noted account since inception. Alternatively a complete set of statements for this period will be acceptable. “

Clearly, the information sent satisfies neither part of the request – the statements supplied do not cover the account since inception (they cover ~11 transactions from Oct 2002 – Nov 2003), and there has been absolutely no other information supplied. For instance, you mention in your letter that the debt was written off – this is the first I have heard of this, and compliance with the s7(1) Data Protection Act 1998 request would have disclosed this. Therefore, I still require full compliance with my original DPA request and would be grateful if you would ensure this happens immediately.

With this in mind, I am happy to accept the cheque for £100.00 in settlement of the damages aspect of my claim, but at this point I will only ask the court to stay proceedings for 1 month whilst we attempt to sort out the DPA side of the claim. I have written to Swindon County Court accordingly, and enclose a copy of my letter.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

{mcuth}

 

And finally sent copies of the above to the ICO saying that it's not over.....

 

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Michael

[chorlton1]

Absolutely extraordinary! What on earth do Nat West think they are playing at?

 

Not that it helps you get your charges quicker, but I so wish I had an account with them so I could do the same as you!

[mcuth]

Absolutely extraordinary! What on earth do Nat West think they are playing at?

 

I dunno - I've heard nothing from them since I sent that letter either, so they have 3 weeks left to get their arses into gear before I go to town on them. Have also advised Trading Standards about them saying the debt is written off, but the DCA's were still collecting on it (TS are interested in this because they know I'm still in the middle of an 18month-long balance dispute & s77/78 CCA request default with Allied International Credit, trying to collect for NatWest )

 

Not that it helps you get your charges quicker, but I so wish I had an account with them so I could do the same as you!

 

LOL - funnily enough, my mate in the flat upstairs from me is doing the same

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Received a reply from the ICO yesterday:

 

Dear {mcuth}

 

I refer to your letter dated 19 January 2007

 

Having received your letter, I again raised this issue with Natwest. They have confirmed that information from July 2001 to October 2002 (when the account was being administered by the bank's Credit Management Services) have been sent today. This will be in the form of screen print, because the Credit Management Services do not produce bank statements as such. Information from January 2001 to July 2001 will follow shortly when it has been retrieved from a separate system.

 

In additon to the information from October 2002 to November 2003 which you have recently received, this should now be all the information which you requested.

 

I do appreciate your frustrations, but I should emphasise that we do not have powers to 'punish' an organisation for failure to comply with a subject access request. One possible action would be to issue enforcement proceedings but this is a lengthy process and is not appropriate in every case which is referred to the Regulatory Action Division. In any case, as you should shortly receive all the information which you are entitled to, enforcement action would not be appropriate as we have already achieved the same result without the use of these formal powers.

 

I hope that this resolves the matter. However, if you remain dissatisfied, you can apply to the court under section 7(9) of the Data Protection Act 1998, asking the court to compel the data controller to provide information requested under section 7. Although the Information Commissioner is not able to assist with this, I have enclosed a leaflet which you may find useful.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

....

 

Hmmmm - well, this still isn't over even if they provide all the statements. Why the date of January 2001 mentioned in the letter? I hope we're not going to go into the "we can only go back 6 years" malarky.

 

I really can't understand the point of having the ICO when they can't actually do anything - even their "Enforcement action" sounds like a wet lettuce!

 

Suitable reply being drafted......

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Here's my reply to the ICO:

 

Dear XXXXXX

National Westminster Bank PLC – Case ref XXXXXXXXX

Thank you for your letter of 30th January 2007, received yesterday.

I appreciate your further involvement with getting NatWest to finally fulfill my SAR, it remains to be seen what information they finally produce, and I await that with interest! I do have a couple of comments/questions though:

- You mention that the earliest information that will be provided is from January 2001. I believe that the account was opened before this (though cannot be sure), and my request was for information since account inception. I trust that NatWest will not be hiding behind any assertions that they only have information for the last 6 years, as I believe that to be completely false.

