Card Protection Policies (CPP) - We're STILL Being Scammed !!!

[Angry Cat]

Re: Card Protection Policies (CPP) - We're STILL Being Scammed !!!

Barclays will blame loss of data on the Iron Mountain fire. Good luck with this

-> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...l=1#post343809

BBC -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5175568.stm

Morgan Stanley;
funny how Crabot managed to did up some extremely dodgy, so called, credit agreements. However, that it another story...

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Card Protection Policies (CPP) - We're STILL Being Scammed !!!

Actually the correct name is a Subject Access Request (SAR). No "D" - nothing. As stated above. It's a simple SAR

There is no magic 6 year "rule" - it's explicit to a data controller (ie the bank/dca) that ALL data should be sent. S.7 doesn't give a 6 year deadline nor does the ico / fca guidelines. If a firm tries to only send 6 years historic data then they're in breach of the Act and their obligations under it.

Sections 77-79 only allow provision of agreement, terms & statements. It's no use when requesting SAR. a SAR covers ALL data held about you, the data subject.

If the lender fobs you off complain to ICO then FOS. Read Schedule 2 of the Act

Read this page - the ICO templates refer to all data and how to complain regards missing data (bottom of page - again no mention of a 6 year rule) -> https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/personal-information/

I am a bugger at this ICO malarkey. Seriously, that's why we were the FIRST forum to volunteer to be registered. Because we knew it was a good idea.

[Tuttsi]

Re: Card Protection Policies (CPP) - We're STILL Being Scammed !!!

My MasterCard account came with a Barclaycard account and was not through any of the other credit card companies that has been mentioned. Funny though MasterCard are still taking the money annually for this and I have never ever been charged on my Barclaycard for this service. If Barclaycard rendered this Sentinel insurance as rubbish then I should have no problem getting back all my payments +interest and not just at 8%.

For what it is worth;
the correct term is a Data Subject Information Request (DSIR) and not a DSAR. However, agree these requests are generally known as SAR (Subject Access Requests).

I have never known any Bank to provide information prior to the 6 year rule, other than pretty useless transaction logs. Most have had to rely on section 77, 78 & 79 CCA requests to obtain anything prior.
And, I agree that under the Money Laundering Regs Banks must keep information for 6 years after the account has ceased to be live; this id of course for HMRC.
But this information does not fall under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, therefore Banks will not release same...

RE: your MasterCard account Tuttsi. Was it by any chance a Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Morgan Stanley or Goldfish card. As they were selling the Sentinel product with their credit cards. Tesco Personal Finance and the various RBS affiliate cards too.

Barclays took over several MC credit card providers who sold the ill fated Sentinel (useless) product.

http://www.barclaycard.co.uk/persona...ard-protection

[Bill-K]

Re: Card Protection Policies (CPP) - We're STILL Being Scammed !!!

I prefer AC's "DSIR," as it seems clearer in meaning - but I bow to Niddy's knowledge of the DPA & CCA. I'll continue to use "DSAR" because I'm an old git who can't change his ways.

Yeah - the source of the fabled '6-year rule' has been discussed ad nauseam for a lot more than 6 damn years, I believe - and it seems to boil down to what is deemed to be a reasonable time to expect financial records to be needed. The Limitation Act nails 6 years down for UE purposes, so perhaps HMRC took that as a reasonable 'benchmark' to use, and adopted it as an informal guideline. I'm not familiar with the Money-Laundering Regulations, but as far as I understand these are simply industry regulations - as opposed to Statute Law - and if that is the case, then I can't see how any firm can over-ride the DPA by claiming special exemption under industry regs. But our problem is proving that they actually do have the data that they say that they don't. Sometimes, we can do this by getting them to 'show their cards' with an unrelated matter in good old 'Columbo' style - but thay have all 'wised up' since 2005/6, I reckon.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Card Protection Policies (CPP) - We're STILL Being Scammed !!!

To be honest the name is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The £10 payment with a "request for all data held" is suffice. The ICO back that stance.

As for the 6 year thing, we can't bring hmrc or aml into any argument sadly because the ICO don't recognise it as being absolute. In so much as their stance of late seems to be "if the bank destroyed data aged 6+ years, it's no problem as you can only really apply redress retrospectively for -6 years"! Nonsense.

