Oddfellow vs Abbey - 100% ish offer received

[Odd Fellow]

I am about to file an N1 at my local court today for a Breach of Section 7 of the DPA and I am also preparing my preliminary letter to Abbey requesting a refund of the charges (not that I haven't done this in the past, but I didn't use the letters in the library and didn't give figures).

 

Now that I am about to provide them with figures (many of which are estimated because they haven't complied with the SAR), I cannot see anywhere a description of how I calculate the OverDraft Interest on the charges. Now, it's possible that I've just not searched for the right things, but can someone who knows where this information is please point me in the right direction for this information?

 

Thanks

 

Odd

[Odd Fellow]

Nuts.

 

Just been to the GY court house only to find that the Small Claims Callers Office is only open from 10 - 2pm on a Tuesday and I can't file today.

 

I either need to wait another week or post it. I'd much rather do it in person as then I can seek guidance on the forms to ensure that it's completed correctly.

 

Oh hum.

[lisamellor]

oh bummer !!

 

good luck, please keep updated on how it all goes, it looks like i will be going through the same thing myself.

[Odd Fellow]

Filed N1 form for Non-disclosure under section 7 of DPA today at Great Yarmouth County Court. Should get a claim number in post in a vew days.

[Odd Fellow]

I've yet to get a case number from the court for my DPA claim. However in the mean time, I have a letter from shAbbey and what looks to be the elusive "microfiche" records.

 

Both these were in the same envelope with an elastic band around it. However, the letter makes absolutely no reference to the remaining contents. The letter is reproduced here.

 

Thank you for your letter dated 20th March 2006 which we received on 21st March 2006, requesting information on your bank account. I also acknowledge receipt of your £10 fee.

 

I would like to advise you that under a Data Protection Act Request, you will only receive the transactions that are currently held on our systems. These will be forwarded to you within 40 days, free of charge, under separate cover. Any earlier transactions have been archived onto microfiche, which is not covered by the Data Protection Act. These archived transactions will not therefore be supplied to you under a Data Protection Act request and will not be subject to the 40 day ruling

 

We can however supply details of the transactions held on the microfiche on payment of an administration fee of £10.00 for multiple monthly statements per account that have been archived.

 

It is clear from your request that you require the transactional information that is held on the microfiche records. In order to avoid any additional delays, we will therefore use the £10 that you have sent with your Data Protection Act request, as payment for the microfiche records that you need. If you do not want us to do this, please call us on the above number.

 

You have also asked for details of any 'manual interventions' that may have been made on your account and 1 am sorry that we are unable to help with this request.

 

I can explain that we consider 'manual intervention' to mean an action that is not automatic or computer-driven. Not all manual interventions are recorded, for example if a member of staff looks at a paper document relating to your account, a record is not always required. Similarly some interventions may relate to work carried out by a department rather than individuals where no central record of activity is kept because this is not the kind of information we need, or more importantly, that a customer would usually request.

 

If you have any questions please call us on the above number.

 

 

I'm not sure what to make of it. They've had the money since April. Two months later, they choose to allocate it differently? Is this a stalling tactic or just plain, simple incompetence?

 

What happens to my claim now? I filed on Tuesday 6th June, this letter is dated Monday 5th June

[Jane Austen]

Keep to YOUR timetable, not theirs.

It's not your fault it has taken them so long to send such an inadequate letter.

[Beaker_smiles]

I hope you kept the envelope. Was it sent second class? I know the only letter they have sent me was 2nd class, but when I show it to a judge (as no doubt I will at some point) it would be worth mentioning that I was using first class recorded, and that they cared so little they used 2nd class (which by definition at the post office is only dealt with as an afterthought once all the first class post has been sorted).

[Odd Fellow]

Court papers arrived today:

 

Claim No: 6LO00969

Lowestoft County Court

 

(curious really as I filed in Great Yarmouth(Norfolk) and it's lodged in a Suffolk court)

[trundlecat]

I filed in Barnsley & it's lodged in Northampton. Seems to be pretty standard to be dealing with a Court that's miles away.

