Lloyds TSB and Data Protection

jayu619

Dobbibill wrote: »

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?

No rationale, even from their own final letter when we complained to Lloyds. It was the first figure they pulled out of thin air, and we think it was because of the fact that we had mentioned that it will cost a atleast £400 to remove the CCJ etc. And then he rounded it up to £500.

Council is being dealt with separately. I wrote to them this week rejecting their 2nd stage investigation. Which was a complete joke because firstly. they maintain they check their suspense everyday, which is untrue from the email correspondence between my dad and the collections officer. And secondly, they offered £75 as 'compensation' which we rejected because they still were sending legal documents to my dads rental property!! I got an email from THH stating they are going to investigate under stage 3 of their complaint procedure and I should hear back by 20th June. Would there be any point of taking their solicitors to court for negligence?

Dad set up SO in March 2011 by going into branch. It is also alleged that he went to the same branch to cancel and set up a new one, which he did not do. Surely they ought to have paper trail?

Thanks
Jay

Dobbibill

It sounds like they have taken your word for the costs and added an additional amount for non-financial loss (inconvenience etc).

They won't necessarily still have a paper/audit trail as this has gone on for some time, with several amendments. Ideally this should have been highlighted much earlier but with a mix up of address for correspondence, it understandable why it hasn't been. That said, hindsight is always 20/20 vision.

I would probably take the offer from Lloyds if FOS have agreed with the them. IMHO, you would be setting yourself/Dad up for more stress than the worth by pursuing it through the courts.

The main objective, from whoever placed the CCJ on the file, would be to get them to remove it. I'm assuming that's the council, so ensure that is something you raise as part of any resolution/redress they offer at stage 3.

jayu619

Dobbibill wrote: »

It sounds like they have taken your word for the costs and added an additional amount for non-financial loss (inconvenience etc).

They won't necessarily still have a paper/audit trail as this has gone on for some time, with several amendments. Ideally this should have been highlighted much earlier but with a mix up of address for correspondence, it understandable why it hasn't been. That said, hindsight is always 20/20 vision.

I would probably take the offer from Lloyds if FOS have agreed with the them. IMHO, you would be setting yourself/Dad up for more stress than the worth by pursuing it through the courts.

The main objective, from whoever placed the CCJ on the file, would be to get them to remove it. I'm assuming that's the council, so ensure that is something you raise as part of any resolution/redress they offer at stage 3.

Amazing, thank you for your opinion on the matter. I appreciate it.

One other thing which is bugging me is that, I did this for my dad ofcourse, and when we got the response back to their conclusions, it just seemed very much like a 'stock' answer. My brother in law worked for FoS until last year and he did also tell me that they use stock templates and it just feels like FoS did not really investigate his complaint properly. In any case, we will ask for the chief adjudicator to look into it anyway, hopefully they would give it some due care and attention on it.

Dobbibill

FOS will have some sort of sifting process and quite probably templates for escalate/agree/disagree etc.

I wish you all the best with it.

Please come back when it's all resolved and update the thread with the outcome, regardless of which way it goes - It really does help others.

jayu619

Thank you - I will keep you posted.

Just out of curiosity - if the council had requested a change of bank account by Aug 2016, and this was not done, would the council notify my dads bank to change to new account because the monies were being paid to old account? Is that allowed to happen?
Thanks
Jay

Dobbibill

jayu619 wrote: »

Thank you - I will keep you posted.

Just out of curiosity - if the council had requested a change of bank account by Aug 2016, and this was not done, would the council notify my dads bank to change to new account because the monies were being paid to old account? Is that allowed to happen?
Thanks
Jay

generally 3rd parties (ie the council) amend DDs not SOs.

eskbanker

jayu619 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity - if the council had requested a change of bank account by Aug 2016, and this was not done, would the council notify my dads bank to change to new account because the monies were being paid to old account? Is that allowed to happen?

There might have been something similar if an account was switched using the Current Account Switching Service, as payment redirection is a feature of that service, while also notifying senders.

However, the FOS letter strongly suggests that in/from August 2016 the council were effectively saying to their SO users 'please stop sending to our LBTH Sundry Income account and start sending to our [different] LBTH SC Collection account instead', which of course had a different account number, necessitating the SO being changed.

The FOS interpretation appears to be that the council would have sent this notification to your dad and asked him to adjust his SO accordingly, and, as it was indeed changed there is no reason to believe that this wasn't at his request to the bank, as they wouldn't have known anything about the need to send to the alternative account unless he'd notified them.

jcontest

I missed a update in error..
Thanks Mije1983.

mije1983

jcontest wrote: »

But I find it surprising that you live in an area that has held council tax rates for 7 years running.

It's not for CT. OP has confirmed the mention of CT was an error on their part and it is actually some kind of service charge.

jayu619 wrote: »

2. sorry, that was my mistake AGAIN. Its not CTAX, its his service charges account. Its been amended in main post above. Sorry again. But yes, CTAX is being paid by tenants, like you.

OceanSound

Deleted_User wrote: »

Only for as long as it is required.

It therefore varies by data type.

Right, banks often use these data retention policies to fob off customers with inactive (dormant) accounts. See: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2225460/Old-passbook-savings-accounts-vanish-Santander.html

Ms Stephens knew she had £30,000 in a bond opened with Abbey National at its Southgate branch in 1989. Yet Ms Harper was told the account could not be found. There was no record of the account existing or of the cash — though the bank did acknowledge Ms Stephens was a customer.

Another example of a widower's husband's account that had over £11,000:

But her elation soon turned to despair when she went to her local branch of Santander — which took over Abbey in 2004 — and staff said there was no record of her account.

In the last article it says one customer decided to sue the bank out of principle, after the FOS backed the bank. Santander settled out of court.

@OP: it sounds really strange that the bank had nothing in response to your SAR. The fact that they didn't mention a data retention policy should set off alarm bells.