RBS restricting my Account

EarthBoy

Buzby wrote: »

Further, the are not allowed to disclose my financial details to any CRA under he DPA as I refused to permit them to do so (a right allowed to data subjects under the act).

You cannot refuse to allow them to disclose your details to credit reference agencies, and you are being stupid and childish even to try. It's in the terms and conditions of every bank in the country that they will report to CRAs and by using the account you accept those conditions. Any refusal by you to let the bank enforce the conditions is null and void, because by using the account you are thereby countermanding your own refusal.

If it was possible to opt out of disclosure to CRAs, the banks would simply close the accounts of anybody who did so. No bank is obliged to provide you with an account so if you open one you have to accept the terms and conditions on offer.

grumbler

Buzby wrote: »

3 - the information they seek is already on their systems. If anything changes, it remains my responsibility to update (or suffer errors due to any omission).

And their responsibility is to make sure that you do this and don't lie. Be happy that they ask just for a form, not for proofs.

opinions4u

Buzby wrote: »

1 - if they do not 'know their customer' after 30+ years of trading it is unlikely they ever will.

Well I'm a hell of a different person to the one I was 30 years ago.

2 - they supply chargeable services under T&C's that have been agreed. Their letter, which confirms that if you do not accede to their request, they will summarily lock your account WHILST STILL CHARGING FOR SERVICE not supplied is inherently fraudulent.

It gives you a chance to fall in line before the account is closed. So either close it yourself before the time comes or comply.

3 - the information they seek is already on their systems. If anything changes, it remains my responsibility to update (or suffer errors due to any omission). The fact I cannot operate my account due to not filling in a form is draconian and unnecessary - no matter the pointless 'spin' they put on it.

It's their responsibility to seek out the information. While I understand your irritation the regulator will fine them heavily if they don't comply with Money Laundering Regulations.

Further, the are not allowed to disclose my financial details to any CRA under the DPA as I refused to permit them to do so (a right allowed to data subjects under the act). Since they could not get round this, I fail to see how this situation is any different.

Almost certain that you will have to close the account to achieve this.

pmduk

With any business database, the information changes by up to 30% each year, which is why companies make so much effort to keep them up-to-date. Perhaps your bank could have told you the relevant data it holds and ask you to sign to confirm it's veracity or correct where necessary?

Buzby

EarthBoy wrote: »

You cannot refuse to allow them to disclose your details to credit reference agencies, and you are being stupid and childish even to try. It's in the terms and conditions of every bank in the country that they will report to CRAs and by using the account you accept those conditions. Any refusal by you to let the bank enforce the conditions is null and void, because by using the account you are thereby countermanding your own refusal.

If it was possible to opt out of disclosure to CRAs, the banks would simply close the accounts of anybody who did so. No bank is obliged to provide you with an account so if you open one you have to accept the terms and conditions on offer.

My - what an ill-considered response! OF COURSE you can refuse to allow them to disclose it is enshrined within the DPA, which I assume you have never read? You conveniently forget that any application form is required by the DPA to seek the agreement of the customer. When this was initially brought in, it was seen as a 'tick box' request, but eventually evolved into a statement that if you refused, they would not offer you the services you seek.

You still have your rights, but they have their policies. As it happens, my account pre dates the DPA and myself and my other longstanding customers have their data kept private, the only reason being the bank does not have the authority to disclose from the data subject. As for your last sentence in paragraph one is it simply nonsense, perhaps you should read the DPA before advancing this nonsensical and inaccurate view.

As to your second paragraph - banks have to abide with the laws enacted, and there is no requirement for the disclosure to be railroaded to the customer. They have tried on many occasions, where an account switch would have required acceptance of these new requirements, but providing the account holder was not foolhardy enough to do so - they remain hamstrung, perhaps you like your data mismanaged and manipulated by an unseen entity? I certainly don't so take steps to ensure my privacy remains at the highest level possible.

It's getting harder to achieve - but still worthwhile, especially for those who are law-abiding and hare doing nothing illegal.

Buzby

pmduk wrote: »

With any business database, the information changes by up to 30% each year, which is why companies make so much effort to keep them up-to-date. Perhaps your bank could have told you the relevant data it holds and ask you to sign to confirm it's veracity or correct where necessary?

This would have been a way forward, but not the way they have chosen to proceed. A 4-page form is being supplied, to which will form the basis for their data-scraping exercise. As I noted earlier, this is from a Bank that has lost so much credibility to date, they are the last people to be making unreasonable demands.

As I stand to save £60pa by closing the account, they're even doing me a favour - but their methods continue to leave a lot to be desired!

innovate

Good luck with keeping/getting any bank account, Buzby. If you keep digging your heels in, the best you might get is perhaps a basic account. And not even that is guaranteed.

EarthBoy was 100% spot on in his reply. The DPA is not designed for you, or anyone else, to bypass the credit management processes and systems of the UK financial institutions.

JuicyJesus

innovate wrote: »

EarthBoy was 100% spot on in his reply. The DPA is not designed for you, or anyone else, to bypass the credit management processes and systems of the UK financial institutions.

Actually... he may be correct, sort of. People whose accounts were opened before the advent of positive data sharing with CRAs are required to opt in to share "good" data (the 0s on a credit report for an account) with them. However as far as I am aware there is no still-binding opt out for negative data sharing (missed payments, defaults etc.) and there most certainly is not one for CIFAS loading and such.

In any event, the OP will most likely have been sent a notice of variation at some point over the last 30 years stating that the bank has the right to share his data with CRAs and fraud prevention agencies and given the option to refuse such - i.e. close his account before the changes take effect. He did not do so, therefore he consented by continuing to operate the account.

Buzby wrote:

This would have been a way forward, but not the way they have chosen to proceed. A 4-page form is being supplied, to which will form the basis for their data-scraping exercise. As I noted earlier, this is from a Bank that has lost so much credibility to date, they are the last people to be making unreasonable demands.

If negative public image stopped banks from asking customers to do things then the entire financial sector would be f*cked. You have no valid grounds on which to NOT comply with their request if you want to keep your account with them, and their demand is most certainly not unreasonable. Indeed, the length of time you've been a customer most likely makes it more reasonable, since KYC requirements were a lot less stringent back when you opened your account and people and businesses change over time. Especially three decades.

Gromitt

I had the same argument with the local doctors today, but they had a valid argument.

"If we ask someone if anything has changed, they typically say 'Nothing'. If we then give them a blank sheet and ask them to fill it in, we find out that things have actually changed as they have to think about it before writing it on the paper. Some people even write down what they wrote before, then cross it out and update it."

So you could say the bank doesn't trust you to keep them updated with relevant information.