scarletrose v Abbey

[scarletrose]

Hi,
A very long time since I claimed and won from Natwest, and now I want to do the same with Abbey, I am assuming even though the OFT case is still not settled that it is still worth starting a claim?

[TUTTSI]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

Hi,
A very long time since I claimed and won from Natwest, and now I want to do the same with Abbey, I am assuming even though the OFT case is still not settled that it is still worth starting a claim?

It is great to see you again after such a long time.

You can start a claim but unless you fall under the FSA waiver rules for hardship the claim will be held pending the result of the test case.

It is best to have a good read in the hardship section to see if you would qualify for this, which could be arrears on rent/mortgage or ulilities. Also, you could complete this Income and Expenditure schedule http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ead.php?t=5102

All the best

Tuttsi xx

[Glenn UK]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

hello Scarlet hope you're well?

FWIW

If you wish to claim you should get on the bandwagon sooner rather than later IMHO.

I am not sure how claims through the FSA will be affected but if you end up going down the court route, entering a claim against the abbey stops the limitations act clock ticking.

If you don't submit a claim then every day that passes means that charges older than 6 years will be lost without you having to argue under the Limitations Act.

Glenn

[Amethyst]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

Glenn - for info the clock has been stopped on 27 July 2007 so ALL claims can go back to 27 July 2001 without arguing limitations act. We have this in writing from the FSA.

Scar - Welcome back. Yes get your complaint into Abbey, a simple prelim letter will do, just so you are in the 'queue'.

If you are claiming hardship then do it asap, if not no rush but while its in your mind its a good idea to get it out the way.

[Glenn UK]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

Ame

thanks for that, but would this only apply to claims going through the FSA though i presume?

Anyone wishing to claim charges older than this would need to go through the courts anyway and should submit their claim accordingly?

Glenn

[Amethyst]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

Older than 2001 ? Yes then the s.32 limitations act will need arguing. Although part of the litigation agreement includes limitations and restitution issues. It will take a bit more than arguing standard s.32 if the declaration limits to 2001.


Personally I wouldnt put anything in court yet unless you can afford to lose the court fees for a couple years.

[scarletrose]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

Hi thanks Ame and Glenn


I wil do my SAR and see how much they have taken, I take it the 6 years is the maximum still or can I go back as far as 2001?

thanx its good to be back,

[Amethyst]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

for info the clock has been stopped on 27 July 2007 so ALL claims can go back to 27 July 2001 without arguing limitations act. We have this in writing from the FSA.

When doing the SAR ask for everything ever held about you.

[scarletrose]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

is this okay because I do't have loans ect with them just the current account?????


[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Abbey National[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

Data Protection Manager
Data Protection Team
Regulatory Compliance
Abbey House
201 Graftons Gate East
Milton Keynes
MK9 1AN[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']14th April 2009[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']
The Branch Manager
Yorkshire Bank

[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Data Protection Act 1998 Subject Access Request[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

Dear Sir,

Please supply me with a complete history of my banking with Abbey National to whom I have been a customer of for at least [/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']15[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] years .I require the following data for as far back in time as you keep records and a statement detailing the length of time records are kept for , I am aware that this is not limited to 6 years but indeed goes back for much further.

Where there has been any event in my banking history which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my banking business with you. If you are unable to supply data relating to manual intervention because there has been no such manual intervention, then please confirm this in your response to this request.

As you have already sent information to my current address I assume that this information should be sufficient for you to satisfy you of my identity to comply with this new request.

I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10. You are no doubt aware that you have a maximum of 40 days in which to comply and a company of your resources should be more than capable of completing my request within the 40 days.

Furthermore, if I discover that you have levied disproportionate penalties against me, then I shall be reclaiming them and also reclaiming the enclosed £10 DPA subject access request fee.

I would be happy to collect the Data from my local branch.

Yours faithfully[/FONT]

[Amethyst]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

Amended a bit so it makes more sense - add your old names/addys in too

is this okay because I do't have loans ect with them just the current account?????




Data Protection Manager
Data Protection Team
Regulatory Compliance
Abbey House
201 Graftons Gate East
Milton Keynes
MK9 1AN

Dear Sir,

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT

Previous/Current Names & Addresses (put those in if they have changed over the time you have been banking with them)

Please supply me with a complete history of my banking with Abbey National with whom I have been a customer of for at least XX years.

I require ALL data held about me for as far back as you keep records and a statement detailing the length of time records are kept for. I am aware that this is not limited to 6 years but indeed goes back for much further. This should include, but not be limited to, details of all transactions on my account number XXXXXXXXXX.

Where there has been any event in my banking history which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my relationship with you. If you are unable to supply data relating to manual intervention because there has been no such manual intervention, then please confirm this in your response to this request.

As you have already sent information to my current address I assume that this information should be sufficient for you to satisfy you of my identity to comply with this new request.

I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10. You are no doubt aware that you have a maximum of 40 days in which to comply and a company of your resources should be more than capable of completing my request within the 40 days.

I would be happy to collect the Data from my local branch.

Yours faithfully

[scarletrose]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

Thank you Ame much appreciated

[Glenn UK]

Older than 2001 ? Yes then the s.32 limitations act will need arguing. Although part of the litigation agreement includes limitations and restitution issues. It will take a bit more than arguing standard s.32 if the declaration limits to 2001.


Personally I wouldn't put anything in court yet unless you can afford to lose the court fees for a couple years.

To override your rights enshrined in the limitations act would require more than an agreement between the FSA and the banks though, it would require an amendment to statue i think. Edit or case law which would be need the house of Lords to argue that claims over six years old could not be bought despite what it says in Sec.32, personally i cant see it.

The courts would have to determine that when the law was enacted that what was meant by the law makers was that sec 32 applies unless it suits us otherwise. having said that until a case is bought then who knows what would happen.

Glenn

[Amethyst]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

I was talking about a declaration by the High Court that the limitations argument was out the window, if its just an agreement between banks and FSA/Oft then yep open season, and that would be really daft, if limitations act does or doesn't apply it needs to be adjudged (word?)in the High Court so it applies to everyone.

[Glenn UK]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

Ahhh sorry Ame

i agree if the courts deemed it was out of the window then simply saying sec 32 would be difficult

i wonder what arguments they would have though against applying limitations act as this is statue, any judgement against that would be detrimental in general terms to the limitations act and the UTCCR as well possibly.

My understanding of the ability of the courts at all levels to make judgements is based on the concept that they try to understand what the intent of the lawmakers were when they made the law.

Be interesting to see if they thought that sec 32 should be somehow overridden to protect the banks.

having said that i had a conversation with Righty a few weeks ago where we discussed what may happen in terms of 'protection' of banks from an increasing cash bill that they were liable for in the current climate.

Glenn

[Amethyst]

Re: scarletrose v Abbey

Will be extremely interesting to see how this, limitations, and also things like restitution, consequentail loss etc are dealt with. Of course these are the areas Tom Brennan is trying to deal with through the Group Litigation. A simple charges are assessable in fairness terms judgment and leaving it there is, hopefully, inconceivable.

Sorry scarlet hijacked a little - maybe we should discuss limitations etc over on the OFT thread ?