Stu V Abbey SAR FAILURE QUESTION

stu1975

Cool,I will take a look at the thread. Am umming and arhing with it at the moment, will decide over the weekend.

natweststaffmember

stu1975 wrote: »

Cool,I will take a look at the thread. Am umming and arhing with it at the moment, will decide over the weekend.

It's not a thread, Halliday v. HBOS and I got the date wrong since it was 2007.
Precedent setting.[IMG]file:///C:/Users/tim/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.png[/IMG]
"No implied term for compound interest on refund of bank charges
From 1979 to 2006 Mr Halliday had a current account with HBOS ("the Bank"). From time to time
the Bank debited this account with charges of various kinds, for example charges for exceeding his
arranged overdraft limit. Mr Halliday contended that these charges were unlawful and issued a
claim against the Bank in Bury St Edmunds County Court.
Having taken a commercial view of the case, and without any admission of liability, the Bank paid
Mr Halliday an amount of money to satisfy his claim in full. That amount included money not only in
respect of the charges levied but also in respect of interest charged to Mr Halliday when his account
was overdrawn. The sum also included interest, at a simple rate of 8%, on the charges and interest.
The Bank acknowledged that this amount was higher than a court might have awarded but wished
to avoid any argument on the issue.
The Bank then successfully applied to strike out Mr Halliday's claim on the basis that there were no
outstanding issues for the court to deal with. Mr Halliday was however given leave to appeal on the
question of whether he was entitled to compound interest on the sums which had been deducted
from his account and at a rate of 28.8%, being the rate which the Bank was entitled to charge on
unauthorized withdrawals.
On his appeal, Mr Halliday argued that if he was not entitled to the same rate of interest as the
Bank then his contract with the Bank would be unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer
Contracts Regulations and the Bank would not be complying with the principles of "fair dealing" as
set out in the Banking Code and the FSA Handbook. He also argued that a term should be implied
into his contract with the Bank that he was entitled to the same rate of interest as the Bank as a
matter of law on the basis of the principle of "reciprocity" and in line with custom and usage of
banker/customer contracts. He further argued that there was a policy argument for implying such a
term, as customers on the edge of their credit limit would face higher interest rates when they
sought to borrow money to make good deductions made by banks.
The judge dismissed Mr Halliday's appeal. While courts may imply terms into banker/customer
relationships this will be on the basis of necessity and/or usage or custom, not fairness. Even when
a term is implied by law there still needs to be some "necessity" for such an implication, some "gap"
to be filled in the contractual relations between the parties. There was no "gap" here as Mr Halliday
had been repaid with compound interest and also had the right to claim statutory interest at 8%
from the court, as would any other claimant. If the law was to be criticized it would be a general
criticism of a claimant's entitlement to interest not something that could be remedied by implication
of a term. Further it was difficult to see how it could be right to impose on a bank a rate of interest
which the claimant had argued was punitive as against himself.
Mark Liddell Halliday -v- HBOS plc, Queen's Bench Division, 8 June 2007 "

Source: http://www.reclaimunfaircharges.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2194

stu1975

Thanks for that Nat, I googled and found that link,I understand the argument put forward by the claiment and there have been cases won (pre-oft) including CINT, however I think on my claim I will go back to the Stat 8%.
It's an awful lot of work for a very very risky outcome me thinks.
Oh well-Prelim of £1038.23 plus 8% will be sent off on Saturday, just out of interest, this will obviously be put on hold and I will get the usual blah blah test case stuff from Abbey, I am going to send them the LBA afterwards, is anybody still actually filing the N1 to the courts as well?

Thanks again

natweststaffmember

stu1975 wrote: »

Thanks for that Nat, I googled and found that link,I understand the argument put forward by the claiment and there have been cases won (pre-oft) including CINT, however I think on my claim I will go back to the Stat 8%.
It's an awful lot of work for a very very risky outcome me thinks.
Oh well-Prelim of £1038.23 plus 8% will be sent off on Saturday, just out of interest, this will obviously be put on hold and I will get the usual blah blah test case stuff from Abbey, I am going to send them the LBA afterwards, is anybody still actually filing the N1 to the courts as well?