I argue all the time that a bank ESPECIALLY has absolutely no right to destroy anything whilst there's a live relationship. Granted when the relationship breaks down you may expect them to cease processing data upon termination and asignment. But still, the FOS tend to insist on more data helping your cause so it's not always dead. Enforcer on AAD got the FOS to demand more data from Barclays or they'd consider the account UE. Barclays, knowing they can't provide historic "archived" data (Iron Mountain fire) agreed and kinda just ignored him. It's nuts. It really beggars belief mate!!

[Bill-K]

Re: Card Protection Policies (CPP) - We're STILL Being Scammed !!!

Agreed, Niddy - "What's in a name ?!" As long as we understand each other, then Montagu or Capulet will do. It's the elements that make up the substance - and whatever we call it, it does what it says on the tin.

As regards the '6-Year Rule,' I agree that the ICO need some balls and should walk up to the mark. We have a '12-Year Rule' for mortgages, I believe - and then we have a '5-Year Rule' in Jockland for UE. Does that mean Scottish mortgages get a '10-Year Rule' ? Somebody needs to get that sorted, the noo - "There's a moos loose aboot this hoos..."

And - did I read it right ?...
1. The 6 years is counted from when the cause of the claim could have been reasonably considered to have been made known to the claimant - so that is not from today's date, aynd...
2. The 6 years doesn't count if fraud/misrep is proven, aynd...
3. Always Look on the Bright Side of Life.

Interesting that Enforcer here managed to turn the Iron Mountain tables against Sharklays - don'tcha just lurve to see that ? !!!

"When you're chewin' on life's gristle - just give a little whistle...aynd..."

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Card Protection Policies (CPP) - We're STILL Being Scammed !!!

Read this. Clydesdale tried saying they only kept data for 7 years. Yep. Clearly. A £30m fine proves they are in the wrong.

-> http://dailym.ai/1crvzNI

[Bill-K]

Re: Card Protection Policies (CPP) - We're STILL Being Scammed !!!

I see they got a discount for admitting to it all as soon as they were rumbled - but considering that it was a planned systematic fraud operation, then there ought to be some jail time for this. Clydesdale/Yorkshire Bank say they will be contacting all PPI customers who have been affected - so there is no need for anyone to contact the bank. Yeah - right - as if we are now going to entrust them with that operation !!!

Purposely losing or destroying data seems to show that they were keeping data for longer than 6 years, but losing it 'selectively' whenever it supported PPI claims. The banks are just incapable of stopping the monstrous machines they have created to defraud their customers. I would encourage everyone who had PPI from Clydesdale/Yorkshire Bank to consider taking time to check their claims for anything that seems odd - and if they have been offered redress, then check that the amount offered is fair. There are some spreadsheet/calculator programs here for doing this - along with other useful info:-

http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/f...ides-amp-Tools

[Angry Cat]

Re: Card Protection Policies (CPP) - We're STILL Being Scammed !!!

Bill, FYI:

Ah Ha, a 'pass the buck' response has been received today:-

"Dear Mr. XXX

RE: Policy Number

I am writing with reference to your complaint we have received regarding your policy.

My understanding of your complaint is that you believe your policy was mis-sold to you.

I have reviewed your policy and can confirm that this policy was not sold to you by us here at CPP;
our records show that the above numbered policy was sold to you directly by our business partner EGG. As EGG carried out the sale of your policy they are responsible for investigating the complaint. In view of this, I have forwarded your letter of complaint directly to Canada Square Operations Ltd., the provider of your EGG account, in order that they may complete a full investigation on your behalf and advise you of the outcome directly.
For further information please contact Canada Square Operations Ltd using the details below.

Address: Canada Square Operations Limited, PO Box 4903, Worthing, BN99 3AR

Although this letter constitutes our final response, you do have a further option to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service if you are dissatisfied with this response.

Yours sincerely,

Rob Foster - Customer Relations Executive - CPP

[Angry Cat]

Re: Card Protection Policies (CPP) - We're STILL Being Scammed !!!

For your information; just recently released by the FCA:

https://fca.org.uk/news/affinion-sch...roduct-holders