MBNA - Sarcastic letter required

Camdenite

Today I received an undated letter from Rachel Claridge at MBNA along with a list of only half of the charges applied to my account (Sep 2001 (when I opened the account) > Jun 2004).

I actually wrote to them yesterday giving them seven days to resond as their 40 days to respond to my original SAR we're up on Friday last week. Does anyone know whether they send the list of remaining charges without prompting or do I have to get the FOS involved?

I know this is just another of their delaying tactics, so I want to send something that show's I won't be messed around with and that they are still in breach of the 40 day ruling.

Any suggestions?

Twinkly

Camdenite wrote: »

Today I received an undated letter from Rachel Claridge at MBNA along with a list of only half of the charges applied to my account (Sep 2001 (when I opened the account) > Jun 2004).

I actually wrote to them yesterday giving them seven days to resond as their 40 days to respond to my original SAR we're up on Friday last week. Does anyone know whether they send the list of remaining charges without prompting or do I have to get the FOS involved?

I know this is just another of their delaying tactics, so I want to send something that show's I won't be messed around with and that they are still in breach of the 40 day ruling.

Any suggestions?

Send another letter as before giving them 7 days and good luck getting a faster response because of it. You can complain to the FO and advise them you will be doing so. It may hurry them up a bit.The fact is that thousands of people want their details and they cannot keep up with demand. This isnt your problem and you can either be patient and wait for them to arrive or write endless letter giving them 7 days to send them ad infinitum.

If your details are exactly half of them it is possible that they are being sent out in batches and you will receive the other half soon. Good luck with it

Mark_Brooks_2

Send them a box of really heavy items like horseshoes and don't put any stamps on! - A guy did that to on old company I worked for because he was !!!!ed at them, curiosity got the better of the manager and she accepted the postage charges just to see what was posted - there was a stinking letter inside too.

Camdenite

Cheers Twinly. Is it worth sending another threat of involving the FOS, given that they will only have one from me this morning? I don't want to appear unreasonable. I may just phone them tomorrow and ask what they think they are playing at. They have the information and actually told me the complete total of charges due over the phone last week! It really is just them wriggling.

Camdenite

Thanks Mark. Now that's more along the lines I was thinking of ;-) Being a London lad though, horseshoes are in pretty short supply.

Twinkly

To be honest I would have thought that the pre-2004 ones would have been a bigger problem and slower because of the fact they are usually microfiched and need representing for you. I'd give them a ring and see if you can find out what is going on. A verbal threat to get onto the Information Commissioner might get things moving just as fast a written one and take you less time to issue

Camdenite

You & me both Twinkly. I guess they are just using this as a standard tactic. It just grates that they we're prepared to inform of the total of charges over the phone, but still go to these childish lengths.

Stephen_Leak

Ring up and be annoyed with the bank by all means, but spare a thought for the poor staff involved. They probably just made a mistake, because they are so stressed out. I've been in that situation when I was at BT - it wasn't pleasant.

The banks & CCCs are snowed under with requests and the FO is snowed under with complaints. The banks and CCCs have probably also figured out what percentage of requests are turning into FO complaints, and that one more isn't going to make much difference, so why bother.

Camdenite

I understand. They are only mere footsoldiers in this war, but I very much doubt it was just an honest mistake. Could the tactic be because they believe I may become impatient and put in an initial claim followed by a second claim for the remainder once I have the figures and give them some loophole on my claim not being particularised correctly? Just a thought.