Will Natwest penalise my wife after 9 or 10 years?

scaggle1

I couldn't see a similar question on this forum, but apologies if I've missed it...


My wife went bankrupt just under 10 years ago when we'd just met and before we were married.


One of the creditors was the Natwest, and fast-forward 10 years we are looking to buy a warehouse for our business with, you guessed it, the Natwest as the mortgage provider.


My question is whether or not they will refuse us on the basis that she took them for some cash years ago - it won't be on her credit file, but will they have another list she'll be on?


I can always complete the application on my own, but we would rather do it as a couple.


Any info / experiences would be useful, I really don't want the embarrassment for her if was rejected because of the bankruptcy.


Thanks in advance.

[Deleted User]

You won't know until you apply.

They may well had retained internal records and therefore be reluctant to give any further money to someone who hasn't previously repaid.

[Deleted User]

Your wife's bankruptcy remains a matter of several public records. While it won't impact on her ability to actually get a mortgage, lenders will likely see her as a much greater risk and so not offer the best rates.

However, they can refuse to lend to any individual, so it's probably unwise of you both to approach a lender who is also a former creditor of her bankruptcy.

As above though, you won't know unless you try.

Nasqueron

Firms are allowed to keep blacklists as long as they like. There are some anecdotal accounts on the forum of people getting a card with a previously defaulted lender after 6-10 years but Amex (as an example) have been much tougher in the past. They are obviously not a charity and can refuse to lend to whoever they like.

WhenIam64

They may well had retained internal records and therefore be reluctant to give any further money to someone who hasn't previously repaid.

@ZX81 Could you cite your source for this. Happy to believe you but I'd like to know the basis of it when measured against the DPA and the new GDPR rules on personal information. There may be a clause in the Act of which I am not aware.

Firms are allowed to keep blacklists as long as they like

@ Nasqueron. Could you cite your source for this. As above.

[Deleted User]

It's laid out in GDPR and as a result, the 2018 DPA. Data can be processed under a number of conditions - one of which is legitimate interest, which this falls under.

If they can justify it and lay out their data usage in their Privacy Policy, then it's perfectly valid for them to retain the data.

Potbellypig

scaggle1 wrote: »

I couldn't see a similar question on this forum, but apologies if I've missed it...


My wife went bankrupt just under 10 years ago when we'd just met and before we were married.


One of the creditors was the Natwest, and fast-forward 10 years we are looking to buy a warehouse for our business with, you guessed it, the Natwest as the mortgage provider.


My question is whether or not they will refuse us on the basis that she took them for some cash years ago - it won't be on her credit file, but will they have another list she'll be on?


I can always complete the application on my own, but we would rather do it as a couple.


Any info / experiences would be useful, I really don't want the embarrassment for her if was rejected because of the bankruptcy.


Thanks in advance.

It's not a foolproof way of finding out, but your wife could do a soft search for a credit card or loan on here and if Natwest comes up as an option, then you know she's not on some sort of list for Natwest (if there even is such a thing for Natwest).

But in answer to your question, I went bankrupt about 8/9 years ago and Barclays won't even let me be added as a joint account holder on the wife's bank account, let alone give me credit. So it is a possibility that she'll be rejected based on what happened previously, but you won't really know until you apply.

WhenIam64

one of which is legitimate interest, which this falls under.

@Zx81. Apologies for pushing you on this. Legitimate interest is one of those legal concepts that pops up in a number of places. So does reasonable cause, public interest or officious bystander. They are concepts and nothing more until tested (and qualified) in court.

Can you cite actual evidence of their existence, as it seems that such a list would leave banks and others open to tort claims should the information be out of date, incorrect or malign in some way.

Do you have specific knowledge?

[Deleted User]

Here's a good place to start - https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/legitimate-interests/

The regs are often not black and white. For LI, you need to carry out a balancing test to see if your interests are reasonable, and how they compare to the expectations of the data subject.

The reason there can be no definitive answer is that it varies by industry. A hospital would have cause to keep data longer than a car manufacturer, who have have cause to keep it longer than a supermarket, who would have cause to keep it longer than a car park, for example. The evidence of their existence is within the repsective Privacy Policies.

All data retention policies are subject to challenge. However, the issue of the data being accurate is separate of the one of retention.

WhenIam64

@ZX81. I understand LI and I understand the DPA/GDPR. My question was more specific than that.

Do you know of, or are you aware of, or have seen, or have used the "blacklist" that you referred to the subject earlier

They may well had retained internal records and therefore be reluctant to give any further money to someone who hasn't previously repaid.

As I mentioned, such a list if it exists has implications for those that use it or are the subject of decisions made on the basis of it. So it's existence is a key point.

AnotherJoe

WhenIam64 wrote: »

@Zx81. Apologies for pushing you on this. Legitimate interest is one of those legal concepts that pops up in a number of places. So does reasonable cause, public interest or officious bystander. They are concepts and nothing more until tested (and qualified) in court.

Can you cite actual evidence of their existence, as it seems that such a list would leave banks and others open to tort claims should the information be out of date, incorrect or malign in some way.

Do you have specific knowledge?

although in your wife's case it would be none of those plus all those are a possibility in any case even if the info is recent.