We sent our 1st letter to FD on 19 July, we received a cheque this morning for £706!! They have deducted £80 in interest that we also asked for, but we are just so pleased with their promptness (in comparison to other banks and CC companies) that we agreed to take the money.

I would think that the costs of the statements would be seen by a judge as an attempt to screw even more unlawful money out of the unsuspecting customer. We are in the same position currently, awaiting a response to our further request to supply the statements free of charge or at least within the £10 they have already from us. I will keep you posted on any progress.

Completely agree with all the posts on this thread, it is life changing in that we can fight back for what is legally ours. It really does empower you as an individual to take on the insitutions who make more withdrawals on our money than we do! I have sent everyone in my email address book the link to the site and hope that they will do the same. The tide is turning slowly but surely on these ( edit ) *@!$@%&?* !! Well Done CAG - you deserve more than we can give, Your altruism is beyond words. Moderated: please do not use words on this site that may be seen as libelous , this is for the protection of the site.

Hi Rachel, We have 8 such claims on the go currently, and we only have one of them which is still open (our current account). We have today received a settlement with a bank who closed our account earlier this year! As Rooster says, it makes no difference if your is open, closed by you or them! Good LUck

Hi folks, what a glorious day it is today:) I thought I would share my excellent news with you all. today I have received £706 from First Direct. I claimed £780 (to include interest), but they offered me the refund of charges levied to the account minus interest, saying that they would be confident to win the case if it went to court, and as a gesture of their goodwill...! The 40 days for the response to the first letter is up on the 9 August, so they have been mega-prompt. Well Done First Direct. If you hadn't closed my account earlier this year, I would be a model customer of yours now! But seriously, First Direct have acted with the utmost promptness and professionalism. They have not tried to stall for time; they have not asked for a single penny in payment for the statements; the statment were sent by courier within a week of my 1st letter. Everything about the whole claim for refund has been dealt with in an examplary style. Now then...if only the other institutions would be so helpful I would be rich!!

apologies for the long title, but something has just occurred to me in relation to the manual interviention issue over charges. Some time ago, I had a student account with Barclays. They issued me a letter informing me that I had esceeded my overdraft limit and a charge was being applied to the account, and that for every day I was over the limit, I would get further charges applied to the account. I rang the bank and asked for the signatory of the letter. I was told (before the advent of call centres in Delhi!) that the signatory did not exist, and was a made up name for the computer which automatically generates the letters when an account clicks into either over the overdraft limit, or in debit without agreement. I think that all the letters (from Barclays anyway!) are generated in this way in relation to charges to an individual's account, or at least they used to be, which would provide the proof necessary to refute the legality of their charges and the manual intervention issue. Has anyone else had experience of this?

Cheers for all that research! It will certainly add a punch or two to the letter in response. I feel tht if the data is retievable enough to provide statements providing the customer pays £3 per statement, then surely a court would rule that the company should be providing the statements in with the already paid £10 fee they have asked for and received. It is just a way of them making even more money out of the poor unsuspecting customers. And, also I think it is their way of sorting out who is serious about the claim for refunds and who is not prepeared to take it all the way if necessary. Apparently they have got thousands of claims over recent weeks! Wonder how these people know about it!!

roydosan, there are quite a few cases published on the net about the issue of microfiche and the DP Act. However, one such case cites that "once data, always data". If the data which ends up on microfiche was once held on a computer then thisn is the loophole which will allow access. The fact the Barclaycard can access thier microfiche at a cost of £3 per statement proves that they can retrieve the data is some sort of order. Their letter states quite clearly that tdata held on the microfiche is in date order, ergo a structured format. If putting data onto microfiche was a way out for banks and CC comps to prevent giving access, I am sure they would all be doing it. We also have an email from B/Card informing us that they can comply with our request to provide all the information we have asked for, for a fee of £10. I think that this will be sufficient evidence if we need to go to court with this none. Does anyone else have any views on this, or similar experiences?

For the attention of everyone in the process of claiming charges back from Barclaycard. We received a letter from them today informing us that they are only able to provide statments from May 2004 as beyond that time the information is stored on microfiche which they claim sits outside of the Data Protection Act (i.e. not on a "structured relevant filing system"! We have contacted the Department for Constitutional Affairs (they have a good web site), and the Information Commisioners Office (also a good web site), both were very helpful on the phone. They have urged us to write in a letter of complaint to Information Commissioners Office with a copy of Barclaycard letter. The Information Commissioners Office inform us that they have many many complaints regarding the same issue with Barclaycard, and that basically, Barclaycard are indeed wrong. Microfiche is a structured relevant filing system. Barclaycard more or less say that in the letter when they ask for £3 per statement beyond May 2004, for their retrieval costs!! I would urge everyone who experiences this sort of attitude from Barclaycard to send in a letter of complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (address details are on their website - just google them). The more of us that complain via the Information Commissioners Office, the more they can do something about the pompous attitude of B. Card, and their thinking that they are above the law. Good Luck!

For the attention of everyone in the process of claiming charges back from Barclaycard. We received a letter from them today informing us that they are only able to provide statments from May 2004 as beyond that time the information is stored on microfiche which they claim sits outside of the Data Protection Act (i.e. not on a "structured relevant filing system"! We have contacted the Department for Constitutional Affairs (they have a good web site), and the Information Commisioners Office (also a good web site), both were very helpful on the phone. They have urged us to write in a letter of complaint to ICO with a copy of Barclaycard letter. The ICO inform us that they have many many complaints regarding the same issue with Barclaycard, and that basically, Barclaycard are indeed wrong. Microfiche is a structured relevant filing system. Barclaycard more or less say that in the letter when they ask for £3 per statement beyond May 2004, for their retrieval costs!! I would urge everyone who experiences this sort of attitude from Barclaycard to send in a letter of complaint to the ICO (address details are on their website - just google them). The more of us that complain via the ICO, the more they can do something about the pompous attitude of B. Card, and their thinking that they are above the law. Good Luck!