HAREJON V Barclays

[saintly_1]

Looks fine to me

[oneofakind]

the cheeky monkeys have only sent 28th Dec 2000 > 7th Nov 2001 (when the account was closed) even though I requested all info held which I believe was going back 12 years.

 

Quite standard for Barclays. seems they don't even bother to read the letters properly.

 

 

I have a number of 'PAID REFERRAL' charges on my statements for £20. I take it I can claim these back?

 

Oh yes. Also look for 'unpaids out' and 'unauth o/d'

 

[harejon]

cheers ooak, I added both of those. I'll leave it until tuesday to see if my earlier info is delayed in the post and then send the follow up letter.

[harejon]

Baclays received this letter from me on 2nd July:

 

 

28th June 2007

 

Barclays Bank plc

Data Protection Office

1 Churchill Place

London

E14 5HP

 

Data Protection Act 1998

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: ******** **-**-** (closed 7th Nov 2001)

I am in receipt of the documents that you have supplied in response to my Data Protection Act information request dated 27th April 2007. The disclosure of personal data is incomplete in that at least the following documents are missing.

 

1) You have failed to provide a complete list of transactions and charges. For the period prior to 28th Dec 2000. Where any previous information or records held have been deleted or disposed of, the methods used to do so, including dates, certificates or references confirming details of destruction. Where you are unable to provide such certificates, please provide a declaration, signed by an authorised officer of your company, confirming the dates and methods of destruction of this data

 

2) You have provided no notes, or documents relating to instances of manual intervention. 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.

This is not an exhaustive list by any means, it is just an example of some of the information I am missing.

 

Accordingly, I have to tell you that you have not yet complied with your obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

You have a further 7 days to comply.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

I have received no response since then, I'll give it another few days but should I move straight to court action following that or write another letter?

[welshcakes]

I think you've probably confused them by asking for specific information that differs from the standard SARs they're receiving!! I doubt if anyone wants to respond to your letter and it's probably getting slyly shifted from one person's desk to the next ... will likely end up on the cleaner's trolley or filed away in archives (B's philosophy = out of sight, out of mind).

 

I'd just get on with a LBA.

[harejon]

 

it's information straight from here. I sent the original SAR specifically requesting info prior to the six year cut off and they didn't supply it. I then took the template letter for incomplete data supplied including the info I was after from the first letter.

 

Does anyone else think that was confusing? I want to start my claim with all my charges as some of it falls within the six year cut off so it doesn't get thrown out by an over zealous judge before I get anywhere.

[welshcakes]

Hi harejon

 

I was being a bit sarccy with the "confused them" however I think it is very likely that requests more complex than the standard 6 yr SAR do get side lined unless they are accompanied by follow up legal action.

 

I think I may have found a back door method of getting Barclays to send 6+ yr transaction lists and I'll know in the next few days. If my angle has proved successful, I'll post it in clearly on the Woolwich and Barclay threads and PM a MOD.

 

I still say send an LBA and possibly mark outside of envelope with

 

DO NOT IGNORE - LEGAL ACTION ADVISEMENT

[harejon]

Oh I see, you worried me there.

 

I'll get on that LBA this lunch time, I also confused the LBA re access request with the other LBA re give me my money back. I put it down to being before 9 am, far too early for the brain to be functioning normally.

 

thanks a lot.