Barclays unable to find old account

Nasqueron

dogfonos wrote: »

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!

The flip side of this is that early on at least, the FOS were charging firms £550 (think it was £950 at some point) per case that firms got so it was often cheaper for firms to simply pay customers even if their case had no merit than reject it and have to pay the FOS. Works both ways

takman

dogfonos wrote: »

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?

It's a bit hypocritical to think banks are up to no go by destroying the information when you yourself did exactly the same thing with your own records :rotfl: