Lloyds TSB and Data Protection

OceanSound

jayu619 wrote: »

Hello -

I was wondering if any of the previous posters had any thoughts after I had clarified the facts of the case?

I also received FoS response in relation to my complaint, which was actual BS:

......
Any advice on this matter would be great.

Thanks
Jay

You are entitled to ask the FOS for case file documents that they used to come up with the current decision. So, ask the adjudicator for the Lloyds 'contact notes'. Also, put in an SAR to the FOS immediately (as it can take up to 40 calendar days to be processed). In that SAR ask for all documents relating to you by name or reference. Then include the reference number of your case. Although you don't have to (but it's courtesy to do so), specify documents such as emails between lloyds and FOS, postal letters, and most importantly telephone conversations between lloyds and FOS (every external call at FOS is recorded. Unfortunately, non of the internal ones are!)

I read the FOS letter and parts of it are really vague.i.e. about not having records but FOS being provided with 'notes' kept by lloyds, which proved to be really useful apparently when making the decision.

Definitely ask for case to be passed to an Ombudsman.

p.s.it's very serious (and embarrasing) to find a bank having changed a DD/SO without the account holders consent. So, the adjudicator is really saying 'I don't have any evidence but I think you changed the SO', because surely Lloyds (adjudicator is confusing lloyds annd natwest. Oh!, dear) cannot make such a schoolboy error.

eskbanker

OceanSound wrote: »

You are entitled to ask the FOS for case file documents that they used to come up with the current decision. So, ask the adjudicator for the Lloyds 'contact notes'. Also, put in an SAR to the FOS immediately (as it can take up to 40 calendar days to be processed). In that SAR ask for all documents relating to you by name or reference. Then include the reference number of your case. Although you don't have to (but it's courtesy to do so), specify documents such as emails between lloyds and FOS, postal letters, and most importantly telephone conversations between lloyds and FOS (every external call at FOS is recorded. Unfortunately, non of the internal ones are!)

I read the FOS letter and parts of it are really vague.i.e. about not having records but FOS being provided with 'notes' kept by lloyds, which proved to be really useful apparently when making the decision.

It's an interesting point - my assumption was that the Lloyds notes seen by FOS would already have been made available to OP's dad as a result of the SAR submitted to Lloyds, but if it transpires that this isn't the case then that opens up a complaint to the ICO, as Lloyds would clearly have been in breach of the DPA by not disclosing the relevant personal data in response to a valid SAR.

OceanSound wrote: »

p.s.it's very serious (and embarrasing) to find a bank having changed a DD/SO without the account holders consent. So, the adjudicator is really saying 'I don't have any evidence but I think you changed the SO', because surely Lloyds (adjudicator is confusing lloyds annd natwest. Oh!, dear) cannot make such a schoolboy error.

As I understand it, the facts of the matter are that the council decided in 2016 that they wanted the relevant charges to be paid to a different one of their accounts and ultimately that the SO was changed accordingly. The bank wouldn't (couldn't) have done so unilaterally as they wouldn't have known about the council's desire to use their alternative account and so therefore the FOS conclusion, in the sight of all relevant documentation, is that OP's dad must have requested this, as there doesn't appear to be any other residual possibility. However, Lloyds have failed to retain documentation of consent and that's what they're compensating for, i.e. lack of documentation rather than lack of consent.

jonesMUFCforever

I'm going to throw something new into the ring.
A few years ago I was paying money for my children through CSA to a HSBC account via faster payments. (Same method as standing orders)
Without me having to change anything suddenly payments were going into a NatWest account - meaning faster payments or standing orders COULD in theory be changed by the receiver rather than the customer.

Now if our local council is anything to go by - I believe the bank did nothing wrong but can easily believe this was a council error.

jayu619

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

I'm going to throw something new into the ring.
A few years ago I was paying money for my children through CSA to a HSBC account via faster payments. (Same method as standing orders)
Without me having to change anything suddenly payments were going into a NatWest account - meaning faster payments or standing orders COULD in theory be changed by the receiver rather than the customer.

Now if our local council is anything to go by - I believe the bank did nothing wrong but can easily believe this was a council error.

