My father got an offer

dazza12

societys_child wrote: »

Sounds like you didn't send £10 when you demanded the SAR? If so they can ignore it. Oh and demanding is not always to get the best way to go about things is it.

highrisklowreturn wrote: »

Finally at the start of January I took him into a branch, and they made us fill out a SAR template form, charging us a tenner for the priviledge.

Can you at least make sure you've read the original post before criticising? It makes things pretty clear here that he paid £10.

He's made a subject access request under the Data Protection Act. The bank haven't complied. He's now got every right to demand that they comply with the SAR.

-taff

Actually, personally, I'd find it very difficult to believe that any information is destroyed. Databases don't take up much room now, but older paper based ones are harder to find and are not part of a computerised system.

If your complaint is upheld, and it isn't a goodiwll gesture, thay have to offer you everything, so anecdotal evidence only points to this being the case in goodwill offers of redress.

I believe I made it clear that a bank only has to keep info for as long as necessary or a recommended 6 years. Nowhere did I say this was a set time at all.

No, I'm not saying it's because they are asking for help. I'm saying that they have expectations that thye haven't researched.
Such as [in this case] not paying for a SAR yet expecting the bank to comply until they eventually paid them, expecting all the info to be retained etc.
If they had come here originally, and read the wealth of information available, or asked for some help on basic steps, or even followed the instructions in the how-to, they would be better informed and not come here with [not in this case] paranoid suspicions that the man is doing them wrong.

Swiftkidd

When my mum was in our local bank's branch enquiring about PPI the records went back at least 15 years and they said it's possible to go back even further but requires the files be unarchived which would be time consuming so they didn't do it which my mum seemed very understanding and not bothered by.. so makes you wonder just how much data they hold.

dazza12

-taff wrote: »

Such as [in this case] not paying for a SAR yet expecting the bank to comply until they eventually paid them, expecting all the info to be retained etc..

But he did pay for an SAR - check the original post and my further post later down the thread.

-taff

Yes, eventually he did. He originally 'demanded' SAR info in November though.

highrisklowreturn wrote: »

I was putting in a claim for ppi on his behalf. I did this initially in September last year...2 months later I sent them another letter demanding SAR info for my father and this was ignored.

Finally at the start of January I took him into a branch, and they made us fill out a SAR template form, charging us a tenner for the priviledge.

[Deleted User]

Swiftkidd wrote: »

When my mum was in our local bank's branch enquiring about PPI the records went back at least 15 years and they said it's possible to go back even further but requires the files be unarchived which would be time consuming so they didn't do it which my mum seemed very understanding and not bothered by.. so makes you wonder just how much data they hold.

It depends on whether the customer concerns still banks with them, you certainly wouldn't get information "going back at least fifteen years" on a closed account. As taff has already said, they only have to keep information for as long as necessary (or a recommended six years). Anyone who no longer has documentation which the bank too have destroyed is wasting their time with a complaint.

highrisklowreturn

Listen, I originally complained, and was not made aware, after two complaints, that the bank wanted a £10 fee to do the search. Then we went in and asked them only to be told this - they could have told me in their original letter, which dealt with the technical glitch but not the sar I had also made, that they wanted a fee.

By the way the fee is in my understanding not necessary under law and unjustifiable unless the bank considers the time and resources to comply disproportionate to any result.

As I've said, they still haven't complied with the sar aspect, just made the offer in respect of a dozen account numbers.

I spoke to my dad and he just comes out with crap like "don't bite the hand that feeds you". He's all for taking it, whereas I'm inclined to fight.

[Deleted User]

highrisklowreturn wrote: »

By the way the fee is in my understanding not necessary under law and unjustifiable unless the bank considers the time and resources to comply disproportionate to any result.

If you want a DSAR you pay £10.

If you only want them to make a cursory glance of their systems you pay nothing.

No point complaining about them not responding until you (eventually) paid up.

societys_child

dazza12 wrote: »

Can you at least make sure you've read the original post before criticising? It makes things pretty clear here that he paid £10.

I read the post, it mentions nothing of paying when he wrote demanding the SAR in November

He's made a subject access request under the Data Protection Act. The bank haven't complied. He's now got every right to demand that they comply with the SAR.

He states clearly he paid when he completed a SAR in branch in January and seems surprised that payment was necessary!

It appears the Nov SAR was invalid, the only person he can complain to is himself.

[Deleted User]

societys_child wrote: »

He states clearly he paid when he completed a SAR in branch in January and seems surprised that payment was necessary!

I think -taff has already established all that for you.

I do agree it was unwise to castigate you for not reading the original post when the poster concerned was in error himself.

Regardless, this is rather an ill-tempered discussion which has wavered off topic, I hereby take my leave of it.