Reclaim Your Bank And Card Charges

[Scarlett]

************* do that as well... I expect if you check the dates that the law changed about how data had to be kept then you ewill find it mysteriously coincides with the date that the records are held on microfiche...

Still haven't heard from a certian CCcompany yet... 10 days so far, 4 days to go...

[Mr Angry]

Quote:
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 Any earlier transactions have been archived onto microfiche, which is not covered by the Data Protection Act.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.

Any bank / financial institution citing this as a reason for exemption / non compliance is chancing its arm.

Under the terms of the DPA Part 1: 1(c) it is stipulated that the data covered by the act includes all and any data held in relation to an individual which "is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system".

Microfiche IS a filing system. It forms a part of their archiving system and is, therefore, a part of their relevant filing system. Otherwise why do they have it?

The banks are simply trying to put claimants off by citing this nonsense as it is more expensive for them to convert microfiche records into legible understandable paper documents for claimants (which the act requires them to do).

[etccarmageddon]

mr angry is a very on the ball person.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

mr angry is a very on the ball person.

Cheers!

[bopdude]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Cheers!

Nice info ( again ) Mr. Angry

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Quote:
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 Any earlier transactions have been archived onto microfiche, which is not covered by the Data Protection Act.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.

Any bank / financial institution citing this as a reason for exemption / non compliance is chancing its arm.

Under the terms of the DPA Part 1: 1(c) it is stipulated that the data covered by the act includes all and any data held in relation to an individual which "is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system".

Microfiche IS a filing system. It forms a part of their archiving system and is, therefore, a part of their relevant filing system. Otherwise why do they have it?

The banks are simply trying to put claimants off by citing this nonsense as it is more expensive for them to convert microfiche records into legible understandable paper documents for claimants (which the act requires them to do).

The banks are still breaking the law then by (a) not complying and (b) pretending the law is something different.

What would happen if someone took their above statement to a court?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The banks are still breaking the law then by (a) not complying and (b) pretending the law is something different.

What would happen if someone took their above statement to a court?

Firstly you'd have to get to court, 99.99% of cases never see court and are settled beforehand.

If you got to court the court would read the exact same section of the DPA as copied above. There is nothing in the exemptions precluding any records held for the previous six years.

If a bank can make records available to the Information Commissioner if asked to do so in order to prove to him that they are meeting their statutory obligations and complying with the Act then why can't they make them available to a customer under the Act?

That is the question a claimant or judge / magistrate would ask.

From the bank's perspective there is no answer which would defend any such position having been adopted by them when dealing with customer requests under the DPA.

To attempt do so would draw into doubt whether or not they were complying with the Act at all.

[Chrysalis]

yep, its a shame they dont get to court over such things.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The banks are still breaking the law then by (a) not complying and (b) pretending the law is something different.

Actually, its not as insiduous as that. Mostly the instances that Mr Angry is referring to are cases when so-and-so doesn't know the law was changed. In 1998-2000, the DPA was very quietly revised. In fact so quietly, not many businesses I know, know it was revised at all.

Under the old (1984) DPA, data stored manually was exempt. That included microfiches and good old paper. Only electronically stored data was covered. That was the reason for the DPA in the first place. For centuries we've been able to store paper happily without needing a DPA. It was brought in as technology grew, with things like remote access via networks, and things like the ability to make identical duplicates without the author's knowlege.

In 2000 it was updated, amongst other things, to close a loop-hole they spotted. It was updated to include any manually stored data that was part of an electronic system. I.e. a word processed document that was printed out and stored in a locked filing cabinet, but not saved.

The trouble is it was so quietly done, most are completely oblivious that the goal posts moved a couple of miles over night. I certainly didn't recall any news or fanfare about it. Many are still unaware it changed... I spoke to a guy, who owned a small building company (only one employee) about upgrading and he turned me down saying he wanted to bypass the act by sticking with paper storage.

So its not always a case of the eeeevil baby-eating companies trying to trample over the citizen.

[Chrysalis]

Thats assuming thats the situation, however you would expect banks to know the law you can excuse a 1 employee company.

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Quote:
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.

Any bank / financial institution citing this as a reason for exemption / non compliance is chancing its arm.

Under the terms of the DPA Part 1: 1(c) it is stipulated that the data covered by the act includes all and any data held in relation to an individual which "is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system".

Microfiche IS a filing system. It forms a part of their archiving system and is, therefore, a part of their relevant filing system. Otherwise why do they have it?

The banks are simply trying to put claimants off by citing this nonsense as it is more expensive for them to convert microfiche records into legible understandable paper documents for claimants (which the act requires them to do).

Interesting given that the company in question have not responded within the 14 days I gave them. There reason when I phoned them earlier - apparently the microfilch is held off site and it takes upto 28 days to get a response and they won't pay claims without confirming them first.

I was already going to write a letter to them to advise that they had 14 days to cough up or I'd take legal action* (+costs) but this is more weight to the matter. I think a comment to the information commisioner is in order...

BTW does any one know if/when I can add the special delivery costs to my claim (to the registered office no less, none of this 'we didn't receive it' tosh for me)

*I send them a copy of the N1 form with full details...

[Shaun]

Add all postage and telephone costs from the start mate

In addition stick to your guns, if you gave them 14 days then 14 it should be. Send the N1 to the court and sit back and wait for Abbey to cough up. I'm sure it'll light a fire under them

[Florence]

After my first letter to HSBC I have received an offer of £808 from the £950 they have charged me. As my daughter starts Uni soon I am considering accepting this

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Florence

After my first letter to HSBC I have received an offer of £808 from the £950 they have charged me. As my daughter starts Uni soon I am considering accepting this

Did they give you a reason for the £808.00 ?

[Florence]

yes sending over PM