Advice on whether to complain to Ombudsman

jollyfred

We’re after some advice on whether or not to go to the Ombudsman.

A PPI complaint was submitted to Lloyds via Resolver in May (2019). After eight weeks we hadn’t heard anything so called them to be told they’d sent out a letter in May and June and, because we hadn’t replied to these, they’d closed the case. We didn’t receive the letters (although we received letters and texts from Lloyds about two other complaints) and so they agreed to reopen the case and send the letters again. They confirmed further questions in one of the letters and we wrote that day with the answers. That was two weeks ago and nothing has been heard from them since - no acknowledgment or copies of the letters from May and June.

We called them today and got through to a UK office. The adviser couldn’t comment on the May/June letters but said a further letter had been sent last week - either 2nd class or gone missing again because it isn’t here yet. The adviser said the letter effectively confirms they can’t do anything without an account number and that we have to submit a SAR to get this. If this is the case, why weren’t we advised of this before? It wasn’t in the May and June letters that didn’t arrive, and the adviser didn’t suggest it two weeks ago. Shouldn’t they tell you this right at the start?

With a separate PPI complaint to Lloyds, we received a letter asking for more information which we replied to (also two weeks ago) but got no subsequent acknowledgement. We called about this today (got through to a different office) who said the case had been closed. We pointed out the letter said they needed more info, not that the case was being closed, which seemed to confuse the adviser. After some discussion about this, they said the case was reopened but didn’t explain how or why and couldn’t tell us what progress was being made or when we would hear anything. Their excuse for this was that they are very busy.

This contrasts sharply with a building society we complained to - they’ve been almost exemplary in their handling of the matter with similarly limited information from us. Lloyds seems to be a shambles in comparison.

The question is this - is it appropriate to complain to the Ombudsman about Lloyds’ handling of these cases or is it better to wait for the outcome of the SAR?

Many thanks for your help,
Fred

[Deleted User]

There's no point in going to FOS if they don't have the information to investigate.

You need the case to be closed with a final decision.

jollyfred

Hello zx81, thanks for the quick reply. So we have to get to the end of the process with them saying they can't get any further or us just not hearing from them any more?

Are they right in saying that not having an account number means they can't progress the case at all?

SonOf

Are they right in saying that not having an account number means they can't progress the case at all?

Probably. A lot of very old data is filed under account number. Not the individual name. So, they need the account number to be able to track it.

This contrasts sharply with a building society we complained to - they’ve been almost exemplary in their handling of the matter with similarly limited information from us. Lloyds seems to be a shambles in comparison.

Lloyds use third party companies to handle PPI complaints and shambles is often a word used.

jollyfred

Is it a valid defence for the Ombudsman - ‘our records are filed by account number and we can’t look through every one to find this person’s details’ ?

Surely there must have been some method to assigning account numbers back in the day - perhaps a series relating to a particular region or branch and/or time period? Or would that be too logical? And wouldn’t sort codes narrow it down?

Compare with the more efficient building society - they found an account from back in the day and confirmed the details to us rather than the other way round.

SonOf

Is it a valid defence for the Ombudsman - ‘our records are filed by account number and we can’t look through every one to find this person’s details’ ?

Yes it is.

Surely there must have been some method to assigning account numbers back in the day - perhaps a series relating to a particular region or branch and/or time period? Or would that be too logical? And wouldn’t sort codes narrow it down?

Data protection act requires the destruction of data over time. Some records get retained but the non-electronic records, the vast majority of which will never see the light of day again, were filed under account sort code and account numbers.

As for assigning account numbers, yes there was a method. For Lloyds, it was RAMAC cards and the branch would have a supply or available account numbers on the first 6 digits with each RAMAC card containing the final two digits that would work with the first 6 digits. When the branch needed a new account, they would pull one the next RAMAC card. That could be a re-used 6 digit account with a new two-digit suffix or a previously unused 6 digit account. In other words, it was pretty random as to what account number would be allocated. In the space of 5 minutes, one person could be 123456xx and the next person could get 000056xx. All quite logical and it worked well.

And wouldn’t sort codes narrow it down?

Yes. It could narrow it down to several hundred thousand or even into the millions.

Compare with the more efficient building society - they found an account from back in the day and confirmed the details to us rather than the other way round.

Do you still bank with Lloyds or the building society?
Banks & building societies generally retain data for existing customers longer than they retain data for historic customers.
Data from before 1994 was destroyed at a faster rate than post 94. A bit like the introduction of the GDPR, things were a bit over the top in 1994 with records destroyed that didnt need to be. It was only until a few years later that this was realised and the destruction slowed up.

The FCA recommend the destruction of documents 6 years after closure. They also recommended the retention of documents whwere there could be PPI once the PPI issue started to become more widespread. So, you generally find documents back to the early 2000s are pretty easily accessible. Get back into the 90s, and it gets harder.

Indeed, it can be argued that a building society retaining documents from the 80s or 90s is less efficient than a bank that has destroyed them.

jollyfred

Yes, still have the same account and all the PPIs came out of it so the statements will show these payments, hence why a SAR is a good idea but should have been suggested right at the start, imo. Lloyds were more than keen to investigate credit cards going back to the ark when we knew there wasn't any PPI on them but they couldn't be dissuaded from looking and were happy enough sending us letters and texts about it. At the end of this, as expected, a big long letter arrived quoting every card under the sun and saying none of them had PPI. But they're being far less accommodating for the two products that did have PPI.

As for efficiency, having worked with paper archive records in the past, it's not that difficult to log several fields of info at the same time - on the basis that, if you're keeping the record, it may be needed at some point and might not be searchable on just one field. But the words 'horse' and 'bolted' spring to mind here.

Thanks for your input - much appreciated.

SonOf

Yes, still have the same account and all the PPIs came out of it so the statements will show these payments, hence why a SAR is a good idea but should have been suggested right at the start, imo.

The only PPI that Lloyds retailed that came from your current account was MPPI. However, that was a standalone plan for a third party product and the data for that would not be linked to the account.

Lloyds were more than keen to investigate credit cards going back to the ark when we knew there wasn't any PPI on them but they couldn't be dissuaded from looking and were happy enough sending us letters and texts about it.

If that account was still open, then its a much easier case to check than old loans.

But they're being far less accommodating for the two products that did have PPI.

What are these two products? Loans or mortgage? What sort of ballpark dates are we looking at? 80s, 90s or what?

As for efficiency, having worked with paper archive records in the past, it's not that difficult to log several fields of info at the same time - on the basis that, if you're keeping the record, it may be needed at some point and might not be searchable on just one field. But the words 'horse' and 'bolted' spring to mind here.

Its easy to say that with hindsight in a computerised world but microfiche records and boxes of papers in no particular filing order from the days before computerisation are a whole different kettle of fish.

jollyfred

SonOf wrote: »

The only PPI that Lloyds retailed that came from your current account was MPPI. However, that was a standalone plan for a third party product and the data for that would not be linked to the account.

I probably wrote that bit poorly - I meant that various mortgage and loan repayments came from that account so at least there will be dates, amounts and possibly references.

SonOf wrote: »

If that account was still open, then its a much easier case to check than old loans.

True, but we didn't ask them for credit cards and they seem less able to go back through bank accounts which is where our interest lies.

SonOf wrote: »

What are these two products? Loans or mortgage? What sort of ballpark dates are we looking at? 80s, 90s or what?

A loan from the very late 80s, and a mortgage from the mid-90s.

SonOf wrote: »

Its easy to say that with hindsight in a computerised world but microfiche records and boxes of papers in no particular filing order from the days before computerisation are a whole different kettle of fish.

Again true, although historical archive organisations manage it, but I suppose they know there's an ongoing demand for their records; perhaps the banks thought no-one would ever ask so little point in creating a searchable index system for it.

SonOf

A loan from the very late 80s, and a mortgage from the mid-90s.

This is not a surprise then.

The late 80s loan would have data stored on microfiche or a paper RAMAC card. Both stored under account number. It pre-dates computerisation at branch level.

The mid 90s mortgage would likely have been an early C&G mortgage. MPPI, if you had it, would have been a standalone policy with its own direct debit. It was not built into the mortgage account. So, actually knowing the account number on that one may not be that beneficial as it wouldn't show whether you had PPI or not.

Again true, although historical archive organisations manage it, but I suppose they know there's an ongoing demand for their records; perhaps the banks thought no-one would ever ask so little point in creating a searchable index system for it.

Insurance was not regulated until Jan 2005. So, the keeping of insurance records on closed cases would have been extremely low priority.

[Deleted User]

jollyfred wrote: »

Is it a valid defence for the Ombudsman - ‘our records are filed by account number and we can’t look through every one to find this person’s details’ ?

All the Ombudsman would do in this situation is ensure that a proper and thorough search of reasonably accessible records has been made. The Ombudsman won't somehow force your records to suddenly become available.

If you do as the bank suggests and send them a Subject Access Request (SAR) letter and this turns up nothing either then you'll have to accept that the records are gone. No amount of "escalation" will change that.