Claiming PPI From RBS?

es1984_2

Hi, my boyfriend has decided to try and claim back PPI from RBS, he's had various loans from them over the past 15 years. When he wrote to them asking for copies of the loan agreements, they sent him the current one, but said that they don't keep copies of loan agreements once the loan has been completley paid back.

Is this the case usually or are they trying to fob us off? I know it is unlikely they will have any paper work dating over 6 years, but his last loan was only 4 years ago. How do we get the loan agreement if the bank say they don't have it?

sharpdeath

I believe they MUST keep records for 6 years under the DPA? If they don't give it to him, report them to the Information Commisioner for breach of the DPA.

di3004

es1984 wrote: »

Hi, my boyfriend has decided to try and claim back PPI from RBS, he's had various loans from them over the past 15 years. When he wrote to them asking for copies of the loan agreements, they sent him the current one, but said that they don't keep copies of loan agreements once the loan has been completley paid back.

Is this the case usually or are they trying to fob us off? I know it is unlikely they will have any paper work dating over 6 years, but his last loan was only 4 years ago. How do we get the loan agreement if the bank say they don't have it?

Hi there

As Sharpdeath says they should hold your details for up to approx 6 years, however, I was lucky enough to receive info from an SAR request going back from even earlier years.

So either way, give it a go anyway, and if they do not go back that far on reclaiming, you can ask if they can then at least reconsider going back the 6 years, see what they say first if you want to when you first complaint, I always say its worth a shot, you will never know otherwise.

If you want to request your SAR info, there is a template letter on here for this here:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1475553

For info on reclaiming with template letters here
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-loan-insurance

Give us a yell if you require any help and good luck.;)

dunstonh

sharpdeath wrote: »

I believe they MUST keep records for 6 years under the DPA? If they don't give it to him, report them to the Information Commisioner for breach of the DPA.

Its not a DPA breach if you dont keep the data. The DPA sets limits on how long certain data can be held but you can get rid of it before that point. However, even that doesnt matter any more because protecting yourself from liability allows you to keep documents as long as you like.

When an account closes or you cease to be a customer, then in the past documentation was often destroyed quite quickly afterwards. Especially in areas where it was felt there was no liability issues.

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

Its not a DPA breach if you dont keep the data. The DPA sets limits on how long certain data can be held but you can get rid of it before that point. However, even that doesnt matter any more because protecting yourself from liability allows you to keep documents as long as you like.

When an account closes or you cease to be a customer, then in the past documentation was often destroyed quite quickly afterwards. Especially in areas where it was felt there was no liability issues.

So really and truely the ICO are of no use in cases like this. I remember with my SAR received I had phone calls blanked and documents missing and telephoned them hoping to complain and all they said was "they would not want to incriminate themselves would they??". Some answer that was:rolleyes:.

I must admit I always thought they had to keep records even when an account is closed for tax purposes?

dunstonh

So really and truely the ICO are of no use in cases like this.

Problem with data protection was that it used to appear to have teeth. In the early to mid 90s, I remember all the staff having to get involved in destroying documentation that was over 6 years old and there was a fear that data protection breaches would be hit hard. I lot of documentation that should have been kept was got rid of. More recently it has become clear that you can hold on to documentation much longer as long as there is a liability issue and the ICO is not as scary as first thought it would be. Indeed, they generally take a very common sense approach and get frustrated with some of the things people claim about not being able to do due to data protection.

Companies do not need to supply documentation that could be used against them in a claim.

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

Problem with data protection was that it used to appear to have teeth. In the early to mid 90s, I remember all the staff having to get involved in destroying documentation that was over 6 years old and there was a fear that data protection breaches would be hit hard. I lot of documentation that should have been kept was got rid of. More recently it has become clear that you can hold on to documentation much longer as long as there is a liability issue and the ICO is not as scary as first thought it would be. Indeed, they generally take a very common sense approach and get frustrated with some of the things people claim about not being able to do due to data protection.

Companies do not need to supply documentation that could be used against them in a claim.

Wow I really did not know that dunstonh. You have surprised me there. I take it where we say on here to complain to the ICO if companies hold back on documents that could help in PPI claims then its a waste of time really.

dunstonh

I take it where we say on here to complain to the ICO if companies hold back on documents that could help in PPI claims then its a waste of time really.

Yes to some extent.

Durant vs FSA is the case that highlighted this (copied and pasted the finding below):

Lord Justice Auld effectively looked behind the wording of the Act. He looked at the purpose of the wording, which was effectively to protect privacy. It was not, he reasoned, to provide a general right of access to information.
He said of the access right:
"It is not an automatic key to any information, readily accessible or not, of matters in which he may be named or involved. Nor is to assist him, for example, to obtain discovery of documents that may assist him in litigation or complaints against third parties."
He continued:
"It follows from what I have said that not all information retrieved from a computer search against an individual’s name or unique identifier is personal data within the Act. Mere mention of the data subject in a document held by a data controller does not necessarily amount to his personal data. Whether it does so in any particular instance depends on where it falls in a continuum of relevance or proximity to the data subject as distinct, say, from transactions or matters in which he may have been involved to a greater or lesser degree."

---

I dont know if that went to higher appeal or is still being appealed but you can see that companies can stay within the law and withhold data.