Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Landy11
    • By Landy11 12th Apr 18, 4:44 PM
    • 6Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Landy11
    What happens when the Banks lie?
    • #1
    • 12th Apr 18, 4:44 PM
    What happens when the Banks lie? 12th Apr 18 at 4:44 PM
    I've had experience before with HSBC lying and making false declarations to authorities and the Financial Ombudsman. Now I am re-claiming PPI, they're doing it again.

    First, they claimed to the Ombudsman I never had any sort of bank account with them, despite banking with them for over 10 years.
    Then when I spent hours digging out old paperwork I found an account number, they suddenly remembered I did.
    Then they denied to the Ombudsman I had any sort of loan with them.
    Then after the Ombudsman pushed and pushed after I had to push them, HSBC confessed I did.
    Now we're at the stage where HSBC are lying again and denying I ever paid PPI at all. Despite me making payments every month for years, from one HSBC account to them.

    I suppose I have two questions.
    First, what can we claimants do when the banks lie and don't check their systems properly?
    Second, isnt' the whole PPI reclaiming system fundamentally messed up when the Ombudsman goes running to the very bank that messed up in the first place, and simply takes their word every time when they lie and give them false information? They can only ask HSBC to look at systems which HSBC decides to tell them about in the first place, so what about all the systems they haven't told the Ombdusman about? Apparently we're not allowed to demand they check those.

    Why isn't there an independent investigator into PPI who can demand access HSBC's real records?
Page 1
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 12th Apr 18, 5:07 PM
    • 20,792 Posts
    • 11,613 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #2
    • 12th Apr 18, 5:07 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Apr 18, 5:07 PM
    Why don't you take them to court? They are obviously acting illegally...
    • Nearlyold
    • By Nearlyold 12th Apr 18, 5:49 PM
    • 1,122 Posts
    • 951 Thanks
    Nearlyold
    • #3
    • 12th Apr 18, 5:49 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Apr 18, 5:49 PM
    Now we're at the stage where HSBC are lying again and denying I ever paid PPI at all. Despite me making payments every month for years, from one HSBC account to them.
    Was this a separate payment for insurance or part of the loan payment? Did the length of time you made these payments coincide with the term of the loan?
    • Landy11
    • By Landy11 12th Apr 18, 6:27 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Landy11
    • #4
    • 12th Apr 18, 6:27 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Apr 18, 6:27 PM
    Good question Nearlyold. I was told at the very last minute I would have to pay PPI, taken into a room, given a form to sign and told what the monthly payments would be. All that was separate in administrative terms to the loan agreement which I was then taken back into the original room, to sign. As I remember, I set up a DD/Standing Order to pay these amounts. I remember these amounts appearing separately on my bank account statements. HSBC is denying any of the above happened or existed.
    • Nearlyold
    • By Nearlyold 12th Apr 18, 6:33 PM
    • 1,122 Posts
    • 951 Thanks
    Nearlyold
    • #5
    • 12th Apr 18, 6:33 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Apr 18, 6:33 PM
    If it was a completely separate payment there is a good possibility it wasn't PPI but some other type of insurance. Do you still have any of the paperwork/statments? How long ago was this?
    • Landy11
    • By Landy11 12th Apr 18, 6:37 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Landy11
    • #6
    • 12th Apr 18, 6:37 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Apr 18, 6:37 PM
    I am sure they called it payment protection at the time, I remember the phrase, but I am really interested in your questions. I had such a nightmare of a time with HSBC that I think (not 100% sure) I binned the paperwork after some years to have a home and desk that was HSBC-corruptness-free at last.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th Apr 18, 7:09 PM
    • 5,291 Posts
    • 3,205 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    • #7
    • 12th Apr 18, 7:09 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Apr 18, 7:09 PM
    The front line staff and perhaps even the PPI team don't always have access to old systems and without the account number almost certainly couldn't have found it, they made a mistake and have corrected it now you have given them the information to find the account. They didn't lie, they simply presented the information available to them.
    • Nearlyold
    • By Nearlyold 12th Apr 18, 7:11 PM
    • 1,122 Posts
    • 951 Thanks
    Nearlyold
    • #8
    • 12th Apr 18, 7:11 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Apr 18, 7:11 PM
    Sorry but you haven't said when this was. Have you ever sent them an SAR?
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th Apr 18, 11:53 PM
    • 93,992 Posts
    • 61,802 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #9
    • 12th Apr 18, 11:53 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Apr 18, 11:53 PM
    What happens when the Banks lie?
    If its found to be a widespread issue then there are consequences. If it was an error limited to one or two cases then they are required to put it right.

    First, what can we claimants do when the banks lie and don't check their systems properly?
    Not all data is stored on systems that can easily find the info. Often old data is stored under account number and not name. Or archived off systems on microfiche.

    This is why they often rely on old statements or copies of info to get that policy number that allows them to check older data records.

    Why isn't there an independent investigator into PPI who can demand access HSBC's real records?
    Because there is no law that allows it. However, the FOS does report issues to the FCA where they feel a firm has done wrong (beyond the complaint).
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Landy11
    • By Landy11 13th Apr 18, 8:49 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Landy11
    The bank needs to answer thte Financial Ombudsman with accurate and correct information. If the PPI team " don't always have access to old systems" then either this PPI reclaiming process is not set up correctly or the PPI team need to communicate with other parts of their bank to find the answer. They should not just go back to the Financial Ombudsman with "no, can't see it, this never happened".

    "they made a mistake and have corrected it now" No, the bank falsely stated I had never banked with them and then discovered I did. Then they falsey stated I didn't have any sort of loan, and - despite not being given any further information from myself - upon pushback by the Financial Ombudsman to have a proper look, then discovered I did. Why didn't they do a proper look in the first place - this is my point.
    • Landy11
    • By Landy11 13th Apr 18, 8:51 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Landy11
    The loan was taken out about 14 years ago, and payments were still being made 5 years ago when it was then paid off. PPI payments were paid every single month from start to finish. What is a SAR please Nearlyold?
    • Landy11
    • By Landy11 13th Apr 18, 8:54 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Landy11
    "If it was an error limited to one or two cases then they are required to put it right."
    So how can we force them to put this situation right? I had PPI, they know this, they are falsely claiming I didn't, just as they falsely claimed I didn't have an account, didn't have a loan, both which has taken months of struggle to prove they are lying. So what can we do such that HSBC is required to really put it right, search old databases, search the microfiche, do whatever they have to do to answer the Ombudman's question truthfully and correctly, just as you and I have to do spending days going through our old paperwork.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 13th Apr 18, 9:44 AM
    • 5,291 Posts
    • 3,205 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    The bank needs to answer thte Financial Ombudsman with accurate and correct information. If the PPI team " don't always have access to old systems" then either this PPI reclaiming process is not set up correctly or the PPI team need to communicate with other parts of their bank to find the answer. They should not just go back to the Financial Ombudsman with "no, can't see it, this never happened".

    "they made a mistake and have corrected it now" No, the bank falsely stated I had never banked with them and then discovered I did. Then they falsey stated I didn't have any sort of loan, and - despite not being given any further information from myself - upon pushback by the Financial Ombudsman to have a proper look, then discovered I did. Why didn't they do a proper look in the first place - this is my point.
    Originally posted by Landy11
    If you want to go in with this angle accusing the bank of fraud and criminal activity, go right ahead. Ring 101 and report them. You are getting sensible advice on how to correctly approach the bank and get them on your side, your choice if you wish to ignore it.
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 13th Apr 18, 10:27 AM
    • 278 Posts
    • 208 Thanks
    BooJewels
    First, they claimed to the Ombudsman I never had any sort of bank account with them, despite banking with them for over 10 years.
    Originally posted by Landy11
    Do you not think that if you want /expect a financial institution to pay you out a gob-load of dosh, that you also have some responsibility to get your own ducks in a row too and provide the poor company with some clues.

    If you'd retained the barest minimum of information to set the ball rolling, you could have avoided a great deal of effort for all parties concerned - yourself, the banks and the FOS. I think you're perhaps unreasonable to expect them to do all the running - then call them liars in public - when you haven't made much effort yourself.

    If you don't have lots of storage space for papers, do what I've been doing lately - I got a free scanner through Freegle and have been scanning all my documents and then shedding them - shredder also free. I've emptied more than a filling cabinet and stored them on a usb stick, I keep off-site, for a fiver. I've already saved myself hours of work trying to find documents in files when they're much easier to source on a well organised hard drive.

    Do yourself and the financial institutions a favour and use this as a lesson in getting yourself better organised for situations like this in the future.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 13th Apr 18, 12:03 PM
    • 93,992 Posts
    • 61,802 Thanks
    dunstonh
    The bank needs to answer thte Financial Ombudsman with accurate and correct information. If the PPI team " don't always have access to old systems" then either this PPI reclaiming process is not set up correctly or the PPI team need to communicate with other parts of their bank to find the answer. They should not just go back to the Financial Ombudsman with "no, can't see it, this never happened".
    You seem to misunderstand how filing on works. If historic data is stored under account number and not name, then it doesnt matter what communication exists if you do not have the account number.

    So how can we force them to put this situation right?
    You can't. It has nothing to do with you. If the FOS decide the bank have been difficult or doing something wrong they will report it to the FCA. The FCA will decide any action.

    If the FOS decide this is just consequences of the data protection act and the info was not in a "relevant filing system" then there is no wrongdoing. Its a quirk that cannot be avoided.

