Kafka v Lloyds TSB Mastercard

[Kafka]

This credit card was defaulted in 2006, and I had a long run-in with the ridiculously-named and ridiculously arrogant Sechiari, Clark and Mitchell.

They agreed to accept £50 pm, which I have been paying, and the outstanding amount now stands at about 1600.

In June 2007 I sent a SAR request for this and another LTSB account that has since been settled.
Kafka v Lloyds TSB Visa ***SETTLED*** - Legal Beagles

Although details were sent for the other account, they never sent me the statements for this one. A reminder letter in October still failed to draw any response.

After 7 months I now have to take action and will be lodging a complaint with the Information Commissioner.

Sechis are still expecting to be paid, and I resent paying them when it is a struggle, and they are clearly refusing to supply data. Ultimately this will mean that some charges will be lost in statements over 6 years old that they will be routinely destroying. I also expect over 500 to be removed from the balance if I can get the evidence.

My questions are:

1. Does their refusal to comply with the SAR put the account in formal dispute, now that a formal complaint has gone off?
2. If I refuse to pay until they comply, what powers do Sechis have to take action?

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Lloyds TSB Mastercard

BUMP

[thephoenix]

Re: Kafka v Lloyds TSB Mastercard

Hiya.

Any charges that you wish to claim will be from the original date in the original SAR request providing you have POD for request.

They can argue till they are black and blue in the face, the fact remains they failed to adhere to your original request which you have proof that was delivered (POD)

As for account being in dispute, it's an funny one this. Normally the LBA would put the account in dispute as you are requesting remedy for a cause of action BUT if the SAR also states that litigation will be instigated, then IMO this will be enough to put the account in dispute.
More comments needed :kiss:

They doubt they will take any action. If they do, then you counterclaim :first: