We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Barclays unable to find old account
Options
dogfonos
Posts: 95 Forumite
Would appreciate views on what further action to take...
I've been corresponding with Barclays Bank regarding PPI (I think I had PPI but cannot be certain) that was linked to a repayment mortgage I took out with The Woolwich Building Society in the mid 1980's (and fully redeemed in the 1990's).
I've given Barclays all the details I currently have, incl. names, mortgaged address, dates and even the full Woolwich BS mortgage account reference number in the hope that they can confirm whether or not I had PPI linked to the mortgage because if I had PPI, then I certainly hadn't agreed to it. From memory, PPI payments were automatically added to the mortgage repayments but I have no paperwork evidence of this.
The final communication from Barclays informed me that the mortgage account could not be located therefore they couldn't determine if I had PPI. My view is that Barclays were responsible for retrieving and retaining this information when they took over the Woolwich BS (although perhaps legally, they're not?). My question is: where do I go from here - if anywhere.
I've been corresponding with Barclays Bank regarding PPI (I think I had PPI but cannot be certain) that was linked to a repayment mortgage I took out with The Woolwich Building Society in the mid 1980's (and fully redeemed in the 1990's).
I've given Barclays all the details I currently have, incl. names, mortgaged address, dates and even the full Woolwich BS mortgage account reference number in the hope that they can confirm whether or not I had PPI linked to the mortgage because if I had PPI, then I certainly hadn't agreed to it. From memory, PPI payments were automatically added to the mortgage repayments but I have no paperwork evidence of this.
The final communication from Barclays informed me that the mortgage account could not be located therefore they couldn't determine if I had PPI. My view is that Barclays were responsible for retrieving and retaining this information when they took over the Woolwich BS (although perhaps legally, they're not?). My question is: where do I go from here - if anywhere.
0
Comments
-
From memory, PPI payments were automatically added to the mortgage repayments but I have no paperwork evidence of this.
Not normally. Most MPPI was standalone direct debit (as were the more common life assurance premiums that people paid).
Some lenders did have a small window where certain insurances and fees could be paid from the subaccount of the mortgage. These were typically MIG, home insurance and arrangement fees. A small number could add MPPI for a period. It was also not unheard of for life assurance to be collected that way too but not commonplace.My view is that Barclays were responsible for retrieving and retaining this information when they took over the Woolwich BS (although perhaps legally, they're not?).
Your view is wrong. The General Data Protection Regulations (and earlier acts) requires firms to destroy data that is no longer required. There is no set date for when that deletion should occur as each firm can make that decision. However, the FCA recommend 6 years from closure. In reality, documentation and records get removed in phases.
It is your responsbility to keep records that you feel are important as the data protection regulations do not apply to you.My question is: where do I go from here - if anywhere.
If you have nothing and they have nothing then its game over.
It is also statistically likely that you didnt have MPPI (as it was mid 80s and sales through lenders on MPPI (as ASU as it was called them) were not common until late 80s, early 90s. It happened but not by much. Plus, the building societies act didnt come until 1986 and regulation didnt start until 1988 and insurance regulation not until Jan 2005. Its quite possible you didnt even buy the insurance via the Woolwich. Many building societies used local agents and it would be the agent that carried the liability.
If it makes you feel better, the product you probably didnt have but may have done also sees most complaints fail anyway even if you can find the information. So, statistically, the odds of success are always against you with MPPI.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Thanks for your comprehensive reply, dunstonh. Most helpful.
From the info. you've given, I suspect you're correct in that I didn't have (M)PPI with The Woolwich BS. Shame that Barclays weren't in a position to confirm that but I now understand why.
If I were being cynical, I'd suggest that it would be beneficial for financial institutions to have a policy where customer data, that could conceivably lead to future claims, is rigidly deleted after the minimum 6 years. Perhaps some/many do?0 -
If I were being cynical, I'd suggest that it would be beneficial for financial institutions to have a policy where customer data, that could conceivably lead to future claims, is rigidly deleted after the minimum 6 years. Perhaps some/many do?
More that they have a policy of not leaving themselves open to customer complaints under GDPR.
Only the customer has an absolute right to open ended data retention.0 -
Thanks for your comprehensive reply, dunstonh. Most helpful.
From the info. you've given, I suspect you're correct in that I didn't have (M)PPI with The Woolwich BS. Shame that Barclays weren't in a position to confirm that but I now understand why.
If I were being cynical, I'd suggest that it would be beneficial for financial institutions to have a policy where customer data, that could conceivably lead to future claims, is rigidly deleted after the minimum 6 years. Perhaps some/many do?
A firm can be fined for holding data that is not necessary, that is far more compelling reason to delete old data than some conspiracy to avoid payouts (which relies on customers not shredding old records)Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
A firm can be fined for denying customer data exists to frustrate potential complaints e.g. Clydesdale bank in 2015, which begs the question are other firms doing the same?0
-
That was a single team though not the whole bank and they were not deleting data, just pretending not to have it. Doesn't beg any questions, they were caught and fined. Other firms legitimately deleting data in line with the law on data retention is completely different
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
A firm can be fined for holding data that is not necessary, that is far more compelling reason to delete old data than some conspiracy to avoid payouts (which relies on customers not shredding old records)
Can I ask why that would be a more compelling reason? Is it likely that fines imposed by financial regulatory bodies would exceed the sum that might be due to its customers? Or are other factors involved such as a fine causing damage to the firm's reputation?0 -
Can I ask why that would be a more compelling reason? Is it likely that fines imposed by financial regulatory bodies would exceed the sum that might be due to its customers? Or are other factors involved such as a fine causing damage to the firm's reputation?
The data protection laws in the UK require you to only hold data that is relevant such as if the customer is still with you.
What I mean is, if the firm has a legitimate reason to delete data (such as customer leaving 6 years ago) that is far more likely a reason for them to do it than thinking a customer might put in a PPI complaint and deleting the data to avoid a payout (something I believe they're not meant to do). Some of them archive data away for years stored by account number where the customer may still get data 10+ years after a closed account, some may be proactive in deleting data from closed accounts.
Where I work we store customer clinic records for 8 years then they are fed into a shredder in the January of the 9th year, someone who was treated in say 2009 could send in a SAR and we could legitimately bounce it as I know the paperwork was fed into the shredding lorry as I saw it being done.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
If the fines were not punitive, there would be no incentive to comply. Any fine would, of course, be in addition to the customer liabilities revealed by the scandal.Can I ask why that would be a more compelling reason? Is it likely that fines imposed by financial regulatory bodies would exceed the sum that might be due to its customers?
This has rather muddied the issue. Clydesdale Bank were indeed fined for telling customers wrongly that their data had been deleted, but that should not lead you to suspect or fear that other Banks were guilty of the same. If anything, the fine they received will have served as a very effective deterrent to others.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »If the fines were not punitive, there would be no incentive to comply. Any fine would, of course, be in addition to the customer liabilities revealed by the scandal.
Absolutely. It's all about the bottom line. What I can't help but question is that in cases where customer compensation payouts were likely to exceed possible regulatory body fines, then where's the incentive to comply? Or maybe that situation will never arise?
Still, it's good to see that some of you have faith in our financial institutions (or at least, faith in the power of financial regulators). For all our sakes, I hope you're right!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards