Oddfellow vs Abbey - 100% ish offer received

[Kirstypops]

Again, I've got no useful input. I don't know what to expect from the hearing at all. I just want to wish you good luck. You've been very reasonable about everything so the situation can't be seen as you being difficult - DLA and Abbey on the other hand have not been anything like as reasonable. I hope it goes well and look forward to reading your next post.

[Guest Zooman]

Good to talk to you, Good Luck (not that you need it ).

[Jane Austen]

Been out all morning.

 

Good luck, Odd, I'll be thinking of you.

[Odd Fellow]

First let me say a big "thank you" to everybody who's supported me in this.

 

It would appear that I have been the first one to go through a DPA hearing. This was an allocation hearing, not a full trial one.

 

One thing that seems clear to me after today is that Abbey would appear to be determined to defend these claims. The solicitor today appeared to have spent a lot of effort in building a case for supporting Abbey's request that the claim not be heard on the Small Claims track.

 

Anyway, this is what happened.

 

I had spent a long time this morning photocopying, collating and summarising paperwork in support of my claim. In the end this was beneficial, especially producing a contents list of the documents onto a cover page as the judge could quickly refer to the relevant letters.

 

This contents page worked like a timeline and quickly demonstrated that Abbey had failed to respond within the timeframes given. The defense argued that in the end, the case should not have been brought because the claim and the data had effectively "crossed in the post" but the judge could see that had Abbey responded, even to ask for more time, before my final deadline of 29th May had passed, then an extension would have probably been agreeed. Actually, Abbey waited a further week to supply the data without any suggestion that it was going to do so.

 

It was this in effect that clintched it - I was seen to have given sufficient time to Abbey to respond, it had not and I was justified in bringing the claim as I had no idea that the data was already in the post to me.

 

It's a small victory though. I was actively encouraged to withdraw my claim for £25 damages and I could sense that if I were not of a mind to do this, the matter could have been drawn out further and just cost more of my time. I could also sense that it was going my way and withdrawing this simply allowed the judge to concentrate on whether or not I was justified in bringing the action and, if so, whether or not the defendants would be liable for the £30 courts costs. He ordered that they were and Abbey now has until the 29th August to cough up the princley sum of £30.00.

 

Hurrah!

[Guest Zooman]

[Odd Fellow]

From my experience today, Abbey seems determined to defend these. The solicitor said afterwards that he was sorry not to have had an opportunity to put forward his arguments for pushing this into the fast track.

 

The judge also commented (after making the order) that it all seemed rather heavy from Abbey's side.

 

Here's an interesting observation.

 

When I finally got the data on the 7th July, the letter that accompanied it contained the paragraph, "It is clear from your request that you require transactional information that is helf 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 the above number".

 

My original SAR was on the 20th March. Why did it take the numskulls that long to make such an obvious suggestion?

 

More to the point is this. Abbey did not seem interested in taking the £10.00 to supply the last 14 months of data as they could have demanded a further £10.00 for the microfiche data. They didn't. This therefore suggests that you can put in an SAR for the last 14 months or so and additionally give them a tenner to get copies of all the microfiche data.

 

 

Going on today's experience, I might suggest that for anyone who has an outstanding DPA claim where the data HAS been supplied subsequently, you should still have a valid claim for the court costs of bringing the action.

 

I think that the water is a lot murkier if you haven't yet had the data. The ICO's visit to Abbey on 6th September should finally lay this to rest with a determination. Until then, it would seem that paying £10 to get "copy statements" might be the most expedient method of getting your data. This may well be at odds with other advice (remember I am not a legal person, these are my opinions only). Doing it this way places no timescales on it at all, but if Abbey are going to ignore a 40 day limit with this Microfiche argument anyway, it hardly matters IMHO.

[srfrench]

Congrats OddFellow, well done and excellent judgement on your part.

[Odd Fellow]

 

Thank you very much for your assistance today, Ashley.

[welly]

Well done odd :)

[Lula]

Very well done Odds, at least for the Abbey it tells them that they ignore us at their peril, its not the financial aspect, but they fact that they will end up in court explaining their tardiness, excellent work )

[Guest Niklowe]

good result. Well Done

[philread1]

Well Done Odd!

 

I really admire your guts and determinationin seeing it through to the end, as said before, its not the money but the principle of the whole case that matters, and in the end YOU were in the right, not shABBEY!!!