Thanks again

Here is the thing, if you fill in an N1 then everytime you get a bank charge you have to start again with the process. However if it is with the bank then it is merely updating the claim. Does that make sense?
I am from the Judge Judy school "Keep It Simple Stupid(KISS)"

stu1975

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Here is the thing, if you fill in an N1 then everytime you get a bank charge you have to start again with the process.Thats true, never thought of it like that,ok so charges and 8% up until tomorrows date (when I do the prelim) give them 14 days and send LBA stating that my figures will be ammended at the closure of OFT case and re submitted to them, incurring more interestblah blah and leave it with them

However if it is with the bank then it is merely updating the claim. Does that make sense?
I am from the Judge Judy school "Keep It Simple Stupid(KISS)"

And in response, there is nowt wrong with Judge Judy, she is Hardcore lol

Stu:rotfl:

stu1975

Ok so claim is in and at LBA stage, I have issues with SAR failure from when this account commenced(claim to be ammended).
Can one of you non compliance experts have a look at my draft letter for failure, I am going to send this off on Monday.

Thanks Guys


LETTER BEFORE ACTION
Section 7 – Data Protection Act 1998

Dear Sir/Madam

Account:



I am in receipt of the documents that you have supplied in response to my Data Protection Act information request dated 30/7/2009. The disclosure of personal data is incomplete in that at least the following documents are missing.



1) You have failed to provide a complete list of transactions and charges, You have provided me with a list of "charges" from August 2003 until December 2006, then full statements from 2008 until todays
date.
2) you have failed to provide any data from the date the account was opened in 1999 to 2003 and nothing for 2007
3) You have provided no notes, or documents relating to any legal action between you and myself.
4) You have provided no notes, or documents relating to instances of manual intervention.

What I require

1)I require full statements and or lists of every transaction since the account was opened, going back to 1999 when this account commenced.
2)Any data held in any form from when the account(S) commenced until todays date, 1999-2009
3)Any of the above points 1 to 4
4)I also asked Abbey to supply me with copies of all the data which you hold on me in relation to any matter and in any form for any period of time, please note that I require disclosure of any personal data which you hold on me for the entire dealings with you, this includes the above named account,ex joint account blah blah, mortgage account blah blah and any settled loans and credit cards.

This is not an exhaustive list by any means, it is just an example of some of the information I am missing.

Accordingly, I have to tell you that you have not yet complied with your obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.

The time for compliance with my request has now expired. If you do not comply fully with my Subject Access Request within 7 days, I shall apply to the County Court for an order to enforce compliance, together with damages at the discretion of the court.

Yours faithfully,

stu1975

quick bump for SAR letter above please

esmerellda

Sounds perfick to me assumin you did send a FULL SAR to start with and not the MSE template request for a list of charges.

Going back a bit

there have been cases won (pre-oft) including CINT,

I'd love to see these. There were people getting more on negotiation with the banks when they were just paying up at first sight of court forms but on no occassion that I know of did anyone 'win' contractual interest. Credit cards is another matter.

stu1975

Cool, Yes I sent the full SAR from CAG, they really are incompetent.The letter I got with my "list" of few charges stated that they are PRESUMING that I want the info to make a claim blah blah, clearly not what I asked for.I asked for all info on all accounts held with them for anytime.I will send that tomorrow.
The claims I was refereing to that had CINT on where on CAG, I will have a look for the user names as I cant remember.I know it was a husband and wife and they went all the way to court.
Thnaks for the reply

Stu

esmerellda

mindzai & lucid v lloyds per chance ?

this was pre test case, and was out of court. the banks were too scared to go into court and was pretty much a battle of wills as to who would back out first. Things now are entirely different, as you know. You can include it in your claim as we don't know what the courts will decide regarding restitution etc but I wouldnt count of receiving it especially any time before the end of the test case.