SAR for data around 1988 - 92

[Deleted User]

sun73 wrote: »

Either way it doesn't seem fair to customers, especially if there might be evidence of loans with ppi stored in these obsolete files

"Loans with PPI" are not automatically mis-sold, so I can't see it as unfair that records from more than two decades ago are not always available.

Insider101 wrote: »

It would therefore not be reasonable to hold this as a breach of the law.

Exactly.

Insider101 wrote: »

This is becoming less of a problem with the move to electronic filing systems but still causes problems with historical paper based storage.

Indeed, but 1988 can only get further away and complaints from that period become less and less likely as time passes.

Orville

Insider101 wrote: »

Realistically, do you honestly think they are going to provide paperwork which supports your complaint if you make a SAR?

We all know salespeople do deviate from the script sometimes but it's not going to be written down anywhere!!!

Was there such need for the tone?. How do you know..? All i was asking for is whether they might have a record of the original loan agreements.

Do you think they would have had my sisters paperwork back from 92?. It seems they did which is why they paid her 10k. She was at the same branch...

Insider101

Orville wrote: »

Was there such need for the tone?. How do you know..? All i was asking for is whether they might have a record of the original loan agreements.

Do you think they would have had my sisters paperwork back from 92?. It seems they did which is why they paid her 10k. She was at the same branch...

As regards the tone, you're reading something which isn't there, or not intended anyway.

It is possible, though unlikely, that they would still have paperwork from that far back. However, you're missing the point. In your original post, you started that you were told that you wouldn't get the loan without PPI. You were then asked if you had any evidence to support that allegation, your response was "no, which is why I am trying to gather paperwork". This basically suggests you believe that you might be able to get evidence from the bank which will support your claim about what you were told verbally.

I CAN guarantee you that nothing the bank hold is going to support this.

sun73

Insider101 wrote: »

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with having PPI. So just having "evidence of loans with PPI" would not do you any good. The reason is because some of these banks are massive multinational organisations with thousands of branches and scores of offices. It's perfectly possible that Dave in the customer service centre left a paper copy of an old loan agreement in the back of an old disused filing cabinet. Or that one was sent to external storage and the reference numbers were mixed up. However, there is not a cat in hell's chance of anyone ever knowing where it is or finding it. It would therefore not be reasonable to hold this as a breach of the law.

This is becoming less of a problem with the move to electronic filing systems but still causes problems with historical paper based storage.

Thanks for the info, although FOS seems to think there's something wrong with PPi added to loans as a single upfront premium.


I should have said I was talking about bank statements from 1988 and not paper loan documents which of course you wouldn't expect a business to retain that long.


I just wondered why some banks can locate transaction histories (which often show loans and ppi premiums) from the opening of the account and other banks say they are unable to supply historic statements pre six years.


Anyway, having "loans with evidence of ppi" has done me a lot of good since three complaints were upheld on statements alone which showed single premiums.

Insider101

sun73 wrote: »

Thanks for the info, although FOS seems to think there's something wrong with PPi added to loans as a single upfront premium.


I should have said I was talking about bank statements from 1988 and not paper loan documents which of course you wouldn't expect a business to retain that long.


I just wondered why some banks can locate transaction histories (which often show loans and ppi premiums) from the opening of the account and other banks say they are unable to supply historic statements pre six years.

Because some banks keep them that far back and some don't.

They are actually required under the data protection act to destroy records if it is no longer necessary to keep them. How long it is necessary to keep is a matter for legitimate commercial judgement. Six years is normal as a minimum in line with the statute of limitations, but some businesses keep them far longer.

magpiecottage

sun73 wrote: »

FOS seems to think there's something wrong with PPi added to loans as a single upfront premium.

Yes - but it probably wouldn't show up explicitly on your statements.

I just wondered why some banks can locate transaction histories (which often show loans and ppi premiums) from the opening of the account and other banks say they are unable to supply historic statements pre six years.

Some people just horde stuff! However, most banks are now getting shot as they realise there are skeletons in the cupboard.