Webby v Barclaycard

[WebMaster]

Just getting my thread started.

Subject access request sent on 7th May.
Reminder/lba sent on 18th June.
Partial compliance on 23rd June.

They chose to send me 6 years worth of copy statements, saying 'this is all we have'.
I've written back saying that my Subject access request wasn't limited to copy statements, and that if they hold any data on microfilm/microfiche, they need to supply this too (I'm aware of other thread on here in which Barclaycard have admitted to holding data on microfilm, but claim the Data Protection Act doesn't force them to reveal it).

They've got another 7 days, so lets see what happens next week.

[slick132]

Hi Webby,

Are you looking to reclaim any charges from the last 6 years, or are you hoping to get sight of your credit agreement too.

If the latter, please don't hold ya breath !!

[WebMaster]

Nah I'm not bothered about the CCA - just charges. I've counted up 260 quids worth so far, and suspect there will be quite a bit more older than 6 years (back when I was a student)

[WebMaster]

Letter sent to Barclaycard on 23rd June (as describe in post #1)
lba sent on 4th July.

No reply to either, so it's N1 time. I'll be using a standard template (http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/res...lars-of-claim-) as the basis of my PoC; but should I start going into detail about microfilm, or just keep it basic?

Barclaycard have already admitted that they hold customer data on microfilm, and claimed that it didn't fall under the scope of the Data Protection Act. Apparently the Information Commissioner`s Office investigated this a couple of years ago, and concluded that it *did*. Should I include this in the PoC, or simply say that they've failed to fully comply with my Subject access request?

[slick132]

Hi Webby,

I assume you've read the Sticky about BC, their Microfiche and the Information Commissioner`s Office.

I think you should add to the POC that you're aware that a/c data has been stored on Microfiche going back beyond 6 years and this data has been held to be relevant data to be disclosed in a Subject access request according to the Information Commissioner`s Office.

Please also see this Sticky about when BC started to charge so you can decide if it's worth digging further back - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...lier-than.html

[WebMaster]

Cheers, yeah I added this stuff to the PoC (I'd seen the thread about the Information Commissioner`s Office too).

Anyway, it went off in the post yesterday morning, so we'll see what happens

[WebMaster]

Right, they've replied back:

Thank you for your letter dated 4th July

May I take a moment to advise that we did not receive your original Subject access request made on 7th May. We are in the process of actioning your request made 23 June and will be writing to you again soon

(by the way, does anyone else hate 'actioning' or 'we will action your request')

23th June was my lba.

Considering that they cashed the cheque sent with my Subject access request of the 8th May, and have already partially complied with it, stating they didn't receive it is clearly rubbish.

Anyway, my N1 has been submitted now, so lets see if they try to use this as a defence

[the_shadow]

errr. if this was true why havent they screamed for the £10 fee... when has a credit card firm ever done anything for free?

S.

[WebMaster]

Barclays had until the 30th July to submit a defence or aknowledgement, and they don't appear to have done either (unless it went in right at the last minute and the court haven't yet mailed me).

Just to summarise, my claim was for 50 quid compensation, and I asked for a court order forcing them to comply with my Subject access request.

I can use the form supplied by the court (when they processed my N1) to ask for a default judgement. Do I need to do anything special regarding forcing Barclaycard to comply with the Subject access request? Will this automatically be dealt with if I ask for judgement?

[slick132]

Hi Webby,

First off, can I check that you filed in court citing Barclays Bank PLC - t/a Barclaycard and their Churchill Place address.

Second, have a quick word with the court and see if there was a last minute response.

Thirdly, if court's not heard from BC, apply for judgement in accordance with your claim as files, ie seeking an order for the production of data and for compensation.

[WebMaster]

I listed the defendant as

Barclays Bank PLC
1 Churchill Place
etc etc

Does it matter that I didn't specify 'trading as Barclaycard'?

[slick132]

Can't say if it'll matter but we have seen BC wriggle out of a default judgement against BC.

Did your POC mention BC at all.

[WebMaster]

Hmm no, the POC simply referred to them as the 'defendant'.

Anyway, we'll see what happens after I ask for judgement

[slick132]

It may be all fine and dandy because, in this instance, you are probably fine litigating against Barclays who should supply all data including BC stuff.

But certainly, if you have to file against BC for charges or anything else, use the full name of B's t/a BC.