I am very glad you mentioned this - thank you.
Upon doing through research over the weekend, there have been cases where this occurred for some people. Even a colleague at work.

In light of this theory, I submitted an SAR via email to the council, asking the following by way of the new rules coming into force on Friday (GDPR):

****[EXTRACT]
Please supply me with copies of all the data which you hold on me in relation to a change in my standing order made to LBTH for the amount of £88.96. I would specifically like to know whether LBTH contacted Lloyds Banking Group to change the receiver!!!8217;s account detail to new account details for my standing order to pay Service Charges (when LBTH switched over from Co-Op to NatWest). And how this request was made by the council and/or its Finance team.

Please note that I require disclosure of any personal data which you hold on me between April 2016 and September 2016.
******

I also sent a FOI request to council, asking the following:

****[EXTRACT]
Does the council have a policy in place in dealing with service charges payments which appear to arrive without any reference number or any recognisable reference number?

How are such payments handled?

Does the Council ever make adjustments to the receiving accounts of service charges standing orders which require that a service charge payer's bank needs to be informed so that a reference number or some other indication of destination needs to be adjusted by the bank?

Does the council in such cases ever deal with the service charge payer's bank directly when such adjustments need to be made? For example, when LBTH Co-Op bank account changed to NatWest and a leaseholder still continues to pay into old Co-Op account, does the council contact the bank directly to reflect change of bank account details to standing order payments are made to new account?
*****

I also asked the following in a separate FOI request to the council after some further reading...

jayu619

****
How does the council deal with standing order payments received without the relevant council reference number being shown ? Does the council administrative staff attempt to reconcile the payments against the outstanding accounts owed by residents/tax payers or are the standing order payments returned to the sending Bank ?

When the council change their own Bank account details that receive standing order payments for residents/tax payers, does the council or the councils own Bank contact the Banks that originate the sending of these standing order payments, to advise them that the Bank sort code/account number used to receive standing order payments has changed ?

If the council or the councils own Bank do notify the Banks sending standing order payments, is this done in the expectation that the Banks will update the standing order so that payments are continued to the councils new Bank sort code and account number?
******

I also, sent an SAR to the bank asking the following:

***[EXTRACT
Please supply me with copies of all the data which you hold on me in relation to a change in my standing order made to LBTH for the amount of £88.96. I would specifically like to know whether Lloyds Banking Group received a notification from London Borough of Tower Hamlets (beneficiary) to change the account details to where the standing order was being made to (as their old account to where the monies were being paid into, had closed). And how this request made by the council was dealt with by Lloyds Banking Group.

Please note that I require disclosure of any personal data which you hold on me between April 2016 and September 2016.

And I would like a copy of Lloyds Data Retention policy in relation to standing orders, documentation relating to setting a new standing order as well as documentation confirming deletion of a standing order and how long such documents are kept for.
****

Should I definitely ask for FoS to send me all the info relating to dad's complaint?

Thanks,
Jay

jayu619

And just to throw something else into the mix, it looks like maybe Lloyds did not remove the reference. However, they may be liable for mishandling dad's data, if the above theory is true.

Also, the council response to our stage 2 response is that their collections/finance team check their suspense account EVERYDAY, yet miraculously they missed my dad's 10 payments, which they receive in allocating to his SC account.

jonesMUFCforever

jayu619 wrote: »

And just to throw something else into the mix, it looks like maybe Lloyds did not remove the reference. However, they may be liable for mishandling dad's data, if the above theory is true.

Also, the council response to our stage 2 response is that their collections/finance team check their suspense account EVERYDAY, yet miraculously they missed my dad's 10 payments, which they receive in allocating to his SC account.

I fail to see how Lloyds are mishandling your father's data?
Big companies who can set up direct debits can obviously access records for faster payments - everybody agrees to this within the bank's terms and conditions which are updated from time to time. There was a thick booklet from Lloyds last year when they updated their overdraft charges.

jayu619

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

I fail to see how Lloyds are mishandling your father's data?
Big companies who can set up direct debits can obviously access records for faster payments - everybody agrees to this within the bank's terms and conditions which are updated from time to time. There was a thick booklet from Lloyds last year when they updated their overdraft charges.

I'm not saying they are for definitely, but I won't know until we receive the SAR requests asked for...its just my theory having read a few things online.

OceanSound

eskbanker wrote: »

.... The bank wouldn't (couldn't) have done so unilaterally as they wouldn't have known about the council's desire to use their alternative account and so therefore the FOS conclusion, in the sight of all relevant documentation, is that OP's dad must have requested this, as there doesn't appear to be any other residual possibility....

Going by what jonesMUFC.. says. i.e the changeover to an alternative account can be specified by receiver rather than customer. It would mean Council changed the receiving account. But this doesn't mean the Council can drop the reference number. Any such change would need to be authorised by jayu619's dad. Why didn't lloyds take steps to confirm this?

If it was done and jayu619's dad authorsied it without reference number, where is the documentation?.

there doesn't appear to be any other residual possibility

Really?. As we have nothing (documents) to prove otherwise, how about lloyds missed out the reference number when the switch happened?
How about lloyds being provided with the reference number from the Council and they failed to update it when the switch happened. why are these not residual possibilities?. Is it because the the bank is king, and the king can do no wrong?

If I buy something from a shop and I want to return it, it is key that I keep the receipt and produce it when returning/exchanging the item. Why doesn't this apply to Lloyds? Where is Lloyds banks receipt in this case. (Consent of customer)

The onus of proof is with the bank, not the customer. because the customer may never have given consent. Is it up to the customer to prove that he didn't give consent? How will he do this if he never did give consent?

eskbanker

OceanSound wrote: »

Going by what jonesMUFC.. says. i.e the changeover to an alternative account can be specified by receiver rather than customer. It would mean Council changed the receiving account.

My understanding is that (in the context of SOs rather than DDs, etc) the only way for the recipient to change anything without consent/knowledge of sender is when an account is switched using the Current Account Switching Service, when receiving bank advises sending bank that the account being used has changed - I didn't think this scenario applied here and would have thought the FOS would have referred to it if it had, but OP has subsequently clarified above that the original council account has been closed and that the two council accounts are with different banks, which may indeed suggest a CASS switch.

OceanSound wrote: »

But this doesn't mean the Council can drop the reference number.

I'm not sure exactly how CASS-initiated changes are processed but suspect that if the council's bank advised Lloyds to change the account, the standard advice would be to leave the reference unchanged.

OceanSound wrote: »

Any such change would need to be authorised by jayu619's dad. Why didn't lloyds take steps to confirm this?

I don't believe that CASS-initiated redirections require the consent of the sender (hence jones's situation) but could be wrong on that.

OceanSound wrote: »

If it was done and jayu619's dad authorsied it without reference number, where is the documentation?.

That's the crux of the matter as I understand it - Lloyds should obviously have retained documentation but haven't. That doesn't mean that they actually did something wrong in terms of actions on accounts, etc, but does mean that there isn't an adequate paper trail.

OceanSound wrote: »

Really?. As we have nothing (documents) to prove otherwise, how about lloyds missed out the reference number when the switch happened?
How about lloyds being provided with the reference number from the Council and they failed to update it when the switch happened. why are these not residual possibilities?. Is it because the the bank is king, and the king can do no wrong?

No, you're missing my point, which was that FOS, with sight of all relevant documentation, have concluded that OP's dad instructed the change. The loss of the reference number along the way is essentially a side-issue (albeit one with significant unexpected consequences in terms of the payments going into a black hole), but as posted previously, if that was a Lloyds mistake then it's a relatively minor admin issue (from a Lloyds perspective) compared with making changes without authority to do so.

OceanSound wrote: »

If I buy something from a shop and I want to return it, it is key that I keep the receipt and produce it when returning/exchanging the item. Why doesn't this apply to Lloyds? Where is Lloyds banks receipt in this case. (Consent of customer)

The onus of proof is with the bank, not the customer. because the customer may never have given consent. Is it up to the customer to prove that he didn't give consent? How will he do this if he never did give consent?

Agreed - Lloyds failing to keep adequate records is the error that, as I understand it, is why they're offering OP's dad compensation.