New Refund letter about old account (& DPA questions)

[Go West 0]

I received one of these today, and am equally dubious and suspicious particularly as I dont recogise the account number (they give olast four digits) AND I've moved address since I stopped dealing with them about 9 years ago.

This has opened up things for me so I'll make my own thread.

[Go West 0]

Hi all

I used to be a member here a few years ago when I went through a bad time - husband and I had bad health, both lost jobs etc, we got the usual helpful and sympathetic response from the bank.

 

With the help of CAG I did my best to fight back and found that some debts were legally unenforceable as well as the usual defective defaults and everyting else the banks were doing wrong. We're going back to about 2009/10.

 

With HSBC they refused to provide a SAR/CCA because I wouldn't provide a signature that matched their records.

I remember I took the advice from CAG at the time NOT to sign. 

in any case, due to my injury I was unable to do anything except scrawl.

I told them that I didn't think the SAR required a signature and in any case I couldn't.

 

In short they refused to cooperate, there as a series of letters but they cited the DPA, at which point I pointed out that they were sending me demands, statements and threatening letters but only now were they saying they had to verify my ID (at that point, the bank said that they wouldn't send any more statements/demands etc until my Id could be confirmed (seriously, you couldn't make it up).

 

I also pointed out that the guidance from the ICO was that if they were responding to the address they has on record and was the usual contact address, they could assume it was their customer writing to them. I even complained to the ICO who, as usual took the bank's side.

 

Eventually, I said to the bank that if they were unable to give me details of the alleged debt then I was unable to consider their demands and verify the situation and I wouldn't correspond with them any more and they could go to court if they liked. But, if they did lodge court papers, and sent the statements etc I'd immediately complain to the ICO that they hadn't verified my ID according to their own procedures (something the ICO had agreed was required), and I'd bring it to the attention of the court that they had deliberately not sent me the data to allow it to be resolved one way or the other.

 

If they didn't send the stuff through discovery, I'd lodge an embarrassed defence and ask for it to be struck out as I had been asking for the records for 6 months or more.  I didn't hear any more from them, that was in March 2011.

 

In Nov 2015 I got a letter from Hoist Portfolio Holdings 2 Ltd that they has been assigned the rights from MKDP LLP and giving bottom Robinson Way's address. I hadn't heard of MKDP before and simply ignored it. I certainly wasn't aware it had be assigned to them in the first place.

 

A few days ago, I got a letter from Hoist again asking for payment. I intended to ignore it except for a letter I got from the Bank this morning.

 

The letter is the same one that has been mention on here very recently, a refund from the bank for £25 because they had determined I hadn't received the correct level of service (no sh*t Sherlock!) The account number is NOT my correct account. It MAY be my credit card, but I seem to remember they were rolled into one. I don't seem to have any correspondence about the CC, and I destroyed all paper documents a few months ago. All I have is scanned copies of letters (which may not be a complete record, but should be).

 

I received a letter in Nov 2017 from PRA about another CC saying the debt has been assigned to them (no letter of assignment from the creditor) and in Jan 2018 an 'Annual Statment'. Since then, nothing.

 

I've made a point of ignoring these kind of letters and demands in the past believing they were SB and eventually the data would be destroyed.

After a few years of actually being able to relax, I'm now worried that the aggro is all going to start up again with this HSBC and other accounts.

 

Now, the questions.

it is/was my understanding that the debts became Statute Barred a few years ago and they couldn't be enforced. The CC default was issued Feb 2009. A month later a Final Demand was issued for both current AC and CC giving a combined total. (that total is similar to the one sought by Hoist which gives my currect AC number).

 

So, are these accounts SB?

If they are SB and the bank has disposed of them by assignment to someone, why do they still have my name and enough details of my correspondence to determine they didn't behave correctly? Does the DPA not require them to destroy data after 6 years?

 

On the same DPA note, it seems that this account is simply being passed around from one **** bag bottom feeder to another (maybe the same one under different names), again, why is data still being processed after 6 years?

