[ Post New Message | Post Reply to this One | Send Private Email to Lee | Help ]

Response to Incomplete SAR DPA Bradford & Bingley

from Lee (repossession@bigfoot.com)
There's little I can add to that detailed response from Eleanor.

You should also be pleased that they said "their client feels this to be an unreasonable request". It's hard to stand a claim up in court if you have been sticky about letting the alleged debtor validate it. You should reply to this with a short letter saying "thank you for your letter of xx in which you said your Bradford & Bingley thought it unreasonable to be required to supply documents to validate its £xxxxx claim. I take this as an admission that the claim is a sham."

Keep it short, keep it focused on the point (which is the refusal to supply docs), then sit back and relax. You'll get threats but this is dealt with elsewhere on the site.

As for the absence of info, Bradford & Bingley is well aware that this site encourages people to:

a) abide by the Civil Procedure Rules to negotiated sensibly and b) use their separate Data Protection Act rights to try to help Bradford & Bingley act more responsibly in its dealing with those it alleges owe it money (ie, to prove the validity of its claims).

My personal opinion would be that it is not comfortable with the idea of you seeing how it handles a shortfall chase and so kept current data off its system.

Note that many debt recovery/lawyer companies now offer lenders a way of accessing the debt recovery company's records of its dealings with you over a network. This means the lender no longer "maintains" that information in a way that the Data Protection Act would cover. So they don't have to produce it.

This is just one of many reasons why you should also serve SARNs on the debt collector (Hammond Suddard Edge, I presume?) and indeed the skip tracer/debtor tracing company associated with your case.

Lee

(posted 8419 days ago)

[ Previous | Next ]