We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
RBS being difficult?
Comments
-
-
Moneyineptitude wrote: »It was your warning to the OP to "forget 40 days, NatWest will take months to respond" that I took issue with. I think you were being unnecessarily alarmist.
Oh, I see. Perhaps I should have said 'may take months'. I'm not being unnecessarily alarmist. RBS/Natwest are so snowed under that they'll often do half a job and let you believe what they've sent is what they've got.Moneyineptitude wrote: »The point is not that they don't keep information for longer than six years, but that they destroy information no longer deemed necessary and this usually means anyone who is no longer a current customer will fail to procure anything older than six years.
Again, not correct. The Natwest Archive system kept details of all customer accounts that were open at the time the system was frozen. In order to remain consistent, data since 2002 is kept under the same conditions - details of a deposit account I closed in 2003 has been supplied to me.
The point is, that if RBS suggest they don't have data on you, if your account was open during the times suggested, they do have details.Competition wins:
2010 - approx £450. 2011 - approx £800. 2012 - approx £300. 2013 - nothing so far!0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »Seems Dazza12 may have the answers, I only know the "official" line.
Why the sarcasm? I'm just being helpful. I found information that goes against what people have been led to believe so I thought I'd share it.
@sun73 - Write a further letter to them thanking them for what they have sent but advising that they haven't supplied what you've requested. Give them a list of what you need from them. Be as helpful as you can in order to help them locate your details. Include a copy of the original SAR. Give them a reasonable amount of time, say 14 days. It's then up to you whether you decide to take them to court or report them to the ICO to enforce compliance.Competition wins:
2010 - approx £450. 2011 - approx £800. 2012 - approx £300. 2013 - nothing so far!0 -
Interesting that they appear to be flouting the FSA guidelines.Again, not correct. The Natwest Archive system kept details of all customer accounts that were open at the time the system was frozen.Why the sarcasm?
What "sarcasm"?
As I said, I only know the official line. It'll take more than one internet user to convince me otherwise, I'm afraid.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »Interesting that they appear to be flouting the FSA guidelines.
Not if they as a bank deem it necessary to keep the information0 -
They'd have to justify such a decision to the ICO of course. That's why we have (supposedly) stringent data protection lawssussexbhoy wrote: »Not if they as a bank deem it necessary to keep the information0 -
You may be on the list to get a proactive refund :rotfl:Im an ex employee RBS GroupHowever Any Opinion Given On MSE Is Strictly My Own0
-
Moneyineptitude wrote: »They'd have to justify such a decision to the ICO of course. That's why we have (supposedly) stringent data protection laws
I see what you're saying, but in the case of PPI mis-selling (as an example), having their records past 6 years would be deemed as justified as it's in the interest of the customers (past and present) in aiding them to make their complaints, and if upheld giving them the correct and full redress.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »Interesting that they appear to be flouting the FSA guidelines.
What? Guidelines are just that. Flouting suggests rule breaking. Natwest are meeting those guidelines by storing data for 6+ years. Only if they're using the data for more than necessary would they be doing anything wrong. The data is archived, not being used for any other purpose.
If they're 'flouting', then so are MBNA by keeping data as far back as 1995, and Barclaycard by keeping data from 1990.Moneyineptitude wrote: »What sarcasm?
As I said, I only know the official line. It'll take more than one internet user to convince me otherwise, I'm afraid.
The sarcasm used to answer sun73. I never said I had all the answers, just documented my own experience of catching Natwest out when they said they'd supplied all data - despite them completely forgetting to supply any details from my active current account.
You say 'the official line' as if you're a data expert. What 'official line' is this? There are FSA and ICO guidelines, but no 'official line'. I'd be interested in knowing this 'official line' as it interests me professionally. I'm a data controller for both a sports club and one of my roles for my employer. If I'm not meeting this 'official line' then please put me right as I'm clearly not meeting my responsibilities.
Yes, I'm just one internet user. So are you. You don't know me, I don't know you. For all we know, each of us could just be some armchair expert who thinks they know better.
I'm just bringing practical experience to the table. One other person on this thread also confirmed what I've described - and no, I've got no connection with him.Competition wins:
2010 - approx £450. 2011 - approx £800. 2012 - approx £300. 2013 - nothing so far!0 -
![[Deleted User]](https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/defaultavatar/nFA7H6UNOO0N5.jpg)
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards