DSAR

Thanks everyone.

I've not got the foggiest on how I should be wording a notice to the ICO as I don't want to say to much.

Should I just be saying:

To whoever wrote the letter and signed it,

There is no fraudulent activity on the account that I am aware of, I have never reported any fraudulent activity, and I am not concerned that there is any fraud on the account as so I should be allowed to see all the data that the OC has on me.

Please could you confirm in writing that OC has said they are investigating fraud on the account? What exact fraud are they looking into?

Not sure what else to write... all help welcomed.

Try this ,also see if waylander can add or change anything.
----------------------------
I have received a response from you ref no xxxxxxxxx the contents of which
i fail to comprehend. I therefore require from you clarification of the following;

1. 'You are satisfied with the Original Creditors response' . What response are
you refering to? Is it a response the OC has sent to you or the response
sent to i ?

2. You reference fraudulent activity regarding the account. As i am unaware
of any fraudulent activity on said account,please supply documentation
relating to this allegation.

3. My DSAR was sent to the OC in regard to my personal data held by them,
please explain why you believe that the OC can withhold said data & is it
not a criminal offence pursuant to S.173 (3) of the Data Protection Act 2018
& also S.3 of the Fraud Act 2006 to conceal such data held ?

As stated above, i am unaware of any fraud and have not therefore requested
as you suggest, information relating to any alleged fraudster.

I therefore require that you inform the OC that my personal data be supplied
according to my rights under law.

i have had a quick read through the thread and it is very confusing.

from what i can see the OC haven't actually been chasing you for money ? and you dont have any statements or anything to go by ?

Daves' letter is fine, i would have maybe added a bit to it in respect of them chasing you for money or payments of some kind but i can't see that they actually have ?

from what i can see this has all been done very prematurely with no real information as to what this is all about until well into the thread. there also seems to be a change of address somewhere in there which may have something to do with them raising the fraud issue ( again unsure )

in my humble opinion i think you need to tread a little carefully and i think we should maybe go back to the beginning and get some facts on the table.

not trying to be funny here just honest.

waylander62 wrote:i have had a quick read through the thread and it is very confusing.

from what i can see the OC haven't actually been chasing you for money ? and you dont have any statements or anything to go by ?

Daves' letter is fine, i would have maybe added a bit to it in respect of them chasing you for money or payments of some kind  but i can't see that they actually have ?

from what i can see this has all been done very prematurely with no real information as to what this is all about until well into the thread. there also seems to be a change of address somewhere in there which may have something to do with them raising the fraud issue ( again unsure )

in my humble opinion i think you need to tread a little carefully and i think we should maybe go back to the beginning and get some facts on the table.

not trying to be funny here just honest.

Hello Waylander

They chase me for money, have sent me statements with fees for non payment. Why would I write to a the OC if they weren't chasing me for money? After they were asking for money, I sent a DSAR, they didn't comply, so I told the ICO, and in the mean time they continued asking for money and referencing fraud for not giving me any information.

There has been no change in address.

When would you have started the process. I didn't want to ignore their demands so have been playing mail tennis with them.

Thanks for reading the thread.

daveiron wrote:Try this ,also see if waylander can add or change anything.
                  ----------------------------
I have received a response from you ref no xxxxxxxxx the contents of which
i fail to comprehend. I therefore require from you clarification of the following;

1.  'You are satisfied with the Original Creditors response' . What response are
    you refering to? Is it a response the OC has sent to you or the response
    sent to i ?

2.  You reference fraudulent activity regarding the account. As i am unaware
    of any fraudulent activity on said account,please supply documentation
    relating to this allegation.

3.  My DSAR was sent to the OC in regard to my personal data held by them,
    please explain why you believe that the OC can withhold said data & is it
   not a criminal offence pursuant to S.173 (3) of the Data Protection Act 2018
   & also S.3 of the Fraud Act 2006 to conceal such data held ?

As stated above, i am unaware of any fraud and have not therefore requested
as you suggest, information relating to any alleged fraudster.

I therefore require that you inform the OC that my personal data be supplied
according to my rights under law.
   