 

Am I doomed to be persistantly pursued by these scumbags until I die?

Or am I worng?

Are they able to process data as long as they like, even when there has been no contact for years?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Go West 0]

I'm sorry there are a few typos in my post - a hangover from injuries I had at the time being discussed. I did try to tidy it up straight away but wasn't allowed to repost after editing it.

[BankFodder 2,039]

You know what you're old username was and do you have access to that email address?

[dx100uk 9,543]

there is no harm in cashing the cheque, a payment from an OC can reset nothing

 

as with all debts statute barred or otherwise, have you moved since your debacles and never informed anyone?

[Go West 0]

1 hour ago, BankFodder said:

You know what you're old username was and do you have access to that email address?

No, sorry, a long time ago, basically stopped using th3 site around 2010. No idea of the user name or email address and certainly changed email addresses since then.

 

1 hour ago, dx100uk said:

there is no harm in cashing the cheque, a payment from an OC can reset nothing

 

as with all debts statute barred or otherwise, have you moved since your debacles and never informed anyone?

Yes I did move, but letters were forwarded to me for some time (min one year). The letter from Hoist was received at my new address. Basically, I couldn't reach agreement with any creditor, they wouldn't accept defective/unenforcable agreements, incorrect amounts or anything, so I told them to take me to court and let the judge decide. None of them did and they all stopped writing.

 

HSBC did not have my new address as they stopped corresponding with me but have written to me here now so they've obviously used a credit reference agency or something to find me. The letter from PRA about another account was also received here in 2018.

 

Why do you ask?

 

This has really opened up old wounds for me, I really resented the way they treated me, especially the fact that when I told them I was confident of my position so I'd quite happily see them in court, they went away like cowardly dogs.

[dx100uk 9,543]

well ideally you need to ensure you never move without informing the debt owner in writing.

we've seen many backdoor ccj's attained this way , typically we advise say 7 yrs since last use or payment.

 

as for this HSBC refund, it can't open any wounds as already explained.

HSBC had a nasty habit of merging, sometimes even without the debtors knowledge , all their debts into what they called a managed loan, this also got a new account number. 

this could be why no-one is recognising their now new A/C number indicated on the refund.

 

 

[Go West 0]

thanks for your comments.

 

I wondered if you were hinting at a CCJ, so I _just_ checked.

There are no records for me at the address I was living at the time, or subsequent.

I know that means a CCj could have been made more than 6 years ago so it wouldn't show, but I should have been told about it at the time.

 

As for HSBC, I just cheeked the final demand that gave a combined total for tthe current AC and CC, it gave the account numbers of each. The cheque received has a different last four digits ie, the account they quote is not know to me.

 

However, that's by the by.

Is there anything I can do to permanently put an end to the processing of my data.

I have not had any contact with any creditor/chaser since 2010 after I told them to take it to court, and only the letters I mentioned above since then - one in 2018 and one a few weeks ago.

 

It's totally unfair that my details are being bandied around 10 years later.

They had the chance in 2010 to take it to court and chose not to, but 11 years after the account was closed, my data is still being processed and passed around.

 

That's what I'm angry and concerned about.

I was confident back then I could beat them, what I don't want is the aggro comin back, or them haunting me for evermore.

[dx100uk 9,543]

there are no rules that dictate an OC or a DCA debt buyer has to cease contact nor destroy data after 6yrs, nor that once a debt is statute barred the owner is not allowed to contract you requesting payment. 

 

you need to remember that SB in E&W simply means a debt cannot be enforced, so DCA's don't bother with court.

 

it appears you might of been one of the many people that followed advice by members at the time to enter into all many of pointless letter tennis, sending this letter and that letter and most probably gained from this the idea that at some point, because people genuinely believed all the stuff stated in the letters banded around actually meant something,  it nailed debt owners into a box and they would stop and comply.

 

well no immunity cape batman, most of it was utter twaddle, however, the FCA conc rules of 2015 are a very useful tool.