See what happens next, as you say.

[WebMaster]

My fault. When I didn't hear back from the court after 14 days had elapsed, I assumed BC hadn't filed a defence (I assumed they'd notify me if they had).

Anyway, BC have submitted a defence. The two key arguements are:

1) Claiming they didn't receive my original Subject access request. They've cashed the cheque; I should be able to argue this.

2) Claiming microfiche is exempt. Their words are:

The Claimant's statements prior to 2003 are held on microfiche in the Defedant's National Records Storage Centre. The Defedant avers that information held on microfiche is not considered as part of a 'relevant filing system' as defined by section 1 of the DPA 1998. This is because microfiche does not provide the same or similar accessibility as a computerised filing system. S 7 of the act does not apply to this information.

Paragraph 5 is admitted, save for the statement that 'the Information Commissioner`s Office has rules such data is not exempt'. The claimant is put to proof on this point.

I'm aware of the sticky regarding this, but couldn't actually see anything from the Information Commissioner`s Office stating this (I've Googled).

Given how long the Information Commissioner`s Office take, is it worth me taking the matter up with them, hoping they'll give me something to use as evidence?

Should I contact BC directly and argue my points, in an attempt to reach an out of court settlement? Or just fill in the aq and forget about things for now?

[the_shadow]

Originally Posted by WebMaster

My fault. When I didn't hear back from the court after 14 days had elapsed, I assumed BC hadn't filed a defence (I assumed they'd notify me if they had).

Anyway, BC have submitted a defence. The two key arguements are:

1) Claiming they didn't receive my original Subject access request. They've cashed the cheque; I should be able to argue this.

2) Claiming microfiche is exempt. Their words are:



I'm aware of the sticky regarding this, but couldn't actually see anything from the Information Commissioner`s Office stating this (I've Googled).

Given how long the Information Commissioner`s Office take, is it worth me taking the matter up with them, hoping they'll give me something to use as evidence?

Should I contact BC directly and argue my points, in an attempt to reach an out of court settlement? Or just fill in the aq and forget about things for now?

Think it would be worth giving Information Commissioner`s Office a ring, the sticky just contains a letter sent from the Information Commissioner`s Office so whilst useful its not the mind blowing evidence needed IMHO

......................... ..Following our visit, we concluded that the microfiche system used by Barclaycard is a relevant filing system for the purposes of the Act. This means that in our view the information is personal data and should have been supplied as part of your Subject access request within 40 days and for a maximum fee of £10. As a result, it is our view that it is likely Barclaycard has contravened the sixth data protection principle, as this requires data controllers to process personal data in accordance with data subjects' rights.

If they give you a quote, give Sharks one last chance so the court can see your being reasonable, set a deadline for response prior to aq having to be in.... if nothing doing file and wait imho.

S.

[middenmess]

If BC don't have to supply records kept on microfiche,then why did they send me my 1993 application form on microfiche--and I know I'm not alone.

http://photo-hosting.winsoftmagic.com/1/eyuq21iud8.jpg

unless this isn't a copy from microfiche?


As most banks usually offer to supply a copy of a statement for a fee,why not ask BC for a specific statement from before 2003 and see what they send you?

[middenmess]

PS
Meant to add that my Subject access request was sent in May and have had 4 parcels sent to me in since then with the last one just a couple of weeks ago with a note to say that more would be sent from the appropriate departments!

[slick132]

Hi Webby,

I think a quick letter to BC is the way to go here.

Say BC are still suggesting that their Microfiche data does not have to be disclosed. Say you are aware of the Information Commissioner`s Office opinion about this given to BC customers back in November 2006.

Ask if they would kindly confirm in writing that they still agree that BC's system is a "relevant system", for which they must supply data in response to a Subject access request.

[WebMaster]

I contacted the Information Commissioner`s Office a few days ago, but haven't had a reply yet - no doubt it'll be a month or two before anything happens). I've also put in a complaint regarding BC/microfiche - It'll allow me to say in court that it's the subject of an ongoing investigation.

Sadly someone was telling me that the Information Commissioner`s Office can be a bit reluctant to get involved with legal disputes, but we'll see.

In the meantime, I came across this very interesting PDF:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...to%20banks.pdf

, which contains letters sent by the Information Commissioner`s Office to Barclays, Lloyds, and Abbey