Thanks very much, I will give this a go.

after reading your last post i would add onto what dave has said

make the ICO aware that they are chasing you for payment of a sum of money or sums of money which you cannot be sure are correct hence the reason you sent a DSAR for information so that you can properly assess your standing in respect of this account number xxxxxxxxxxx.

if, as you, the ICO believe that there is some type of fraud associated with the account and a 'fraudster' involved then why are (OC) continually harassing me to make payments ? Surely the account should be put on hold until the 'fraud' investigation has been resolved satisfactorily.

waylander62 wrote:after reading your last post i would add onto what dave has said

make the ICO aware that they are chasing you for payment of a sum of money or sums of money which you cannot be sure are correct hence the reason you sent a DSAR for information so that you can properly assess your standing in respect of this account number xxxxxxxxxxx.

if, as you, the ICO believe that there is some type of fraud associated with the account and a 'fraudster' involved then why are (OC) continually harassing me to make payments ? Surely the account should be put on hold until the 'fraud' investigation has been resolved satisfactorily.

Thanks waylander.

I will address that after the next letter I get from the OC. I think their constant reference to fraud is simply a ruse to get me to contact them by phone or answer the telephone when they ring and just a get out clause so they don't have to give me any information and hope that I make a payment.

I will let you know what their responses are. Thanks for the help

Dont forget to get that off to the ICO ,combine what waylander and myself
have put. Its important to see just what data they have (or dont have)

daveiron wrote:Try this ,also see if waylander can add or change anything.
                  ----------------------------
I have received a response from you ref no xxxxxxxxx the contents of which
i fail to comprehend. I therefore require from you clarification of the following;

1.  'You are satisfied with the Original Creditors response' . What response are
    you refering to? Is it a response the OC has sent to you or the response
    sent to i ?

2.  You reference fraudulent activity regarding the account. As i am unaware
    of any fraudulent activity on said account,please supply documentation
    relating to this allegation.

3.  My DSAR was sent to the OC in regard to my personal data held by them,
    please explain why you believe that the OC can withhold said data & is it
   not a criminal offence pursuant to S.173 (3) of the Data Protection Act 2018
   & also S.3 of the Fraud Act 2006 to conceal such data held ?

As stated above, i am unaware of any fraud and have not therefore requested
as you suggest, information relating to any alleged fraudster.

I therefore require that you inform the OC that my personal data be supplied
according to my rights under law.
   

Hello, do I sign this with the:

by:

all rights reseved
xxxx: Xxxxx
authorised representative

or do I just sign it as I would do any other letter?

Thankss


Non negotiable . All contacts recorded

Up to you, personally i sign almost everything that way.

Keep it on the right hand side as that denotes the creditor side (you)

daveiron wrote:Up to you, personally i sign almost everything that way.

Keep it on the right hand side as that denotes the creditor side (you)

Ok thanks,

A woman has signed the letter from ICO and has a handwritten signature. Should I write to her? Or should I write to the CEO of the ICO?

write to who sent you the letter is what i would do, are you going to mention that the OC are chasing you for money ?

waylander62 wrote:write to who sent you the letter is what i would do, are you going to mention that the OC are chasing you for money ?

Yes indeed I am going to include that. Thanks. I'll get it sent off now

Hello, about to send my NoCA 2. Nothing received back from NoCA after 21 days.

In the template it says, "Notice of Conditional Acceptance
Notice of non-response and opportunity to Cure"


Should this be written,
"NOTICE-OF-CONDITIONAL-ACCEPTANCE
NOTICE-OF-NON-RESPONSE-AND-OPPORTUNITY-TO-CURE"

Thanks again

Its up to you ,Remember to put the hyphens in if you use the full caps.

Nothing back so far from my NoCA 2 but there are RM strikes and i noticed that in my notice I said that I give them 10 days to reply at the beginning but later I gave them 21 days. It doesn't matter though because it is just drawing out the process longer.

I did hear back from the ICO about the ICO being happy about the OCs response. It appears they didn't even speak with the OC but because I had sent them screenshots of the letters the OC sent to me regarding the alleged fraud, they were happy with their responses. I will show the letter tomorrow when I have it in my possession again.

If any of you watch jedi interactive on YAYC, you will notice that someone else has a similar issue regarding OC saying they have fraud on the account and so cannot give out any of their info. Si gave his advice on this. I don't suppose any of you caught this?

Thanks

Yes i caught that ,tbh i wondered if it was you.

brownowl wrote:Nothing back so far from my NoCA 2 but there are RM strikes and i noticed that in my notice I said that I give them 10 days to reply at the beginning but later I gave them 21 days. It doesn't matter though because it is just drawing out the process longer.

I did hear back from the ICO about the ICO being happy about the OCs response. It appears they didn't even speak with the OC but because I had sent them screenshots of the letters the OC sent to me regarding the alleged fraud, they were happy with their responses. I will show the letter tomorrow when I have it in my possession again.

If any of you watch jedi interactive on YAYC, you will notice that someone else has a similar issue regarding OC saying they have fraud on the account and so cannot give out any of their info. Si gave his advice on this. I don't suppose any of you caught this?

Thanks

ICO LETTER:

"Our assessment of OC data protection compliance is based on the evidence we received from you on X and further info received on X. In the letter OC sent to you, they stated they are unable to provide copies of your personal information that you requested because it 'would prejudice the prevention of fraud.'

As per our previous advice under the data protection law you are not entitled to receive information relating to the fraudulent activity on your account from OC. They are not obligate under the data protection law to provide any information about the fraudster as it would not be considered your personal information.

If you have further concerns about OCs response then you should make a complaint to the regarding fraudulent activity on your account."

So it seems ICO never contacted the OC. But I think they make a good point for myself to just say to the OC. "good luck with your fraud investigation, I was thinking it must be a fraudster since I have no recollection of ever taking out any debt that is alleged. Please make sure that my credit file is not affected by this malicious fraudster. Do not contact me again as whatever information you have and are not able to supply should not be considered my personal information. Thanks"

Have you sent a CCA request to the creditor, if so then what did they provide?

I can see why the pattern of activity would have been flagged at their end.  Card opened and unused for a period, then maxed out at which point they find you are unreachable at the address or email that they have on record. I see from some of the letters they're not outright refusing to provide information, but as asking you to contact their security team first.  Presumably they want to verify your identity.

flyingfish wrote:Have you sent a CCA request to the creditor, if so then what did they provide?

I can see why the pattern of activity would have been flagged at their end.  Card opened and unused for a period, then maxed out at which point they find you are unreachable at the address or email that they have on record. I see from some of the letters they're not outright refusing to provide information, but as asking you to contact their security team first.  Presumably they want to verify your identity.

I've only send DSAR x 2, NoCAs 1 and 2. So no CCA request, I did not think I would need it since a DSAR should cover that.

I think they are only referencing fraud so that they can get me on the phone, just a little trap. Yes, they are saying they can only provide info if I contact them regarding security, but what exactly do they expect me to say, "yes it is me," or "no it is not me..." They have no idea who i am... I sense it is just them bluffing.

Thanks

Good morning all, thanks for the help thus far:

Here is a draft for my 3rd NoCA, I have written a little bit before I will add the template to make it personal to my issue. I have blended the fraud issue in and think it works alright but interested to know your thoughts. Also, when referring to the CEO in the body of the notice, should i be - john : doe, john doe or John Doe?
Thanks once again.

***


john : doe, I the man, joe : bloggs have previously sent to you 2 Notices of Conditional
Acceptance sent on X/X/2022 and X/X/2022, received on X/X/2022 and X/X/2022, subject to your production of the evidence requested to the validity of your claim that I, joe : bloggs owe a debt to your corporation.

These two notices, according to Royal Mail records have been received at your office on X and X
and bear the signature of the acceptor X and X. I have given you ample time to respond to my requests, therefore I am somewhat perturbed that someone in your position has now placed themselves in default and dishonour. I attempted to settle this matter and have come with 'clean hands.’