 

i would be sending the relevant dca's a copy of our statute barred letter, in that you'll see a mention of conc, once they have that, should they still pester, some compo might be owed.

[Go West 0]

1 hour ago, dx100uk said:

there are no rules that dictate an OC or a DCA debt buyer has to cease contact nor destroy data after 6yrs, nor that once a debt is statute barred the owner is not allowed to contract you requesting payment. 

 

 

The DPA places controls on how data is collected and handled. One control is that only the data required (for the job in hand) should be collected, and that it must be kept only for as long as is needed. In correspondence, the ICO told me that 6 years (by custome & practice) would be the duration regarded as neccesary for data to be held. If there was't controls everybody with any data would be keeping it forever, and with cheap server farms that isn't impossible. I cannot see any reason why a bank who closed an account 11 years ago, and sold an alledged debt say 9 years ago still has any reason to hold ANY information about that account holder. Can you or anyone else?

 

1 hour ago, dx100uk said:

it appears you might of been one of the many people that followed advice by members at the time to enter into all many of pointless letter tennis, sending this letter and that letter and most probably gained from this the idea that at some point, because people genuinely believed all the stuff stated in the letters banded around actually meant something,  it nailed debt owners into a box and they would stop and comply.

I don't know why you would say that. Why do you say that?

You're tottaly wrong. I was very economical in what I did. There was some tactics I understand that were later thrown out by court I undersatnd, but by that time I was out of it anyway. However, you're right that I did, and still do, rather naively expect banks and others to obey the law, and fopr reguklators to step in when they don't.

 

What I did do, is to challenge my creditors to prove that what they said was correct. In the end, as I have said when they refused to discuss the matter and simply kept repeating their stance, I told them to take it to court because I would not act on anything other than a summons. Not a single summons was ever received, and quite quickly, the letters slowed down and then stopped.

 

1 hour ago, dx100uk said:

well no immunity cape batman, most of it was utter twaddle, however, the FCA conc rules of 2015 are a very useful tool.

 

I'm sure you didn't mean this to sound the way it did, but it's dangerous to say that... after all, you were posting during the time I was here looking for help... and still posting. Not that I would say you ever posted twaddle back then but others might.

 

1 hour ago, dx100uk said:

i would be sending the relevant dca's a copy of our statute barred letter, in that you'll see a mention of conc, once they have that, should they still pester, some compo might be owed.

Well, I've had a look at this stuff, and must say, what a load of twaddle it is. Mindyou it comes from the FCA, so expecting anything that protects customer rights or restricts the financial industries actvities would be foolish eg

 

"a firm must not pass on a customer's details to third parties, including lead generators, debt management firms, lenders, owners, debt collectors or credit brokers, unless it is appropriate to do so."

 

Well, of course, banks DCAs etc NEVER do anything not appropriate do they? They never have. How can it be "not appropriate" when there is no criteria as to what actually IS appropriate?

 

However, the following is interesting:

"Notwithstanding that a debt may be recoverable, a firm must not attempt to recover a statute barred debt in England, Wales or Northern Ireland if the lender or owner has not been in contact with the customer during the limitation period."

 

now, the limitation period is 6 years, HSBC hasn't contacted me for 11 years.  Doesn't this guideline/rule apply? Or is sending me a letter suggesting I set up a payment plan not classed as "recovery attempt"?

 

Another bit that is also interesting:

"A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred."

 

Again, what does 'demand payment' actually mean? Is a letter informing me they are willing to set up a payment plan actually a jolly useful service to me, or is it actually a demand for payment?

 

I did eventually find the statute barred letter. I'll bear it in mind but it doesn't actually benefit me if they claim

that simply 'reminding' me that they can take staged payments isn't the same as demanding payment. What knowledge of what the so called conc rules actually mean it'll just open the door to more letters. At the moment they know there's little chance of getting paid, but if I start correspondence, they'll just pay more attention to it.