[Odd Fellow]

I'm just going through the "Microfliche" records I have and I am trying to work out two abbreviations:

 

VCA

 

TCH

 

 

Any Ideas?

 

I've gota £1.50 charge on two TCH's - could this be something to do with a foriegn currency?

 

Thanks in advance

[Odd Fellow]

I hope you kept the envelope. Was it sent second class? I know the only letter they have sent me was 2nd class, but when I show it to a judge (as no doubt I will at some point) it would be worth mentioning that I was using first class recorded, and that they cared so little they used 2nd class (which by definition at the post office is only dealt with as an afterthought once all the first class post has been sorted).

 

I did, indeed, keep the envelope and it was second class. Lucky I got it at all as it was rather damaged under the weight of all the paper inside it....

[Guest louis wu]

I have a feeling that TCH is travellers cheques, does that ring any bells?

 

good luck with the claim

[Odd Fellow]

I have a feeling that TCH is travellers cheques, does that ring any bells?

 

good luck with the claim

 

Quite possible. This was in 2000/2001, the last time I went abroad (sob). Actually, you can take that as either tears or Son of a B**ch, both are equally applicable

 

Thanks, Louis.

[Odd Fellow]

I was getting all expectant that they'd just cave in and cough up when I got Abbey's acknowlegdement note today.

 

As others have found, they're using DLA Piper (Billy presumably) Rudnick (footballer I think) Gray (increasing the colour of my hair) and Cary in Leeds.

 

The have 28 days from 14th June to file a defence. I reckon it will take 28 days or close to to send the same crappy defence that others have had to DPA claims. Unless, of course, such defence is prooved to be useless in existing cases prior to this.

 

Keep it up lads.

 

 

Odd

[Odd Fellow]

First main refund request was sent on 14th June giving 14 days to respond.

 

Amount requested is £782.50 plus £75.97 in OD interest.

I expect the usual flannel in due course.

[Odd Fellow]

Nothing from Shabbey on the 28th June (14 days after initial letter) so second letter sent today giving another 14 days or we'll see them in court.

 

Everything seems to be normal so far.

[Odd Fellow]

I have a defence from DLA today.

 

I've certainly read it before but I have not yet had time to compare it against others posted on here.

 

The main essence of it is that the Microfiche 1) does not contain "data" as described under the DPA and 2) that it's not part of a "relevant filing system" anyway.

 

I think they stand to loose out on point 1 and they're probably relying on the correspondence with the ICO that (is it?) Seminole is seeking to clarify.

 

I'll post the entire defence later when I have time to OCR it.

[lostinparadise]

Hi Odd Fellow,

 

I also received the defence letter from shABBEY's solicitors

"DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary UK LLP"

today for the Data Protection Act Non compliance claim. Ill post it in full in my thread so we can compare.

 

LIP

[Odd Fellow]

l. Unless otherwise indicated references to paragraph numbers are references to the numbered paragraphs in the Particulars of Claim issued on 7 June 2006.

 

2. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are admitted.

3. As to paragraph 3, it is admitted that the Claimant sent a Subject Access Request ("SAR - (Subject Access Request)") dated 20 March 2006. The Defendant paid the sum of E10 in accordance with section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the "Act").

4) Paragraph 4 is denied. The Defendant denies that it has failed to comply with the SAR. It has provided all the data which the Claimant is entitled to receive pursuant to the Act.

5. Under section 7 of the Act the Claimant is only entitled to receive "personal data". Pursuant to section 1 of the Act "personal data" is defined (in so far as relevant) as:

"data which relate to a living individual who can be identified

(a) from those data, or

(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of or is likely to come into the possession of the data controller..."

6. Pursuant to section 1 of the Act "data" is defined as follows:

"information which

(a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose;

(b) is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment;

© is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system; or

(d) does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or © but forms part of an accessible record as defined by section 68"

7. Section 68 concerns health, educational and public records and therefore sub-section (d) is not relevant to the present proceedings.

8. "Relevant filing system" is defined as:

"any set of information relating to individuals to the extent that, although the information is not processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purposes, the set is structured, either by reference to individuals or by reference to criteria relating to individuals, in such a way that specific information relating to a particular individual is readily accessible".

