We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Accessing historic statements from Egg
Comments
-
And the Clydesdale Bank was fined £20 Million for saying they didn't have any data (on PPI policies) when it did. They hold data when it suits them and they don't hold data when it suits them.0
-
Largs said:And the Clydesdale Bank was fined £20 Million for saying they didn't have any data (on PPI policies) when it did. They hold data when it suits them and they don't hold data when it suits them.1
-
Largs said:And the Clydesdale Bank was fined £20 Million for saying they didn't have any data (on PPI policies) when it did. They hold data when it suits them and they don't hold data when it suits them.
Banks will vary widely in what they have or don't have - but Clydesdale keeps an inordinate amount of information.
I was with them and had no desire to move until I had a complaint in 2017. I got compensation after going to the ombudsman and left. Around 3 years ago I decided to give them another go, and applied for the Virgin offer with free wine. I couldn't open the account online and had to call. The person on the phone asked me about the product I had complained about and refused me an account. I was a bit spooked by that and submitted a SAR. I received more than a ream of paper - going right back to the early 90s.0 -
Largs said:And the Clydesdale Bank was fined £20 Million for saying they didn't have any data (on PPI policies) when it did. They hold data when it suits them and they don't hold data when it suits them.
The £20m fine shows that the system works to punish them
As above, the bank has to abide by the law in this country. If an account was closed in 2014, it would be quite normal for the files to be deleted after 2020 - possibly sooner if the account was not transferred to the new system if it was closed for some time and there was no reason to keep the data per the DPA / GPDRSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.4K Spending & Discounts
- 243.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.7K Life & Family
- 256.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards