Bank refusing to disclose under Subject matter request.

sbkenn

Hi all. Can anyone advise hoe to apply to the courts or regulator when a bank (AIB) refuses to fully disclose my account and file info ? They are redacting the names of their own officers who signed correspondence claiming that they are 3rd parties and protected by the data protection act.

Thanks in advance

Shane

Jim2007

They are third parties and they are protected by the GDPR. The GDPR is not a magic formula for you to by pass the rules of evidence, so if you are intending to take a case to court you should consult a solicitor because some evidence obtained via a GDPR request would render it inadmissible and some information you just can't get access to with a discovery order.

There should be no reason for you to need the details of individual officers who signed documents in the past as officers of the bank, unless say the bank was disputing the validity of the documents for example. You'd need to have a very compelling factual basis for a judge to grant such a discovery order and it would not be cheap.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058399029/bank-refusing-to-disclose-under-subject-matter-request

You could make a complaint to the data protection commissioner, alleging your data subject access request has not been suitably dealt with.

But where are you going with this? Individual employees were acting on behalf of the bank when they signed any documents - any dispute over these documents will be with the bank regardless of what individuals signature is at the bottom.

coylemj

OP, what would you propose to do with the info if the bank did supply you with the names of those officials?

sbkenn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123228486#Comment_123228486

The original correspondence didn't have any redactions. The copies of them shouldn't ! I am entitled to know who I am dealing with.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123234708#Comment_123234708

You are dealing with the bank, the person signing does so on behalf of the bank.

Perhaps you should have held on to the original correspondence if you believed you would need to deal with the signee rather than the bank...

sbkenn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123234726#Comment_123234726

The original correspondence was misaddressed so was never delivered. They admitted that in the response to the Subject Matter Request.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123234796#Comment_123234796

So you don't know who signed it anyway? Yet now, despite being forwarded a copy with redacted signed details, you think you are being sleighted or denied information pertinent to your GDPR request?

To be clear, you aren't. The signee acts as an agent of the bank. The bank is an independent legal entity and your dispute is with them not their signee.

At a guess, you appear to be in dispute with the bank. If so? Focus on the facts of the dispute rather than whether or not you have an entitlement to name of someone signing in place of the bank.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123234708#Comment_123234708

You know exactly who you are dealing with - a corporate legal entity, it is on every correspondence you received. This will not fly in court, it's as simple as that.

coylemj

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123234708#Comment_123234708

So you can name them as defendants in a civil action?

Let me tell you what would happen in that case because someone recently named Margaret Heffernan, the daughter of Ben Dunne Sr. and a major shareholder in Dunnes Stores as a defendant in a civil case. On only the second or third hearing, her name as a defendant was removed and Dunnes Stores substituted.

The same thing would happen if you attempt to sue AIB and you named some of their employees as co-defendants. The bank will tell a judge that they (AIB) will contest the case and the employees will be removed as named defendants. In short, you will achieve nothing by naming bank employees in a civil case.

Dunnes Stores substituted as defendant in case in place of Margaret Heffernan

sbkenn

They are officers of the bank, acting for the bank, but we are still entitled to know who signed corespondence. Without a signature and a name, a letter carries no weight.

New Scottman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123254851#Comment_123254851

what if they don’t work there anymore?

The J Stands for Jay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123254851#Comment_123254851

Are you suggesting that the letter is some sort of a forgery without a scribble made by some person unknown to you on it?

GerardKeating

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123234708#Comment_123234708

But are you ?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123254851#Comment_123254851

Only if the bank dispute the letter, otherwise the signature (or lack of one) is not relevant.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123254851#Comment_123254851

You don't get to make up the rules… You don't have a right to that data under the GDPR, the letters do have signatures and can't be challenged as such. Now at this stage you have run out of road, either you engage a solicitor and get a court order or you don't.

So unless you are going to be more forthcoming, then I will close out the thread.

3DataModem

”we are still entitled”

legally, no

Ethically, no