Barclays has been very very naughty.

[craigten]

Hi there, how are you getting on with this?

[craigten]

Would like to know where you with this?

[mrabody]

I've been overseas for the past seven weeks on family business.   Barclays is defending the case.   They recently demanded proof that I sent them the SAR when I said I did.  Luckily I always send these sorts of things 1st Class signed for so they got both proof of postage and proof of delivery.  They continue to explicitly refuse to provide me with some of the personal information I have requested.

[craigten]

Forgive me for asking but what are their reasons for refusing to provide you with the info you want?

[mrabody]

They're claiming an exemption under Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act.   Not applicable in this case as I pointed out in today's correspondence.   I put forward an offer to settle which would see them pay me less than I'm claiming and provide me with the personal data I have requested.   I've given them a little over two weeks to get back to me.  Given their solicitors' uncanny ability to misinterpret the provisions of the DPA, I expect this will keep rumbling on until it's passed to Counsel, or goes to a hearing.

 

[mrabody]

I've had a response from Barclays' solicitors to my offer to settle.   It's a big fat no. 

They absolutely refuse to hand over the personal data I have requested but are willing to entertain reasonable offers.   

 

I wrote back telling them that they can't buy me off for a couple of hundred quid and that having professed a wish to settle they need to pull  their fingers out and make an offer I can accept.

 

But wait it gets better.   

They also sent a letter saying they've complied with their duties under the GDPR and that the allegations I made in my pleadings are no longer applicable and that I've brought new allegations into the claim which require my pleadings to be amended. 

 Except the two things they claim are new are right there in black in white  in my Particulars of Claim. 

 

 I don't know whether it's sheer incompetence and inability to read and comprehend legal documents or whether they think that as a litigant-in-person I could be easily bullied into dropping the claim but needless to say I've set them straight on this matter.

 

[mrabody]

Yesterday I received a letter from HMCTS offering mediation.  I was going to agree but I think given the total gulf between the two parties I'm going to tell them there's no point to it.

 

[BankFodder]

open

[mrabody]

I finally have something to report on this matter. 

 

After a long delay due to the Court misplacing the file,

I attempted mediation with Barclays in late January I think (could have been February) which, as expected, was a complete failure. 

A court hearing was set for early March and two weeks beforehand the parties exchanged the evidence they intended to rely upon and filed it with the court.   

 

Then, in what came for as a BIG surprise, I received an order from the court adjourning the hearing to early June following an Ex Parte application by Barclays.   Totally bizarre but there you have it.   I was annoyed but not overly fussed because it was obvious from their filings that Barclays had no leg to stand on.  Then the meeting was adjourned again until the 18th of June (presumably due to Covid).   

 

When given lemons you need to make lemonade which is what I proceeded to do. 

With the hearing adjourned I was able to do some sleuthing and turn up further evidence of information that Barclays had not provided in response to my SAR from April 2019.  So I prepared a supplementary witness statement and filed it with the Court and served it on Barclays solicitors.

 

Then, about a week before trial, I was contacted by Barclays' solicitors offering a settlement for the full amount claimed but without admission of liability. 

 

Part of me would have liked to take it to trial and get a judgement, but the lockdown has hit our family's finances hard so I decided to accept the partial win.   I may or may not continue my quest for a full answer to my SAR  through a Part 8 Claim but in the meantime I'm savouring my victory. 

 

I've attached a redacted version of the court order. 

Redacted Court Order 18.06.20.pdf

[craigten]

10 hours ago, mrabody said:

I finally have something to report on this matter. 

 

After a long delay due to the Court misplacing the file,

I attempted mediation with Barclays in late January I think (could have been February) which, as expected, was a complete failure. 

A court hearing was set for early March and two weeks beforehand the parties exchanged the evidence they intended to rely upon and filed it with the court.   

 

Then, in what came for as a BIG surprise, I received an order from the court adjourning the hearing to early June following an Ex Parte application by Barclays.   Totally bizarre but there you have it.   I was annoyed but not overly fussed because it was obvious from their filings that Barclays had no leg to stand on.  Then the meeting was adjourned again until the 18th of June (presumably due to Covid).   

 

When given lemons you need to make lemonade which is what I proceeded to do. 

With the hearing adjourned I was able to do some sleuthing and turn up further evidence of information that Barclays had not provided in response to my SAR from April 2019.  So I prepared a supplementary witness statement and filed it with the Court and served it on Barclays solicitors.

 

Then, about a week before trial, I was contacted by Barclays' solicitors offering a settlement for the full amount claimed but without admission of liability. 

 

Part of me would have liked to take it to trial and get a judgement, but the lockdown has hit our family's finances hard so I decided to accept the partial win.   I may or may not continue my quest for a full answer to my SAR  through a Part 8 Claim but in the meantime I'm savouring my victory. 

 

I've attached a redacted version of the court order. 

Redacted Court Order 18.06.20.pdf 284.26 kB · 7 downloads

Christ, didn't you do well??

[mrabody]

I figured if Barclays didn't want to comply with the law they should pay for the privilege.