How long does a bank remember bad debt?

[Deleted User]

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Yes, but the point of this thread is to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to do this. I, for one, agree with this suggestion. I'm not saying they shouldn't hold such records for a significant period - I don't know, maybe 10 years or something - but to be allowed to hold them indefinitely is a disproportionate facility that they, the banks, currently have.

And quite rightly so.

Would you want to do business with someone that didn't pay you or screwed you over for a period of time?

[Deleted User]

IanManc wrote: »

For an analogy to be interpreted it needs to be an analogy in the first place.

Your attempt was an utter fail.

I think the speeding motorist one is actually quite a good analogy:


Speeding: you do something wrong, a record of this wrongdoing is kept, the record is deleted after a period of time.


Defaulting debt: you do something wrong, a record of this wrongdoing is kept, the record is never deleted.


Perhaps let's broaden it out a bit. If the debt is never repaid I wouldn't object to the banks having an indefinite record of this. Indeed, maybe accounting practices demand it. However, if a debt is repaid, then indefinite retention of the details is, in my view, disproportionate.


If an applicant is told that he can't get a loan due to an unpaid debt then, to me, a reasonable response would be "sorry, you owe us £xxxx and you defaulted, so we can't lend you any more money. If you pay off this debt we will consider your position again, but we will retain this record for (say) 10 years."


In the above scenario, 10 years after the debt had been satisfied, the applicant would be on a level playing field with the rest of us. I think this is reasonable.

IanManc

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

I think the speeding motorist one is actually quite a good analogy:


Speeding: you do something wrong, a record of this wrongdoing is kept, the record is deleted after a period of time.


Defaulting debt: you do something wrong, a record of this wrongdoing is kept, the record is never deleted.


Perhaps let's broaden it out a bit. If the debt is never repaid I wouldn't object to the banks having an indefinite record of this. Indeed, maybe accounting practices demand it. However, if a debt is repaid, then indefinite retention of the details is, in my view, disproportionate.


If an applicant is told that he can't get a loan due to an unpaid debt then, to me, a reasonable response would be "sorry, you owe us £xxxx and you defaulted, so we can't lend you any more money. If you pay off this debt we will consider your position again, but we will retain this record for (say) 10 years."


In the above scenario, 10 years after the debt had been satisfied, the applicant would be on a level playing field with the rest of us. I think this is reasonable.

I suppose that the major difference between speeding and being a bank debtor is that points or a ban remain live on your record for a specified period, whereas if a bank is keeping records of debtors and won't subsequently have dealings with them that can last indefinitely.

But the debtor/customer can still bank with another banking group which doesn't have access to the first bank's internal records, whereas the banned driver can't simply drive on a different set of roads (in the same country).

I think there's also a material difference between a debtor who subsequently pays back their debts and one who doesn't. I have a friend who had an IVA, and paid back every single penny he owed. I don't see why he should be discriminated against in accessing financial services when he did the right thing and met his obligations in full.

badger09

EarthBoy wrote: »

There is no such right. Banks can decide who they want as customers, providing they don't discriminate on grounds of gender, race, sexuality, etc.

If they don't want you, you'll just have to live with it and find a different bank.

Deja vue:D

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75368250&postcount=5

John_G_Jones

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Yes, but the point of this thread is to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to do this. I, for one, agree with this suggestion. I'm not saying they shouldn't hold such records for a significant period - I don't know, maybe 10 years or something - but to be allowed to hold them indefinitely is a disproportionate facility that they, the banks, currently have.

I find posts like this just bizarre. The sense of entitlement is so alien to me that it’s hard to know how this poster and me could ever communicate.

It’s like asking how many years after your babysitter assaulted your baby should you expect to hold it against them. If you have failed to honour your obligations with a person, company, or organisation then of course they can choose never to deal,with you again.

How many years after you cheated on your wife would it be before you told her that she was not allowed to remember it? Why on Earth do you imagine you can default on a company and demand that they disregard it?

Willing2Learn

Part of the NatWest data retention policy:

12.3 Retention periods for records are determined based on the type of record, the nature of the activity,
product or service, the country in which the relevant RBS company is located and the applicable
local legal or regulatory requirements. We (and other RBS group companies) normally keep customer
account records for up to six years after your relationship with the bank ends, whilst other records
are retained for shorter periods. Retention periods may be changed from time to time based on
business or legal and regulatory requirements.
12.4 We may on exception retain your information for longer periods, particularly where we need to withhold
destruction or disposal based on an order from the courts or an investigation by law enforcement
agencies or our regulators. This is intended to make sure that the bank will be able to produce records
as evidence, if they’re needed.

Are the above consistent with how my data has been retained? (My data has now been retained for eight years after my relationship with NatWest ended). My account was settled when the relationship ended. I do not think the data will ever be needed for law enforcement agencies or as a result of a court order.

Is this compatible with GDPR 5(1)e principle of storage limitation (quoted below), where personal data shall be

(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed; personal data may be stored for longer periods insofar as the personal data will be processed solely for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes subject to implementation of the appropriate technical and organisational measures required by the GDPR in order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of individuals (‘storage limitation’)

eskbanker

Have they provided that information in response to your SAR? Personally I think it's too vague to say that they "normally keep customer account records for up to six years after your relationship with the bank ends", especially if they accept that they still hold data about you after a longer period. It would seem reasonable to me to go back to them and point out that their retention of your data appears to be in contravention of their policy, and to seek an explanation.

In terms of compliance with the GDPR principles, it's difficult to assess based only on that extract, as it all depends on what purpose they're declaring they need to hold the data for....

EarthBoy

Willing2Learn wrote: »

Are the above consistent with how my data has been retained? ...

Is this compatible with GDPR 5(1)e principle of storage limitation (quoted below)?

Perfectly compatible in my view.

We (and other RBS group companies) normally (i.e not always!) keep customer
account records for up to six years after your relationship with the bank ends,..
12.4 We may on exception retain your information for longer periods, particularly (note that it doesn't say "only") where we need to withhold destruction or disposal based on an order from the courts....

The GDPR:

(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed;

If the bank say that it's necessary to store details of previous customers who owed them money so that they don't have to accept them as customers in the future, they're being consistent with the GDPR.

John_G_Jones

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Blimey! You don't appear to understand how to interpret an analogy. Your remarks are some of the most asinine I've come across in a long while. Okay, swap out murderer for speeding motorist, if that might help.

What’s asinine is someone petulantly thinking that they get to demand that a company forget that someone screwed them over.

Is this really where we are now with the modern sense of entitlement, that you can refuse to honour a deal that you freely entered into and then force the victim to ignore that in the future?

Here’s a radical plan, realise that your actions have consequences, and accept this like the adult that you pretend to be.

Willing2Learn

The NatWest policy and the storage limitation GDPR principal would seem to suggest that data should only be retained for a finite period.