We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 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!
How long do credit card companies keep records for?
Options
Comments
-
"Longer than necessary" is sufficiently vague to make that part of the DPA rather useless.
The DPA is meant to be vague in that sense as there is no minimum and maximum period, so long as the body reviews the time period they are storing for, reviews why they are holding it and are prepared to update, archive or delete info where necessary then they are compliant.
Customers can escape their debt history after 6 years (whether because they avoided paying it back or because they paid it all back) but it doesn't mean a bank shouldn't keep a list of bad debtors and refuse to lend to them again
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/principle-5-retention/Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
An interesting read, but it doesn't change my view that the data retention rules in the DPA are rather useless, except in providing employment for the ICO and an army of compliance officers.The DPA is meant to be vague in that sense as there is no minimum and maximum period, so long as the body reviews the time period they are storing for, reviews why they are holding it and are prepared to update, archive or delete info where necessary then they are compliant.
Customers can escape their debt history after 6 years (whether because they avoided paying it back or because they paid it all back) but it doesn't mean a bank shouldn't keep a list of bad debtors and refuse to lend to them again
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/principle-5-retention/
...and it doesn't stop the telephone pests from trading my details and calling me repeatedly about green energy, PPI, and industrial deafness. 0 -
An interesting read, but it doesn't change my view that the data retention rules in the DPA are rather useless, except in providing employment for the ICO and an army of compliance officers.
...and it doesn't stop the telephone pests from trading my details and calling me repeatedly about green energy, PPI, and industrial deafness.
The ICO are a load of indolent know-nothings. What the hell sort of guideline/regulation is it that allows companies to keep data "for as long as necessary". The chump who came up with that one should be horsewhipped. Even CRAs have to ditch data after six years (they don't like it one little bit), and for audit purposes financial data is normally held for seven years. I cannot see any reason whatsoever to allow financial providers to keep data longer than seven years. Doing so just encourages them to set up blacklists and generally abuse the personal data, or worse, lose it or sell it.0 -
There is discussion elsewhere on this forum of people claiming back missold PPI premiums from even 10 or 15 or more years ago. I imagine some of them would be upset if told the claim is dismissed as firms no longer have the records.0
-
There is discussion elsewhere on this forum of people claiming back missold PPI premiums from even 10 or 15 or more years ago. I imagine some of them would be upset if told the claim is dismissed as firms no longer have the records.
A good point. Maybe, then, it's the type of information they are allowed to retain that should be questioned.0 -
Government/parliament made the legislation. ICO just guide/enforce against it. That's a fundamental principle.
ICO have around 440 staff, this is not an army of compliance officers. (Without them, I'm pretty sure you'd be getting even more spam phone calls, misused data etc. - unless you're suggesting the protection rules shouldn't be enforced?)
It's impossible to be more prescriptive at a headline level because there are so many different uses of data. As a bank customer - I don't particularly want my charges to be higher/interest rates to be lower, because my bank had to delete their knowledge that you defaulted last time you had an account with them.
Redux - there are cases of claims being paid despite the firm having lost the records for PPI.0 -
The ICO are a load of indolent know-nothings. What the hell sort of guideline/regulation is it that allows companies to keep data "for as long as necessary". The chump who came up with that one should be horsewhipped. Even CRAs have to ditch data after six years (they don't like it one little bit), and for audit purposes financial data is normally held for seven years. I cannot see any reason whatsoever to allow financial providers to keep data longer than seven years. Doing so just encourages them to set up blacklists and generally abuse the personal data, or worse, lose it or sell it.
Are you genuinely suggesting banks should not be allowed keep track of bed debtors so they can refuse to lend to people who borrowed from them, didn't pay it back and then want more money from them? It's a business, they can choose their clients as they wish. So long as the data is secure and is dealt with properly, there is no issue particularly if it's all archived after a period and only accessible by people who need it.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Are you genuinely suggesting banks should not be allowed keep track of bed debtors so they can refuse to lend to people who borrowed from them, didn't pay it back and then want more money from them? It's a business, they can choose their clients as they wish. So long as the data is secure and is dealt with properly, there is no issue particularly if it's all archived after a period and only accessible by people who need it.
They should not be allowed to keep track of them indefinitely, for the simple reason that people change their ways. Taken to the extreme, someone who defaulted aged 18 could still be denied services at age 80. This should not be allowed. there should be a cut-off point for the retention of this type of data.0 -
Nathanstevens1984 wrote: »This lead me to wonder, as the above has fallen off my credit file now and my score (I know it is only a guide) has more than doubled, how long would companies keep records for and would I expect to never be offered a barclaycard again?
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply (if you do).
OP - just to answer your initial question - looking on the BC website at their privacy policy says...How long we keep your personal information on file
We won't keep your information for longer than necessary and will take steps to ensure that it's kept up to date.
There is no set timescale and they obviously still deem now as necessary.I’m a Forum Ambassador and I support the Forum Team on the Budgeting & Bank Accounts, Credit Cards, Credit File & Ratings and Energy boards. If you need any help on these boards, do let me know. Please note that Ambassadors are not moderators. Any posts you spot in breach of the Forum Rules should be reported via the report button, or by emailing forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. All views are my own and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.
If you can't be the best -
Just be better than you were yesterday.0 -
They should not be allowed to keep track of them indefinitely, for the simple reason that people change their ways. Taken to the extreme, someone who defaulted aged 18 could still be denied services at age 80. This should not be allowed. there should be a cut-off point for the retention of this type of data.
Why not? It's a business, they are allowed, so long as it's not say discriminating based on race or sex, to deal with who they want. Forcing a lender to give money to someone who has not repaid their debts is nonsense, neither you nor I would lend money to a friend who had taken money in the past and not repaid it.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards