Lloyds TSB and Data Protection

boo_star

jayu619 wrote: »

It has NOTHING to do with NatWest whatsoever. Nothing at all. So I do not know where that came into it.

We want more than £500 - it is not enough. As a result, he lost out buying a family home. It was only because of checking his credit file before mortgage application, he found out about the CCJ. Ofcourse, he cannot show loss because he didn't go through with the application. He didn't go through it because he didn't want another marker on his file for why he was refused the loan. Another hassle to avoid.

You'll probably need to sue them then, as it doesn't look like the FOS agrees with you.

If you do win and get awarded a hundred grand for missing out on a house like Richard Durkin did, don't be a plonker and appeal the decision.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-26731192

eskbanker

antrobus wrote: »

That would only be the case if Tower Hamlets had failed to send any demands for payment, arrears notices, letter before action, and so forth,

That's nothing to do with Lloyds, that's Tower Hamlets.



Well, I've looked at the issue, and on the balance of probabilities concluded that dad forgot to add the reference to the SO when he changed it, and that dad ignored all those letters from Tower Hamlets.

You can, of course, ask the FOS to look at it again. And if that fails your dad can sue Lloyds Bank.

OP's original thread on this asserts that no letters were received and that at least some went to the rental property rather than the correspondence address, so there is a separate case against the council for that, which complicates the issue of liability and compensation, i.e. even if it's proved that both the bank and the council have (separately) erred, is there any realistic prospect of holding either accountable for all the consequential issues regarding missing out on a property purchase?

In that context I strongly suspect that further FOS escalation and/or court action would be unlikely to enhance the Lloyds offer of £500 and costs to cover what they could reasonably be held responsible for....

mije1983

jayu619 wrote: »

We want more than £500 - it is not enough

So how much DO you want?

jayu619

Hello!

Writing this on my lunch break but not ignoring anyone's questions etc.

Dad never received any of the council letters (otherwise, he would not have let it go this far) and definitely did not receive court letters because they were sent to wrong address.

I am not sure if anyone here has any strong banking knowledge but, I was advised that there might be Lloyds mandate reference number or something, to which they use for a SO or anything alike. I am going to request an SAR for this and see whether that reference has changed in Aug 2016. Not sure if anyone can advise on this assumption.

My dad would want more than 500, maybe in the thousands. He isn't money hungry or greedy, it is the fact hat he had to take off time at work to chase this up, numerous health problems as a result and ofcourse we missed out on purchasing another house. We are mindful of suing because we cannot really show a loss because no application was made etc, only because of him checking his Experian file. So anything to really compensate for that would be great. Its about the principle, Lloyds nor the council can get away with such a thing.

eskbanker

jayu619 wrote: »

I am not sure if anyone here has any strong banking knowledge but, I was advised that there might be Lloyds mandate reference number or something, to which they use for a SO or anything alike. I am going to request an SAR for this and see whether that reference has changed in Aug 2016. Not sure if anyone can advise on this assumption.

The FOS rep states that in August 2016 the original SO was cancelled and a replacement one set up for the revised recipient (different account name, sort code and account number), so, assuming that's a matter of fact, what difference would it make if some sort of internal reference number was changed or not?

jayu619 wrote: »

My dad would want more than 500, maybe in the thousands. He isn't money hungry or greedy, it is the fact hat he had to take off time at work to chase this up, numerous health problems as a result and ofcourse we missed out on purchasing another house. We are mindful of suing because we cannot really show a loss because no application was made etc, only because of him checking his Experian file. So anything to really compensate for that would be great. Its about the principle, Lloyds nor the council can get away with such a thing.

But surely Lloyds have (at least implicitly) accepted some culpability already, even though they've presumably offered their compensation and costs on a goodwill without prejudice basis? As above, Lloyds (and FOS) will be looking at this from the perspective of what's reasonable recompense for their own actions, rather than ultimate consequences arising from someone else's address mix-up, so I think you'd struggle to convince a court to hold Lloyds fully accountable for the whole story when so much of it was outside their control.

poppellerant

jayu619 wrote: »

My dad would want more than 500, maybe in the thousands. He isn't money hungry or greedy

Is this a late April fools joke?

Your Dad has money signs in his eyes and they aren't going to go away until he gets a few grand for nothing.

What exactly does your Dad do that pays him thousands a week? Has he lost thousands of pounds due to time he has spent? Please detail the exact calculations to humour us.

jayu619

poppellerant wrote: »

Is this a late April fools joke?

Your Dad has money signs in his eyes and they aren't going to go away until he gets a few grand for nothing.

What exactly does your Dad do that pays him thousands a week? Has he lost thousands of pounds due to time he has spent? Please detail the exact calculations to humour us.

Have you suffered or gone through a CCJ? I guess not, so you cannot say what he's lost or hasn't, despite everything being listed. like I said and maintained, it's not about the money but the principles - how would you feel if you were in the same position?!

I will leave you with that thought...

poppellerant

jayu619 wrote: »

it's not about the money

Of course it isn't.

jayu619 wrote: »

My dad would want more than 500, maybe in the thousands.

Oh wait.

Dobbibill

What have Lloyds agreed they are exactly responsible for? There should be some rationale behind their decision to award redress of £500.


Have you also raised a complaint with the council? Have they given you a response?


How did your dad authorise the SO? Was it a paper mandate, branch visit, phone call or online banking?

jayu619

poppellerant wrote: »

Of course it isn't.Oh wait.

You are not understanding the issue, so please refrain from posting if it is anything other than helping the situation as I will not be repeating myself over and over again. Thank you.