Since my initial DSAR in April, the only correspondence I received from you, John Doe, are references to fraud on the account. The references to fraud did concern me as I had suspected fraud when I received a demand for payment, which is why I have gone down the legally binding route of conditional acceptance to settle any alleged debt I may have with you.

My concerns were raised when I first received a demand for payment. I have no recollection of setting up or using the account so I though it may have been someone stealing my identity since it is too easy to get a credit card these days over the internet without sufficient checks.

However, as referenced in previous notices, I have a busy life with lots of things going on that it may have been something I had forgotten or overlooked, so I wanted to remain in honour, hence the reason for my initial Data Subject Access Request. The DSAR response should have given me all the information required to ascertain any lawful obligation I may have to your corporation. However, no information was made forthcoming which further enforced my suspicions that I had been victim to fraud. But, I always like to give the benefit of the doubt and so the next step were legal notices, in the form of conditional acceptance to make it easier for you, John Doe, as it specified the exact information needed to settle any alleged debt.

As previously stated, the only correspondence from you has referenced fraud on the account. You have suggested that the reason I am not allowed access to any data with regard to the account is because a fraudster has set up and used the account without my consent, therefore the data is not mine. If this is the case, the alleged debt is not be mine either. It cannot be the case that the data is not mine but the alleged debt is, in the same way it cannot be that the data is mine and the alleged debt is someone else’s.

So please make up your mind so that we can draw an end to this unnecessary and extremely distressing matter. If you have my data then you must legally respond to my request subject to the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR. With that data I will be able to settle any lawful obligation I may have. If you continue to ignore my requests for my data or are unable to provide any information then I can assume that there is no proof of any alleged debt. If you continue to suggest that the only data you have with regard to this account is not mine then the alleged debt is not mine and so I am not obliged to pay someone else’s debt due to your failure in fraud prevention.

So, after three notices of conditional acceptance, there are three outcomes to close this matter:

You provide proof of any debt alleged which will enable me to settle the account.
You do not provide any proof of any alleged debt and this matter is closed.
You cannot provide any data because a fraudster has set up and used the account, therefore the account is not mine to settle.

If the outcome is 2 or 3, please see to it that no more requests for payments are sent to me, my credit rating is not affected and I should not have any other repercussions. I wish you well in your fraud investigation but do not pursue me further in a matter which does not concern me as I should not have to suffer due to your incompetency in preventing fraud.

So, for the third and final time of asking, I have made it clear below as to what data I specifically require to settle any lawful obligation I may have to your corporation.

*****Then the template for NoCA

Looks good, the only part i personally would address is the sentence below.
I assume all correspondence has come from a minion who has intermeddled
and not the CEO ?
Remember all correspondence was addressed to the CEO personally,therefore
unless he/she contacted you ,they have put themselves in dishonour.

As previously stated, the only correspondence from you has referenced fraud on the account.

Ok thanks, I will change that somehow.

Also, when referring to the CEO in the body of the notice, should i be writing:

john : doe
john doe
or
John Doe?

Thanks

In the Affadavit:

"Parsnip and Co trespassed in my private affairs on two occasions and have failed to provide documentation in which a person (Fred Smith CEO) has accepted liability for these claims as no corporate entity can make such claims, only a person."

How have Parsnip and Co Trespassed? Is this because it was passed to Complaints Department and the Legal Team? Does that not mean Complaints Department or the Legal Team trespassed? as they were third party interlopers?

Also, is this not something I send, but just keep in case it goes to court? In reality I don't have 2 witnesses that will sign this for me.

Thank very much again

brownowl wrote:I've only send DSAR x 2, NoCAs 1 and 2. So no CCA request, I did not think I would need it since a DSAR should cover that.

Sorry I missed this point earlier. A CCA request is different from a DSAR in a couple of ways. The DSAR returns your personal information, so for example may not include terms and conditions or other standardised documents that do not bear your name. In addition the CCA has statutory force, if compliant documents are not provided then the creditor is barred from enforcement action until they provide them.