Reply To: is FTT decision correct?

Mike Hughes

The behaviour of the judge was patent nonsense because if there was anything in there that either the appellant or the judge thought inappropriate for the PO to view then that is a conversation which takes place either in advance of the hearing in the papers and/or via interlocutory decisions, or, on the day in front of everyone. In the absence of any reported conversation between the judge and the appellant to that effect or seeking consent to share then the judge has made a unilateral decision based on some spurious data protection principle determined unilaterally which would never stand up to analysis if pursued to UT. A very clear breach of natural justice from the POs perspective. However, as stated above, going to UT would be pointless in these circumstances. No UT would make its own findings in these circumstances so you’re back to FTT and the same issue.

As regards bank charges for past statements I suggest you try it Kay. Ask for a statement 1 month outside the period covered by your banking app. Watch those charges rack up. Absolutely fabulous idea to invoke the ICO but few appellants would have the ability to see it from that angle or the money and time to pursue it. Faced with benefit or no benefit most people either go with what they have, as here, give up, or, borrow the money to get what they need.

For the record Nationwide charged me £15 for what was 4 pieces of paper. 3 of them were not the statement but the guff which came with the statement that particular month. The statement was exactly 1 month outside of the period covered by the Nationwide banking app on iOS and the ICO agreed that the charge was a reasonable administration charge in the circumstances. They recommended I not pursue the case.

As I say I have seen far, far worse with claimants.