9 The Claimant’s SARwas made in relation to bank statements and information in relation to the charges levied in an account number xxxx held with the Defendant ("Account"). The Defendant keeps this information on its automated "live" system for up to 18 months. In compliance with the SAR, and in accordance with subsection (a) of the definition of "data" under the Act, all relevant data stored on the "live" system has been provided to the Claimant.

10. After the 18-month period has elapsed, the Defendant transfers the information held on the live system onto microfiche. The microfiche is then stored and, if necessary, retrieved as follows:

10.1 It is stored in boxes covering a 2-month period (for example, January and February, or March and April). There are usually 4 boxes covering each 2-month period.

10.2 Each box contains a range of account numbers, such that (by way of example only) "box 1" could cover account numbers 1-500 and "box 2" account numbers 501-900.

10.3 In the circumstances, in order to search for microfiche dating back for a period of 4 years would require a member of the Defendant's staff to check the fronts of 96 boxes to identify the relevant boxes containing microfiche records relating to the account, then search the contents of 24 different boxes identified and finally go through an average of 450 different accounts on the particular microfiche in order to locate the specific records of the individual account.

10.4 Each piece of microfiche contains the records of a number of accounts and there is a note on the fiche itself of the range of account numbers that it covers.

10.5 The microfiche in each box are stored in numerical order, although each box contains approximately between 8,000-9,000 pieces of microfiche. The member of staff searching for or retrieving the microfiche has to check through the boxes manually to find the relevant information sought.

10.6 Once the correct microfiche has been identified, the member of staff has to put it into the fiche reading machine and then manually find the correct account number. Once the correct account details have been located the information is then printed onto paper. This process has to be repeated for each piece of microfiche retrieved from each relevant box.

11. Accordingly, the manual microfiche storage and retrieval operations do not fall within the definition of "relevant filing system", such that the information stored as microfiche does not fall within the definition of "data" and is not covered by the provisions of the Act. The records are not stored in a manner broadly comparable with computerised records: they are not sufficiently structured nor readily accessible, they would have to be retrieved manually at great length and cost to the Defendant. -- -

12. In the premises, in not providing such information as is stored on the microfiche, the Defendant has not failed fully to comply with the SAR nor is it in breach of any of its obligations pursuant to the Act.

 

13. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief from the Defendant.

[lostinparadise]

Hi Oddfellow,

 

Our defence letters are the same bog standard crap then..lol

 

Are you putting in an estimated monetary claim now that shABBEY havent provided your statements?

 

I thought I'd wait a few days to see if the normal sequence of events happens and they send the info through. Also waiting for the allocation questionnaire which i think i should receive soon from the court.

 

Just wondering what youre next plan of action will be?

 

LIP

[Odd Fellow]

I got the AQ questionnaire last week. Haven't really looked at it yet.

 

Shabbey did send the data through, ironically one day after I filled with the court.

 

I am in the process of awaiting its response to the second LBA. I think they have until the 14th July or I'll issue further proceedings.

 

DLA must be making an absolute fortune out of Abbey right now.

[lipscombe]

I wonder what the share holders would think of all this extra expense and not winning any cases in court!!!

good luck with your claim x

[Odd Fellow]

I've completed the AQ.

 

I've stated that I hope to provide an expert report on whether the Microfiche arguement is valid or not.

 

I've also stated that since Abbey has now provided the data which prompted the action in the first place, the outstanding claim is for costs & damages only.

 

A copy has been sent to DLA also.

 

Abbey has until Friday this week to cough up the £770 odd charges taken from me or find themselves with another legal action.

[Odd Fellow]

whos your expert witness then ?

 

Not witness - wrong words used.

 

Report. I am *hoping* that Seminole's persistence with the ICO under the Freedom of Information Act turns up something. So far, it is only this that Abbey seems to be relying on anyway.

[Odd Fellow]

thought you had some ex employee hidden in your closet !

 

Good plan - hope it pays off !

 

Can't hurt - nothing much to lose otherwise.

 

Regarding the ex-employee - I would need a bigger closet...