 

I'm also filing my N1 form in the next couple of days, as so many others are. If shABBEY are going to keep this up, they are going to embroil themselves in a good old mess! Lets hope they get the kick up the a*** that they need on the 6th September!

 

Well Done, again!!!!!!

Phil:D

[lostinparadise]

OMG - Oddfellow....im sorry you had to go through that anxiety this morning. But it sounds like you handled that brilliantly.

LIP

[Odd Fellow]

edit....

I'm also filing my N1 form in the next couple of days, as so many others are. If shABBEY are going to keep this up, they are going to embroil themselves in a good old mess! Lets hope they get the kick up the a*** that they need on the 6th September!

 

Well Done, again!!!!!!

Phil:D

 

Thanks Phil.

 

If you're going to file an N1 under Sect 7 DPA, I really would urge you to think very carefully about it just now. I would be of a mind to hold off until the ICO reports back - but that's just my personal opinion.

[Odd Fellow]

Very well done Odds, at least for the Abbey it tells them that they ignore us at their peril, its not the financial aspect, but they fact that they will end up in court explaining their tardiness, excellent work )

 

Thanks

 

I think this needs to be put in perpective though.

 

I got the costs awarded because (imho) the judge could see that I had done all I could to get the data without going to court. Abbey had been given every opportunity to enter into dialog and didn't.

 

Had Abbey still not delivered the data, today would have been very different. Today would have been a situation of arguing whether or not the claim could remain on the Small Claims track and I feel that Abbey's defence probably had some really compelling argumuments as to why it should not remain in Small Claims.

 

So far, without an ICO ruling or any other case history setting precidence, I feel (again INHO) that it would not be in our interests to allow this into fast or multi track. It could open individuals up to high fees should the case be found for Abbey.

 

Of course, it could be further stalling - Abbey may again be abusing the court system to delay and prevaricate in an attempt to throw us off. We don't know and I for one would not like to be the first to try that side of things.

[Jane Austen]

Well done Odd.

I wonder how much all this cost Abbey? - apart from your £30 that is!

[Odd Fellow]

Well done Odd.

I wonder how much all this cost Abbey? - apart from your £30 that is!

 

Lucky it wasn't with an extra £25 for my damages. That'll have reallly screwed them

 

Seriously though, I am astonished that Abbey took it this far. Surely the defence could see that it was on a hiding to nothing having already provided the data? I can't see that seasoned, experienced lawyers could have really expected this to go any further with the claim being for costs and damages only.

 

I can certainly see that my letters to DLA pointing out it's mistakes and being generally brash would have got it's back up and if this is the case, it must be seething now - perhaps I should start wearing body armour for my refund claim

 

The judge seemed bemused by it too commenting that it was somewhat heavy on the part of the defendant.

[welly]

Lucky it wasn't with an extra £25 for my damages. That'll have reallly screwed them

 

Dont worry Im sure they are charging one of us right now to cover this lol Bloody SHAbbey

[Guest Zooman]

It does go to show though if the banks think they have any chance at winning a court case they always defend regardless of cost.

[Guest Zooman]

as a footnote I think you will not find these cases as easy as the charges and as odd said it may be an idea to pay £10 for the statements.

[boatgirl]

*bows down at the alter of odd*

 

Congratulations, you've put a big smile on my face

[mechs]

Odds, I am really sorry, I pm'd a few mods the other day and they have been spectacular in their absence apart from Vamp who bothered but wasnt able to help, this is not what the site was supposed to be about and I am sorry

 

Odds ... so very sorry not to be around today. Unfortuantely I had a virus on my pc and I've been struggling since lunchtime to sort it out!

 

Its good to know that you were successful! Well done!

 

mechs

[botchy]

well done Odd , i was eagerly awaiting the outcome of this for you , i am really glad it went the way it did especially as i think i will be facing the same sort of case soon.

Matt:)

[Odd Fellow]

Odds ... so very sorry not to be around today. Unfortuantely I had a virus on my pc and I've been struggling since lunchtime to sort it out!

 

Its good to know that you were successful! Well done!

 

mechs

 

Excuses, excuses

 

Thanks.

 

I am pleased that it was found in my favour but it seems a little hollow as I have wasted a huge amount of time on this for which I will see no return. On a wider scale, it is an indication of what Shabbey is prepared to do in order to fight a claim where it has more than a passing belief that it stands a chance.

 

I think that we should all be learning a lesson from this. I was lucky as I got the information and the nature of the claim changed. Others might not be so fortunate.

[keren29]

well done, I was wondering yesterday how you were getting on.