MSE Blog: How to get what you want from your bank – some insider tips

Hazzanet

opinions4u wrote: »

Yesterday MSE warned me about the tone of one of my posts. I'm on the verge of being booted off the forum for asking somebody who couldn't afford his bills, but had a holiday booked that he didn't want to cancel, if he could afford the sun cream.

I saw that in the Credit Card Forum I think. O4U; in general I think you make some very good points here and give people the reality check they sometimes need. Often bluntly put, but sometimes quite necessary, perhaps MSE need a reality check themselves?

BillJones

opinions4u wrote: »

Yesterday MSE warned me about the tone of one of my posts.

This site doesnt seem to be about money saving, eally, it's a pity party for people who won't put in any effort to sort themselves out, and a forum to rage at the people who net ay in to the system.

Having come here looking to find something about electricity prices, and staying to add my opinion on a few things, I genuinely despair for some of the views that the site endorses, and am amazed at the sort of views that they warn people about.

There is no behaviour by a bad customer bad enough to warrant comment, apparently, and no criticism of a bank or lender so unwarranted as to warrant censure.

Ken68

I for one welcome whistleblowers, though it's a fine line they need to tread.

JuicyJesus

It is not news that MSE aims itself at utter cretins these days. Long gone are the days when it was about empowering people to care about money and challenge things that are genuinely anti-consumer, now it's about not caring and blaming everyone else when that inevitably doesn't work, or seeing anything that might not go in a consumer's favour as being a crime against humanity.

Ken68

Know what you mean Jesus, part of the Facebook era.

grumbler

opinions4u wrote: »

... The mere act of disclosing the existence of an account is in itself a flagrant breach of the DPA

You might well be right, but you sound like a bank employee knowing about existence of DPA, but having only general and very vague idea about it. The problem is that DPA is used left, right and center, often without any real grounds, for denying pretty much everything.
No offense intended, and I am not saying that this is the case with you, but I'd prefer seeing some real quote proving what you say.

opinions4u

grumbler wrote: »

You might well be right, but you sound like a bank employee knowing about existence of DPA, but having only general and very vague idea about it.

It's not an unreasonable point. A bank (or building society as it was) trained me on the subject. The knowledge is generic.

But a simple scenario. I'm saving up to treat Mrs o4u to the trip of a lifetime - it's going to be a fabulous surprise for her. I stash my cash in a secret Santander savings account. Mrs o4u notices a cheque that I've had lying around for a week or two and decides to pay it in to my Santander current account. She wanders down to the local branch without my account details to pay it in. She asks the cashier to deposit the cheque and the cashier pays it in to the savings account and issues a receipt.

Mrs o4u gets home and realises the sort code and account number don't match my current account. She pops back in to Santander who tell her it's ok, it's my savings account.

All hell breaks loose when I get home because Santander broke a basic confidentiality and my wife now thinks I have a secret stash of savings and things have been a little tight for us recently. I have to confess to her the purpose of the account and the whole nice surprise thing is ruined.

The existence of that account was something I wanted to keep secret from my wife. It was my data held confidentially by Santander. They disclosed it without my consent.

(The purpose I state is irrelevant, it could be a stash set aside for divorce, doing a Reggie Perin, funding my illegitimate child or simply something I wanted for me).

I'd prefer seeing some real quote proving what you say.

I'm sure if you contact the ICO in Wilmslow they'll confirm the point.

Again, why do you think banks offer a compensation figure of £150-£250, as reflected in many threads in this section of MSE, if it's ok for them to reveal these details to a third party?

grumbler

I thought I made it clear that it wasn't about revealing the account details. Theoretically, a receipt can be issued without the sort code and the account number on it if the person making the deposit doesn't specify these details.

ATM we are discussing revealing just the existence of some account. I don't remember any stories at MSE about compensations for such 'offense'.

And why do I need to contact the ICO? Is the DPA itself is a secret? Under DPAPA maybe? I think this is just usual legislation that is supposed to work normally without getting ICO involved.

opinions4u

grumbler wrote: »

why do I need to contact the ICO? Is the DPA itself is a secret? Under DPAPA maybe?

I think you're being deliberately obtuse now.

I thought I made it clear that it wasn't about revealing the account details. Theoretically, a receipt can be issued without the sort code and the account number on it.

Yes, I suppose it could. It still reveals the existence of the account though. So apply a different story to the example I gave above. It's my account. I don't want a third party to know about it. My bank has no right in revealing the account exists to any unauthorised third party.

The DPA has exceptions, but I'm not aware that the DPA has an exception that says "It's ok to let any Tom, !!!!!!, Harry, spouse or daughter know about an account that a bank customer wishes to keep private".

JuicyJesus

grumbler wrote: »

I thought I made it clear that it wasn't about revealing the account details. Theoretically, a receipt can be issued without the sort code and the account number on it.

ATM we are discussing revealing just the existence of some account. I don't remember any stories at MSE about compensations for such 'offense'.

Disclosure of a business relationship is a breach of the DPA. If you supply someone's name and address and they pay into an account in that name they are confirming a relationship exists, ergo breach.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp.