Lloyds 1978 cc

[nightwatch]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

just found something else

I wrote to them2010 asking for them to remove markers from CRA file as payments had been sent and they had ignored previous letters, also pointing out that they had sent a Default and had said they were going to apply it to the cedit file, but as they had regestered a default in 2002 they could not enter another one
the reply was , more or less 'yes we can'

but have found this 26/04 ; email; cr manager to check how many defaults on file as customer querying default being applied-advice given await response

28/04, email; to adv on points given in ds letter-advised that we can remove default and adverse however payments must remain incoming as default can not be re-applied await outcome

they never sent me that one!!

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

As I thought so what they are saying in the letter above is bullshite and that in it's self tells me that they are holding back and not truthful.

Clearly trying to stop a complaint to the FOS me thinks so what are they hiding.



Last paragraph hmmmmm

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

I thought the 6 mths that you have to refer a case to the FOS did not start until all avenues had been exhausted with the bank ?

That is certainly the impression I got in a deadlock letter from the Co-op.

You get 6 months from the date of the banks final response letter...... but to avoid that, you just wait a year and then start a different complaint with the bank, then bring the old complaint back into things and then you get a new complaint and a new FOS timescale.

Easy to beat the system, easier to play it

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

I thought the 6 mths that you have to refer a case to the FOS did not start until all avenues had been exhausted with the bank ?

That is certainly the impression I got in a deadlock letter from the Co-op.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

Awesome - looking good eh? A SAR can be handy at times, especially if they do send all system notes...... idiots eh?

[nightwatch]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

hi

have received my (OH) SAR it states
The majority of contracts we hold between the bank and our customers are not held in relevant filing systems and are therefore not subject to the right of subject access under the DPA.

but hidden away in the middle of it i came across this little nugget

04/2011 request for copy signed application to be faxed to Edinburgh.

04/2011 General support and processing, UNABLE to find application in general support and processing, request not sent to aquire as account opened prior to their records

I am assuming they have not got IT

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

There you go then, this is the normal response from a bank to such requests that can go ignored as irrelevent thus I tend not to suggest sending such (usually) - however just move on now, see what they do next (if anything)......

[nightwatch]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

Hi all

received this as a reply to my CPUTR request

[nightwatch]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

Hi all

well still no response to my CPUTR letter and nothing back from my SAR, not even a letter saying it will be dealt with or running late
I have checked and they did receive it

so do I contact the OFT and just tell them I made a request under CPUTR and they have not replyed
thanks NW

[garlok]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

Hi oscar,

They have an obligation under the regs to NOT mislead you. Hence any failure to respond provides grounds for formal complaint to the OFT.

If in the end proceedings were issued, this would form part of the evidence trail you could use against them. I have never real seen it as a big stick with which to beat them but really in the context as said here. If they don't respond as has happened in one instance for us then, they don't have the docs. But think of it this way, if they respond yes then there is no earthly or legal reason why they cannot respond in full to a s78 request. If they no and then issue proceedings and turn up in court with an original or recon document then they have admitted what is tantamount to a criminal offence.

One of the real knowledgable of people on here on this subject is Priority One and she has had some real tangible success in getting creditors to back down with this.

regards
Garlok

[oscar]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

CPUTR they not obliged to respond to (i think)

SAR they have a good few days before deadline passes.and then they will probably be late given their work volumes

[nightwatch]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

Latest up date;
no reply from Lloyds to my CPUTR letter
no acknowledgement of the SAR
both sent recorded and both delivered

we wait???

[nightwatch]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

Will send new CPUTR letter tomoz. Will also SAR them. and update when anything received

many thanks to you all, for your input
Have a good evening
NW

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

[QUOTE=garlok;120943]As we have said CPUTR should clear this up and my opinion for nightwatch is that they are trying fudge the issue with smoke and mirrors. I.E it is likely that they don't have anything substantial.QUOTE] Yep totally agree mate - using your recent template here: ---> New Templates - CPUTR

[garlok]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

No not trying to be difficult, but thanks anyway. Its niggled at me for a longtime and nightwatch came up with a specific case which is so very close to our own in many ways.

I have always thought that s127 would take precedence when it came to enforcement but for anyone just starting out as a lyperson this can be daunting, the Act says one thing but the regulations say another. You know my position on the "Carey" thing about s78 for information purposes only and have always treatd enforcement as a diferent matter to information requests. Hence perhaps put simply its just a bit more of a gamble with these pre 1985 agreements.

As we have said CPUTR should clear this up and my opinion for nightwatch is that they are trying fudge the issue with smoke and mirrors. I.E it is likely that they don't have anything substantial.

regards
Garlok