Can my ex-bank refuse this information in an SAR

takman

ChrisBint wrote: »

@shortcrust I am not sure that is a valid statement now, and less likely to be come GDPR.

I don't see how that will change anything. If someone borrows money and doesn't pay it back as agreed I see no reason why they don't have a valid reason to keep that information.

ChrisBint

robber2 wrote: »

GDPR will not stop them keeping data on you until the end of time if it can be justified. I suspect its not what you want to hear but the fact that you failed to keep the the Tc and Cs of a contract will always be commercially useful information for them to hold.

Shortcrusts statement IS still valid .

regards

Rob

If it can be justified, sure, but as neither you or I are experts in that area I guess we can only offer opinions.

ChrisBint

takman wrote: »

I don't see how that will change anything. If someone borrows money and doesn't pay it back as agreed I see no reason why they don't have a valid reason to keep that information.

If the original terms of our agreement were for them to process my data in relation to an account that no longer exists then it might get a little blurry. I am no expert, and in all honesty I do not really care, I am just curious, hence the original question.

ChrisBint

chattychappy wrote: »

@isthisnowtwitterorsomething?

Do you mean #isthisnowtwitterorsomething?

sourcrates

Retaining personal data (principle 5) ICO

Creditors are required to keep information on accounts for as long as nessessary, there is no limit on how long they can keep records, some keep them 6 years, others longer, depends on there own policy.

Not many keep records longer than 7/8 years, simply because the amount of data would be Hugh.

If you apply for credit again to a previous lender which whom you had bad debt, it’s always a possibility you will be refused because of data kept on internal files.

LABMAN

sourcrates wrote: »

...Not many keep records longer than 7/8 years, simply because the amount of data would be Hugh...

Jackman, Lawrie or another one?

chattychappy

ChrisBint wrote: »

If the original terms of our agreement were for them to process my data in relation to an account that no longer exists then it might get a little blurry. I am no expert, and in all honesty I do not really care, I am just curious, hence the original question.

Bear in mind that limitation prevents enforcement of a debt, it doesn't cancel a debt. I remember a case some years ago where following the death of somebody who had some old debts, executors paid a time-barred debt and were challenged in court by the beneficiaries who lost as a result. The court found for the executors - although the creditor would be unable to sue the estate (limitation), had the executors not paid out of the estate then they would have had an action against the executors for breach of fiduciary duties. Of course this doesn't prevent a debt being (part) written off as part of an offer to settle, then it really wouldn't exist - depends on the terms.

In any case, there is no reason why a lender shouldn't keep information provided it is fair in the circumstances. If they've "had their fingers burnt" in the past, why shouldn't they keep the information so they can avoid lending to the same person again? Provided they can objectively justify the period for which they keep it, I don't think the ICO will stop them.

tenchy

You have no right to credit, and no financial institution is obliged to do business with you -- but I'm sure you knew that anyway. Regardless, I bet you found all the reminders in the above posts most useful. :rotfl:


Regarding the SAR, while these organisations don't have to do business with you, THEY DO HAVE TO provide you with all the information they hold about you, if you serve them with a SAR. So go for it, and if there's no reference to the commercial decision they obviously took about you (it might just be a record in their blacklist file, but you should still see it), I'd inform them that you believe the information to be incomplete. If they continue to drag their feet you should contact the ICO. Let us know how you get on.

Thrugelmir

tenchy wrote: »

THEY DO HAVE TO provide you with all the information they hold about you,

Probably won't hold anything of interest. There's no need to.

nic_c

tenchy wrote: »

Regarding the SAR, while these organisations don't have to do business with you, THEY DO HAVE TO provide you with all the information they hold about you, if you serve them with a SAR. So go for it, and if there's no reference to the commercial decision they obviously took about you (it might just be a record in their blacklist file, but you should still see it), I'd inform them that you believe the information to be incomplete. If they continue to drag their feet you should contact the ICO. Let us know how you get on.

A lot of people misunderstand about SAR and how long it takes. They need to compile everything, so if you have phoned they need to transcribe calls, etc. Its not the magic solution you may think - especially if you are thinking it will return a file saying "not to lend to"