Will Natwest penalise my wife after 9 or 10 years?

mwarby

Potbellypig wrote: »

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).
.

I'm fairly sure that wouldn't work, it's an external company (hd decisions I think) who search the credit file, and they compare that result and known rules and customers with similar files who got accepted or declined. I don't see how this process could detect an issue with an internal blacklist(I'd be surprised if the comparison used names of previous lenders at all)

John_G_Jones

WhenIam64 wrote: »

@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.

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

No clause needed, unless there is a rule forbidding the retention of the data it can be kept.

Obviously not wishing to lend money again to someone who had them over in the past is a very valid reason to retain details for as long as that person is still alive, although I suspect most firms would decide after a few decades that they may no loner worry about the past.

TheGardener

In order to make the best possible application for a mortgage - ensure all your wife's credit history is up to date and correct with all the main credit agencies and that you use a specialist broker who will know which mortgages are best suited to your financial history.
There have been numerous threads on this board from ex BR's who have successfully applied for a mortgage.

Brock_and_Roll

Most of the credit officers I have known have memories like elephants - and some of them have a policy, official or unofficial, of never dealing again with someone who has cost them money (and reputation). It is of course a perfectly valid reason to retain information.

That said, it is a lot easier for that to happen on the corporate / high net worth individual sector than it is for us masses who move, change names etc etc.

However, if I were the OP I would not apply to any lender where the other half had previously defaulted - not like there is not a choice out there.

[Deleted User]

AnotherJoe wrote: »

although in your wife's case it would be none of those

The poster you responded to is not the OP...

WhenIam64

I bailed out of this one, as I can't quite see how the idea of a blacklist can be squared with the legislation, without that action leading to either a large fine by the ICO or tort in law.

If there is a list, it will be personally identifiable information under DPA 2018. As such the person has the following rights.

Right to be informed if your personal data is being used

Right to get copies of the data

Right to limit the data's use

Right to object to the use of your data

As was mentioned before, this figleaf of legitimate interest is just that. LI is tested in courts every day and in every way. A blacklist is just asking for a claim - which would have the ambulance chasing brigade salivating. They're already buying Ferraris on the PPI debacle.

John_G_Jones

WhenIam64 wrote: »

I bailed out of this one, as I can't quite see how the idea of a blacklist can be squared with the legislation, without that action leading to either a large fine by the ICO or tort in law.

If there is a list, it will be personally identifiable information under DPA 2018. As such the person has the following rights.

It is not a blacklist.

None of the links that you posted even suggests that there are rules against noting who stuffed you in the past.

This is as you’d expect, no decent person would ever demand that a company should be forced to forget who cheated them.

WhenIam64

This is as you’d expect, no decent person would ever demand that a company should be forced to forget who cheated them.

Not repaying debt is not "cheating". There are multiple reasons why debt is not paid back.

And there are rules called the DPA 2018 about holding personally identifiable information longer than is necessary. Your suggestion hints at keeping all data on the "just in case they come back" basis.

The thrust of my question is not the underlying issues for debt but the unnecessary (and unlawful) storing of personal identifiable information.

TheGardener

John_G_Jones wrote: »

...This is as you’d expect, no decent person would ever demand that a company should be forced to forget who cheated them.

I too take issue with this JohnG, people who are faced with BR are in the main, not planning on 'cheating' anyone. This board is for support and guidance, not making erroneous derogatory assumptions about peoples circumstances or intentions.

I am one of a large number of small business folk who have suffered at the hands of larger businesses who have reneged on their terms of business with small suppliers with little regard to the consequences.

John_G_Jones

They borrowed money which they did not pay on time and in full. I’ve no real interest in the semantics of how you’d prefer to describe that but the fact remains no-one’s going to insist that a company that list out from lending to you before should have to do it again.

How would you feel if you were forced by the law to put yourself at the mercy again of the company which let you down? After all, it’d not Be fair to be allowed to remember that, would it?..