- You reference statement information throughout your letter. Does this mean that NatWest will only be providing transactional information and not the full amount of information that they are obliged to supply under s.7(1)? Whilst I realise that my original request stated “Alternatively a complete set of statements for this period will be acceptable.”, that is no longer the case. As I made reference to in my letter to NatWest, they state that the debt was written off in October 2003. I made payments to Debt Collection Agencies after October 2003 and therefore require all information regarding this situation – there may have been serious further breaches of the DPA and/or the Consumer Credit Act (1974). Please clarify the information that they will be supplying and whether or not I would have to make a further SAR.

I note your comments with regard to “punishment” – whilst I understand the powers (or lack thereof) granted to the Information Commissioner, it does indeed frustrate me that large corporations such as NatWest can blatantly flout the law of the land and not be taken to task by a regulatory body. Not to mention that neither my case, nor NatWest themselves are isolated examples – through the Consumer Action Group, I’ve seen examples of the DPA being breached on multiple occasions across mutliple banking institutions within the last year. I have to say that the role of enforcement against a large multinational corporation with (virtually) unlimited financial resources and access to highly paid & professional legal teams, should not be a burden imposed on an individual. This is a completely unfair advantage to give the offender, and I’d be interested to know what steps I could take to raise the profile of DPA enforcement?

Finally, as I’m sure you’re aware, it’s also a tremendous source of frustration that NatWest do not have the common courtesy to communicate with myself. Since making the SAR in June last year, I have received one letter from them!

Yours sincerely,

 

{mcuth}

 

 

*sigh*

Sit back and wait..............again.....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Today I received a reply from the ICO - somehow I think they're getting fedup of me:

 

Dear {mcuth}

 

I refer to your letter dated 1 February.

 

You have stated that you would like to be provided with records prior to 2001. However, it is entirely plausible that Natwest do not keep such information for longer than the 6 year period. Furthermore, as you have stated that you are unsure whether you held an account prior to 2001, it is not my intention to take up this matter with Natwest.

 

I had only been chasing up the issue of outstanding statements which you had not received. In your initial subject access request, you clarified that statements would be acceptable to you. I am not sure whether Natwest would hold other information about you, but if you did wish to receive any other information, you would be required to submit a further subject access request to Natwest and you should make it clear what information you are seeking.

 

With regard to your concerns about enforcement, if you wish to see our Strategy for Data Protection Regulatory Action, which includes enforcement action, you can access it via the following link:

The ICO's Legal Powers - Data Protection Act

 

I would point out that as the ICO has limited resources, we do have to adopt a targeted and proportionate approach to enforcement action. This does not mean that we will not take enforcement action against large companies. For details of enforcement action that we have taken, you may wish to look at our website. If you wished to raise the matter or funding or enforcement , you could contact your MP.

 

As a final point, I would emphasise that the ICO cannot take regulatory action over every single case where an adverse assessment has been made nor would it be appropriate to do so. Further, it is not the role of the ICO to resolve matters to an individual's satisfaction, and parties may continue to disagree after an assessment has been made. For these reasons, the Act itself provides for an individual to have the right to pursue a case themselves. I appreciate that this may not be a viable option in every case but regret that I cannot assist you further in respect of this matter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

So, if we didn't already have a good idea, the ICO's a sellout to the BS that the banks feed them - I feel a letter to my MP coming on.....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

This is what I'm sending back tomorrow if nothing comes in tomorrow's post:

 

Dear XXXXX

National Westminster Bank PLC – Case ref XXXXXXXXXX

 

Thank you for your letter of 8th February 2007, received yesterday and thank you for the clarifications contained therein – I will act on them accordingly.

 

This letter is simply to inform you that I still have not received any of the information from July 2001 to October 2002 which was purported to be sent on 30th January 2007, as detailed in your letter of the same date. Of course, the information prior to July 2001 is also outstanding.

 

NatWest now have 9 days before I remove the stay on my claim (number 6SN0548 ) in Swindon County Court – I will be requesting that the judge issues an immediate order for them to comply with my request and will also request further compensation for their continued breach.

 

I would be grateful if you would kindly supply me with Natwest’s Data Controller’s name.

 

Many thanks

 

Yours sincerely,

 

{mcuth}

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

This is what I'm sending back tomorrow if nothing comes in tomorrow's post

 

Yup, nothing came, so off the letter went.... *sigh*

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

So, I received the following from the ICO today:

Dear {mcuth}

 

I refer to your letter dated 10 February. Unfortunately, I am not able to provide you with the name of our data protection contact at Natwest. The name is provided to the ICO so that we have a direct contact to raise compliance issues and assessments with. It is not appropriate for us to release such contacts to the public.

 

I note that you have still not received full copies of the information which you are entitled to. However, as I understand that you are shortly to put this issue before a court, I cannot really do anything further for you. The only possible option would be enforcement, but this process can take a number of months and certainly could not achieve a result prior to your own action in the courts.

 

Please accept my apologies that I cannot help you further.

 

Yours sincerely

 

XXXXXXX

Remedies Officer

Regulatory Action Division

 

Can anyone say "cop out"?

Besides, I always understood that the name of the registered Data Controller was supposed to be public record?

 

Anyway, this is a fairly moot point (although worthwhile for when my letter goes in to my MP), as in another envelope in today's post.......

ALL my statements since account opening in December 2000 turned up (and there are some very healthy charges in there)! Never mind s32 Limitations Act on this one, if NatWest had've complied with the DPA in the first instance, none of the charges would be time-barred.

 

Letter from NatWest (oooh, Joyce Tudor - same as deals with RBoS DPA - how surprising ) says:

 

Dear {mcuth}

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

I enclose duplicate statements this being the full history of the account originally ending XXX and then transferred to account ending in XXX held by National Westminster Bank Plc and registered under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

I would like to advise you that we are sending these out ordinary post as this had been posted to you by Special Delivery and had not been picked up at the Post Office {mcuth: Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!}

 

If you have any problems please do not hesitate to contact us at the above address.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Joyce E Tudor

Retail Regulatory Risk

 

Hooo-bleeding-ray, only taken them 8 months

Well, at least I can start totting this lot up when I get home tonight, and start off a nice juicy claim. Of course, then there's still the matter of the "write-off" and subsequent collection efforts to sort out, but that's another battle (hmmm, "serial litigator" - I quite like the sound of that)

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[thecornflake]

If it was posted special delivery ask them for the tracking number. Let me guess the only possible replies - 1) 'We've mislaid it.'2) We charge a fee of £38 to provide that information.

[mcuth]

If it was posted special delivery ask them for the tracking number. Let me guess the only possible replies - 1) 'We've mislaid it.'2) We charge a fee of £38 to provide that information.

 

No point now - because I've now got the rest of the statements, they've now satisfied the DPA request that I made before the expiry of the 1 month stay I requested - such a shame, but at least I get to do more calculations tonight

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Oooh, and the other really good thing about these statements? They handily include the unauthorised & authorised rates of interest applicable to my overdraft :D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

LOL - the DPA stuff still rumbles on.....

Dear {mcuth}

 

The Bank has sent statements to you on several occasions by registered post. The latest attempt was through standard first class post; this package contained stubs to show that previous parcels had been "returned to sender." I trust that this aspect of your claim has now been settled in full.

 

In my letter of 16th January, I referred to the fact that your debt had been "written off" by the Bank. This was an internal accounting decision that does not constitute "personal data" as defined by Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998; you are therefore not entitled to it. You should note however that this does not release you from your legal obligation to repay your debt.

 

I once again ask that you confirm to Swindon County Court that all aspects of your claim have now been settled.

 

Yours sincerley

 

Ashley Taheri-Kadkhoda

Litigation Officer

 

The cheek of it!

Well, I'm sure that Ashley firstly isn't aware that this account's been in dispute for nearly 2 years, and secondly if there's still a legal obligation, then I surely have a legal obligation to reclaim the £1300 + CI that's been debited incorrectly

 

Anyway, this missive going back to Ashley:

Dear Ashley

{mcuth} v National Westminster Bank plc

In the Swindon County Court, Claim number 6SN05488

Your ref: XXX/XXX

Thank you for your letter of 19th February 2007, received yesterday.

Further to your comments, I received the balance of statements requested via standard post on 15th February 2007 – directly from Joyce E Tudor in Edinburgh. I would note that this letter did NOT contain, or refer to, “stubs to show that previous parcels had been ‘returned to sender’”. The letter did not show evidence of any previous correspondence or attempted delivery whether via registered post or any other medium. It did however contain a note stating: “I would like to advise you that we are sending these out ordinary post as this had been posted to you by Special Delivery and had not been picked up at the Post Office”.

If your previous attempts at resolving this dispute had been addressed correctly and indeed sent by Special Delivery (or even by the “Signed For” service), I see no reason why they would not have been signed for or why they would’ve been returned to your organisation. I have seen my postman during his delivery rounds on many occasions, and doubt that a letter sent via Special Delivery would fail to be delivered when the same letter sent via standard first class post arrives without a problem! I will, for a final time, reiterate that prior to your letter of 16th January 2007, I had received absolutely no communication from your organisation whatsoever in reply to my 12th June 2006 Subject Access Request.

For your reference, on 16th February, I wrote to Joyce E Tudor directly (since the statements came from her), XXXXXXXX XXXXXX at the Information Commissioner’s Office and Swindon County Court to inform them all that I had now received the statements and considered the above claim to be settled. I therefore consider that I have fulfilled my obligations as Claimant in this claim prior to your letter prompting me to do so.

On a final note, if your “internal accounting decision” affects my account and a record is kept of it in my data file, then it is indeed Personal Data as defined by s7(1) Data Protection Act 1998. I have requested, via Joyce E Tudor, all pertinent s7(1) information that NatWest holds on me. At this time I am verifying with Joyce E Tudor whether I am now required to submit a new SAR, or if it can be dealt with under the existing one made in June last year. Should your organisation fail to supply these details in the appropriate timescale, then I will not hestiate in taking legal action, and submitting another formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

As far as your Group Litigation department is concerned, the above matter is closed.

Yours sincerely,

 

{mcuth}

 

Words don't quite describe the contempt I feel for NatWest....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[bram stoker]

Duly subscribed. I think it may take quite a lot more complaints before ICO do anything to make NW change their bad habits in this area.

[mcuth]

Duly subscribed. I think it may take quite a lot more complaints before Information Commissioners Office do anything to make NW change their bad habits in this area.

 

Indeed - sadly I think their "regulatory" duties have gotten lost somewhere along the way and they (much like the OFT) are reluctant to do anything unless they have 000's of complaints

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Prelim being sent today - £1165.00 in charges, £200+ in overdraft interest, £10.00 DPA, plus contractual interest at 29.50% on top. Total claim is over £6k. Will edit to put exact figures in tonight when at home & have them in front of me.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Exact figures are: £1165.00 in charges, £219.62 in unauthorised interest, £10.00 DPA fee & £5077.54 in contractual interest. Total: £6472.16

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[bram stoker]

Eeek. Over 5k. What are you going to do?

[mcuth]

Eeek. Over 5k. What are you going to do?

 

Oh, I'll be going all the way

There's even a small element of pre-6yrs in there, though that's because NatWest took so long over the DPA SAR. Still, the total is less over 5k than my RBoS one is!

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Josamolly]

Very similar claim to mine, in fact almost identical.. and mine also has a very small element of SoLA due to the incompetence and undue delay of NW..

 

And as mine is already filed and i have the defence, we'll see how both claims pan out..

 

Jos

[mcuth]

Very similar claim to mine, in fact almost identical.. and mine also has a very small element of SoLA due to the incompetence and undue delay of NW..

 

And as mine is already filed and i have the defence, we'll see how both claims pan out..

 

Kewl - always nice to have a "claim buddy"

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

LBA to be sent today - little late, but better late than never

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Josamolly]

Now the fun starts... LOL

 

They have paid half of mine, still chasing the other half now.. District Judge now has it for review, whatever that means...

[mcuth]

Offer letter from Stuart Higley in the amount of £1175.00 to be paid by cheque, received today (covers full charges and DPA fee - though not the overdraft interest). I'm accepting this as full settlement - no point leaving myself open to arguments over CI

 

Cheers

 

Michael