    So what can we do such that HSBC is required to really put it right, search old databases, search the microfiche,
    You cant. If its not on a "relevant filing system" then they can only search it if they have the filter it is stored under. i.e. account number. They cant search through millions of records individually to see on the off chance whether you had PPI or not. However, if you have the account number, they can find the record relatively quickly (anyone that has used a microfiche will tell you that its never relatively quickly!)

    Pre-computerised days used manual records. Most of which would be destroyed. However, the account number cards would tell them if you had PPI or not because of the account code is written on the account number card (loan with PPI / loan without PPI). But without an account number, you cant find it.

    You are lucky there are any records. The Data Protection act was not as strong as the forthcoming GDPR. With that, more records will be destroyed.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • meer53
    • By meer53 13th Apr 18, 2:14 PM
    • 9,251 Posts
    • 13,436 Thanks
    meer53
    Good question Nearlyold. I was told at the very last minute I would have to pay PPI, taken into a room, given a form to sign and told what the monthly payments would be. All that was separate in administrative terms to the loan agreement which I was then taken back into the original room, to sign. As I remember, I set up a DD/Standing Order to pay these amounts. I remember these amounts appearing separately on my bank account statements. HSBC is denying any of the above happened or existed.
    Originally posted by Landy11
    So if you signed the forms, why do you think it was missold ? You paid it for 9 years and didn't question it ?
    • sun73
    • By sun73 13th Apr 18, 10:12 PM
    • 416 Posts
    • 130 Thanks
    sun73
    what happens when banks lie
    You seem to misunderstand how filing on works. If historic data is stored under account number and not name, then it doesnt matter what communication exists if you do not have the account number.



    You can't. It has nothing to do with you. If the FOS decide the bank have been difficult or doing something wrong they will report it to the FCA. The FCA will decide any action.

    If the FOS decide this is just consequences of the data protection act and the info was not in a "relevant filing system" then there is no wrongdoing. Its a quirk that cannot be avoided.



    You cant. If its not on a "relevant filing system" then they can only search it if they have the filter it is stored under. i.e. account number. They cant search through millions of records individually to see on the off chance whether you had PPI or not. However, if you have the account number, they can find the record relatively quickly (anyone that has used a microfiche will tell you that its never relatively quickly!)

    Pre-computerised days used manual records. Most of which would be destroyed. However, the account number cards would tell them if you had PPI or not because of the account code is written on the account number card (loan with PPI / loan without PPI). But without an account number, you cant find it.

    You are lucky there are any records. The Data Protection act was not as strong as the forthcoming GDPR. With that, more records will be destroyed.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Didn't the ICO investigate the microfiche systems of several banks in 2006 and decided that as these records are accessible and identifiable with the customer's name and account number, they should be treated as a part of a relevant filing system?

    Yet, when customers submit a DSAR or a PPI complaint, HSBC and other major banks ignore or deny microfiche records exist alleging they only have data back to 2001.

    The one exception being Clydesdale Bank who are proactively searching all their archived systems including microfiche, ever since the FCA conducted a review of this bank in 2015 and discovered that Clydesdale held customer data pre 2001.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 13th Apr 18, 11:05 PM
    • 93,992 Posts
    • 61,802 Thanks
    dunstonh
    Didn't the ICO investigate the microfiche systems of several banks in 2006 and decided that as these records are accessible and identifiable with the customer's name and account number, they should be treated as a part of a relevant filing system?
    If they could be searched by the name or other personal filters they could but if they couldnt be searched by personal data then no.

    The one exception being Clydesdale Bank
    Barclaycard have been putting old data back on systems too.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 14th Apr 18, 9:48 AM
    • 5,291 Posts
    • 3,205 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Didn't the ICO investigate the microfiche systems of several banks in 2006 and decided that as these records are accessible and identifiable with the customer's name and account number, they should be treated as a part of a relevant filing system?

    Yet, when customers submit a DSAR or a PPI complaint, HSBC and other major banks ignore or deny microfiche records exist alleging they only have data back to 2001.

    The one exception being Clydesdale Bank who are proactively searching all their archived systems including microfiche, ever since the FCA conducted a review of this bank in 2015 and discovered that Clydesdale held customer data pre 2001.
    Originally posted by sun73
    Remember that the ICO guidelines for old archives like microfiche are such that if the person sending the DSAR doesn't provide sufficient detail to be able to locate them (such as account numbers, if that was how the data was stored) then if they can't find it, they don't need to find it - i.e. you wouldn't expect the bank to manually hunt every record on the off chance they find the one needed. If the data is stored alphabetically within a structure that allows an individual to be found (e.g. listed by payroll or account number), the data must be supplied however
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

260Posts Today

2,168Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin