What happens when the Banks lie?

Landy11

"If it was an error limited to one or two cases then they are required to put it right."
So how can we force them to put this situation right? I had PPI, they know this, they are falsely claiming I didn't, just as they falsely claimed I didn't have an account, didn't have a loan, both which has taken months of struggle to prove they are lying. So what can we do such that HSBC is required to really put it right, search old databases, search the microfiche, do whatever they have to do to answer the Ombudman's question truthfully and correctly, just as you and I have to do spending days going through our old paperwork.

Nasqueron

Landy11 wrote: »

The bank needs to answer thte Financial Ombudsman with accurate and correct information. If the PPI team " don't always have access to old systems" then either this PPI reclaiming process is not set up correctly or the PPI team need to communicate with other parts of their bank to find the answer. They should not just go back to the Financial Ombudsman with "no, can't see it, this never happened".

"they made a mistake and have corrected it now" No, the bank falsely stated I had never banked with them and then discovered I did. Then they falsey stated I didn't have any sort of loan, and - despite not being given any further information from myself - upon pushback by the Financial Ombudsman to have a proper look, then discovered I did. Why didn't they do a proper look in the first place - this is my point.

If you want to go in with this angle accusing the bank of fraud and criminal activity, go right ahead. Ring 101 and report them. You are getting sensible advice on how to correctly approach the bank and get them on your side, your choice if you wish to ignore it.

BooJewels

Landy11 wrote: »

First, they claimed to the Ombudsman I never had any sort of bank account with them, despite banking with them for over 10 years.

Do you not think that if you want /expect a financial institution to pay you out a gob-load of dosh, that you also have some responsibility to get your own ducks in a row too and provide the poor company with some clues.

If you'd retained the barest minimum of information to set the ball rolling, you could have avoided a great deal of effort for all parties concerned - yourself, the banks and the FOS. I think you're perhaps unreasonable to expect them to do all the running - then call them liars in public - when you haven't made much effort yourself.

If you don't have lots of storage space for papers, do what I've been doing lately - I got a free scanner through Freegle and have been scanning all my documents and then shedding them - shredder also free. I've emptied more than a filling cabinet and stored them on a usb stick, I keep off-site, for a fiver. I've already saved myself hours of work trying to find documents in files when they're much easier to source on a well organised hard drive.

Do yourself and the financial institutions a favour and use this as a lesson in getting yourself better organised for situations like this in the future.

dunstonh

The bank needs to answer thte Financial Ombudsman with accurate and correct information. If the PPI team " don't always have access to old systems" then either this PPI reclaiming process is not set up correctly or the PPI team need to communicate with other parts of their bank to find the answer. They should not just go back to the Financial Ombudsman with "no, can't see it, this never happened".

You seem to misunderstand how filing on works. If historic data is stored under account number and not name, then it doesnt matter what communication exists if you do not have the account number.

So how can we force them to put this situation right?

You can't. It has nothing to do with you. If the FOS decide the bank have been difficult or doing something wrong they will report it to the FCA. The FCA will decide any action.

If the FOS decide this is just consequences of the data protection act and the info was not in a "relevant filing system" then there is no wrongdoing. Its a quirk that cannot be avoided.

So what can we do such that HSBC is required to really put it right, search old databases, search the microfiche,

You cant. If its not on a "relevant filing system" then they can only search it if they have the filter it is stored under. i.e. account number. They cant search through millions of records individually to see on the off chance whether you had PPI or not. However, if you have the account number, they can find the record relatively quickly (anyone that has used a microfiche will tell you that its never relatively quickly!)

Pre-computerised days used manual records. Most of which would be destroyed. However, the account number cards would tell them if you had PPI or not because of the account code is written on the account number card (loan with PPI / loan without PPI). But without an account number, you cant find it.

You are lucky there are any records. The Data Protection act was not as strong as the forthcoming GDPR. With that, more records will be destroyed.

meer53

Landy11 wrote: »

Good question Nearlyold. I was told at the very last minute I would have to pay PPI, taken into a room, given a form to sign and told what the monthly payments would be. All that was separate in administrative terms to the loan agreement which I was then taken back into the original room, to sign. As I remember, I set up a DD/Standing Order to pay these amounts. I remember these amounts appearing separately on my bank account statements. HSBC is denying any of the above happened or existed.

So if you signed the forms, why do you think it was missold ? You paid it for 9 years and didn't question it ?

sun73

dunstonh wrote: »

You seem to misunderstand how filing on works. If historic data is stored under account number and not name, then it doesnt matter what communication exists if you do not have the account number.



You can't. It has nothing to do with you. If the FOS decide the bank have been difficult or doing something wrong they will report it to the FCA. The FCA will decide any action.

If the FOS decide this is just consequences of the data protection act and the info was not in a "relevant filing system" then there is no wrongdoing. Its a quirk that cannot be avoided.



You cant. If its not on a "relevant filing system" then they can only search it if they have the filter it is stored under. i.e. account number. They cant search through millions of records individually to see on the off chance whether you had PPI or not. However, if you have the account number, they can find the record relatively quickly (anyone that has used a microfiche will tell you that its never relatively quickly!)

Pre-computerised days used manual records. Most of which would be destroyed. However, the account number cards would tell them if you had PPI or not because of the account code is written on the account number card (loan with PPI / loan without PPI). But without an account number, you cant find it.

You are lucky there are any records. The Data Protection act was not as strong as the forthcoming GDPR. With that, more records will be destroyed.

Didn't the ICO investigate the microfiche systems of several banks in 2006 and decided that as these records are accessible and identifiable with the customer's name and account number, they should be treated as a part of a relevant filing system?

Yet, when customers submit a DSAR or a PPI complaint, HSBC and other major banks ignore or deny microfiche records exist alleging they only have data back to 2001.

The one exception being Clydesdale Bank who are proactively searching all their archived systems including microfiche, ever since the FCA conducted a review of this bank in 2015 and discovered that Clydesdale held customer data pre 2001.

dunstonh

Didn't the ICO investigate the microfiche systems of several banks in 2006 and decided that as these records are accessible and identifiable with the customer's name and account number, they should be treated as a part of a relevant filing system?

If they could be searched by the name or other personal filters they could but if they couldnt be searched by personal data then no.

The one exception being Clydesdale Bank

Barclaycard have been putting old data back on systems too.

Nasqueron

sun73 wrote: »

Didn't the ICO investigate the microfiche systems of several banks in 2006 and decided that as these records are accessible and identifiable with the customer's name and account number, they should be treated as a part of a relevant filing system?

Yet, when customers submit a DSAR or a PPI complaint, HSBC and other major banks ignore or deny microfiche records exist alleging they only have data back to 2001.

The one exception being Clydesdale Bank who are proactively searching all their archived systems including microfiche, ever since the FCA conducted a review of this bank in 2015 and discovered that Clydesdale held customer data pre 2001.

Remember that the ICO guidelines for old archives like microfiche are such that if the person sending the DSAR doesn't provide sufficient detail to be able to locate them (such as account numbers, if that was how the data was stored) then if they can't find it, they don't need to find it - i.e. you wouldn't expect the bank to manually hunt every record on the off chance they find the one needed. If the data is stored alphabetically within a structure that allows an individual to be found (e.g. listed by payroll or account number), the data must be supplied however