This topic was closed on 03/05/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

As I said above, I checked this with the Office of the Information Commissioner, and they were clear that no matter what the bank did, they were in receipt of a valid SAR and payment and could only escape that by agreeing a separate method of settling with the applicant- that is to say, complying with the limited rewuest within the forty days. The Office of the Information Commissioner was very clear that a breach would only be investigated on receipt of a complaint from the applicant, and that the Data Controller was liable from the moment of receipt of the request and payment- their subsequent actions of whatever type would not affect that potential breach. The bank would be faced with either, complying fully with the DPA as in Option One, or satisfying the applicant in another way by, for instance, Option 2. If the bank had not responded with a full disclosure by the fortieth day, they would be in technical breach and a valid complaint could be made by the applicant to the Information Commissioner.

If you read the letter carefully, you will see that a valid SAR has been made. A request and payment offered has arrived at the bank. Whatever they choose to do from that point on is of no consequence; they are bound by the Act to respond or be in breach. I checked this with the Information Commissioner. If they choose to return the cheque, they are still bound by the Act as a request has been sent and payment offered. The IC office confirmed this to be the case.

No, You will have enclosed a cheque and a valid DPA request. The clock starts ticking as soon as the letter and cheque arrive. If they have not replied with either the full information or the limited information plus return of the cheque within 40 days, they will be in breach of the act. If they decide to return the cheque and choose the second option, then they would still be in breach of the Act if you have not received the information in 40 days. Both banks folded on this point immediately to avoid having to trawl all of their records; statements arrived by return of post!

Write using the form of words below, giving the bank the choice between complying with the Data Protection Act in full (including all correspondence etc) for £10, or giving the required information free without the hassle of searching all correspondence and audio files. They will cave in. The process for statements has been automated now by most banks because they are getting so many requests; they will avoid having to use unautomated systems and will forgo the £10 I have used this tactic successfully with First Direct and Barclaycard. Write using something like the following words: Further to recent correspondence regarding extra-legal penalty fees which have been applied to this account. There are two ways in which this may be progressed: EITHER 1/ This is a formal request under the Data Protection Act for all information that you hold on me. Please supply me with a complete list of transactions and charges relating to my banking history with your organisation. Additionally, where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my banking business with you. If you are unable to supply this data because there has been no such manual intervention, then please be so kind as to confirm this in your response. Additionally please supply me with all information that you hold on me of any nature and in any form whatsoever, including (but not limited to) letters to or from me; internal correspondence between you and third parties, or from third parties to you, that refer to me; assessments of my financial or other status, including notes on telephone calls and recordings of such calls if they exist, and any other form of internal communication that refers to me. This includes, but is not limited to, written notes, letters, other paper records, computer based information, information held on disc or on micro-fiche, and video or sound recordings. I enclose a cheque for ten pounds to pay for this in accordance with the act. OR 2/ Alternatively I am willing to accept merely the copies of statements on my accounts between DATE and DATE and the return of the cheque. As the former option will cause considerable effort on your part to fulfil, I suggest that the latter option would be more beneficial for both parties concerned. Please note carefully the full extent of the former request, which is within the scope of the Data Protection Act. Please do not respond with merely the copies of statements unless you wish to agree to option 2.

I would expect that the banks will offer a basic bank account- no DD, No SO, just a cash withdrawal card for an ATM. No charge for such a service. Anything more than that they will charge for.

I wrote to FD last year claiming back all fees on my account. At first they refused to give me details of the charges; they insisted that I used the Data Protection Act. But when I wrote them a letter with all the legal references and made it clear that I was determined to see this through, they caved immediately and offered me a full refund. I have agreed to accept so long as they certify that their summary is in fact the full amount of fees taken over the past six years (reserving the right to sue if the list is incomplete). Next onto my credit cards. It feels like taking candy from a baby- now I know just how the banks feel about taking money from people's accounts- except that now the boot is on the other foot.

Story from Evening Herald in Plymouth: http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133464&command=displayContent&sourceNode=133158&contentPK=13959548&folderPk=78031 ABBEY CHARGES CASE IS SETTLED 12:00 - 04 February 2006 A Plymouth law student who sued banking giant Abbey to claw back what he claimed were unfair penalty charges has secured more than £7,500 in an out-of-court settlement. Stephen Hone, 29, took the high street bank to court to claim back £840 in charges for bounced direct debit payments. But the Evening Herald can reveal that Mr Hone, from St Budeaux, has accepted an offer of £5,000 from Abbey - six times his original claim - plus an additional £2,600 for court costs in an out-of-court settlement. A bank spokesman said the settlement had been made for commercial and business reasons. Now Mr Hone has called on the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to take out an injunction to stop banks making billions of pounds from charges. Mr Hone said that he would have risked bankruptcy if he had turned down Abbey's offer. He said: "I would have loved to have got the declaration that their charges were unfair. "Unfortunately, if they had gone to court and then the appeal court and won, I would not have been able to afford their legal bill. "I would have been declared bankrupt and that would have finished my career as a solicitor." Mr Hone, a father of three, is currently in the second year of a three-year law degree at the University of Plymouth. After reading up on contract law, he entered a claim form against Abbey at Plymouth County Court last May. He argued that, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, a consumer should not pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation for failing to meet his or her obligation. Mr Hone said that Abbey twice offered him an out-of-court cash settlement as the case progressed, but he refused. Mr Hone added that he also refused a 'part 36 offer' which Abbey made in court. Refusing this offer, which was slightly greater than his original claim, meant that he would have had to pay Abbey's court costs if he was awarded a lower amount at a later hearing. Mr Hone said: "Abbey told me that their court costs would be about £20,000." Abbey closed Mr Hone's account on December 9. An improved out-of-court offer was formally agreed on January 31. Mr Hone now wants the OFT, which warned eight credit card companies that their charges were excessive last July, to look at current account penalties. Mr Hone said: "I'm chuffed. I'm just hoping now that the OFT will act rather than sit there and do nothing." A spokeswoman for Abbey said that the settlement with Mr Hone had been made 'for commercial and business reasons'. She said: "It takes into account the fact that the legal costs of continuing with the case would far exceed the amount at stake. In particular, as Mr Hone is no longer an Abbey customer, it made sense to bring the matter to an end." The spokeswoman added: "Our position in relation to bank charges, as stated in the terms and conditions of our accounts, is that it is the customer's responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient funds in the account to cover any direct debits, standing orders, card purchases or cheques that they may write. "Abbey is up front and transparent about all its banking charges as set out in its Tariff of Charges. Abbey's bank account is good value and our charges compare fairly with others. We review our fees and charges regularly against our competitors. "For most people, banking is free - they do not incur penalty charges. We do not charge fees to people who contact us and ask to borrow money - bank charges are only imposed on those who don't contact us and go beyond their agreed limits."