A friend and myself were saving money in my savings account on a
monthly basis by standing order for a set period of time. Due to
change of circumstances my friend had to stop sending money into my
savings account, and informed his bank to stop the standing order.

After some months he noticed that they were still sending the standing
order (I hadn't noticed as it is in a passbook rather than an online
account). He then rang them up and they admitted they had a record of
him requesting that the standing order be halted. They credited him
with the money they had sent in error.

His bank have now written to me requesting that I send them the money
back, but I am perplexed as to how they have got my address details as
I am not a customer of theirs and my friend has not supplied my
details. I suspect that the building society that I have my savings
account with have supplied my details to my friends bank. Surely they
have no right to pass my details on and should have written to me
themselves?

Have any laws/codes of conduct been broken by my friends bank or indeed
my building society, and if so what ,if any, route do I have to
complain?

ajja wrote:
> Have any laws/codes of conduct been broken by my friends bank or
> indeed my building society, and if so what ,if any, route do I have to
> complain?

No, none. Pay them.

Steve Frazer <stevefrazer> wrote:
> ajja wrote:
>> Have any laws/codes of conduct been broken by my friends bank or
>> indeed my building society, and if so what ,if any, route do I have to
>> complain?

> No, none. Pay them.

Surely passing on a private address *is* a major breach of privacy?

Axel

axel wrote:
> Steve Frazer <stevefrazer> wrote:
>> ajja wrote:
>>> Have any laws/codes of conduct been broken by my friends bank or
>>> indeed my building society, and if so what ,if any, route do I have
>>> to complain?
>
>> No, none. Pay them.
>
> Surely passing on a private address *is* a major breach of privacy?

Banks share information with other banks and financial institutions and even
the police. They are allowed to. The idiot supposedly owes them money but
I have to say I thought this was just another in a string of dumb trolls.

"Steve Frazer" <stevefrazer> wrote in message
news:iiu1
> axel wrote:

>> Surely passing on a private address *is* a major breach of privacy?
>
> Banks share information with other banks and financial institutions and
> even
> the police. They are allowed to.

This is a generalisation which is misleading and inaccurate. It depends
upon the cirumstances.

From the Information Commissioner's site:
"Generally the Act would not allow a disclosure to a third party data
controller unless the individual had been informed of the disclosure (see
the first principle - Fair Processing). However there are a number of
exemptions that allow disclosure in certain circumstances."
http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/faqs/da...5-D40F50B7C8A2

A browse around the site may provide information on the exceptions.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/
My feeling is that your personal information should not have been passed
over in these circumstances, ie to correct an error. It could be, of
course, with the size of some financial institutions, that they are both
part of the same organisation, in which case this may not apply.

> The idiot supposedly owes them money but
> I have to say I thought this was just another in a string of dumb trolls.

Unnecessary; I see absolutely no reason for abuse - the issue of whether
money is owed should not have entered the debate. Hint: Look at the
subject.

IANAL
Iain

In message <4o0982Fc14iiU1>, Steve Frazer
<stevefrazer> writes
>axel wrote:
>> Steve Frazer <stevefrazer> wrote:
>>> ajja wrote:
>>>> Have any laws/codes of conduct been broken by my friends bank or
>>>> indeed my building society, and if so what ,if any, route do I have
>>>> to complain?
>>
>>> No, none. Pay them.
>>
>> Surely passing on a private address *is* a major breach of privacy?
>
>Banks share information with other banks and financial institutions and even
>the police.

Not in circumstances like this they dont.


>They are allowed to.

No they are not.

Iain wrote:
> "Steve Frazer" <stevefrazer> wrote in message
> news:iiu1
>> axel wrote:
>
>>> Surely passing on a private address *is* a major breach of privacy?
>>
>> Banks share information with other banks and financial institutions
>> and even
>> the police. They are allowed to.
>
> This is a generalisation which is misleading and inaccurate. It
> depends upon the cirumstances.

No it isn't. Your own quote below states that they are allowed to. Do you
suggest they let the person keep the 'ficticious' money sent in error?

> From the Information Commissioner's site:
> "Generally the Act would not allow a disclosure to a third party data
> controller unless the individual had been informed of the disclosure
> (see the first principle - Fair Processing). However there are a
> number of exemptions that allow disclosure in certain circumstances."
>
http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/faqs/da...5-D40F50B7C8A2
>
> A browse around the site may provide information on the exceptions.
> [..]
> My feeling is that your personal information should not have been
> passed over in these circumstances, ie to correct an error. It could
> be, of course, with the size of some financial institutions, that
> they are both part of the same organisation, in which case this may
> not apply.
>> Unnecessary; I see absolutely no reason for abuse - the issue of
> whether money is owed should not have entered the debate. Hint: Look
> at the subject.

Unnecessary to point out it was another dumb troll? Why, it was! We've had
dozens of them, all so obvious it makes you want to start a trolling school
so they could at least post quality trolls. Maybe you should read the posts
more closely....

John Boyle wrote:
> In message <4o0982Fc14iiU1>, Steve Frazer
> <stevefrazer> writes
>
> Not in circumstances like this they dont.
>> No they are not.

They're not allowed to find out where they sent their money that they need
to recover?

"Steve Frazer" <stevefrazer> wrote in message
news:43u2
> John Boyle wrote:
>> In message <4o0982Fc14iiU1>, Steve Frazer
>>>
>>> Banks share information with other banks and financial institutions
>>> and even the police.
>>
>> Not in circumstances like this they dont.
>>
>>> They are allowed to.
>>
>> No they are not.
>
> They're not allowed to find out where they sent their money that they need
> to recover?

They would already know where they sent the money.
The issue here is whether they are allowed to go that one stage further and
use that information to obtain personal information about the account
holder, and whether the OP's bank were legally correct in providing that
information.

How much more information was provided? Did they provide enough information
to show whether the OP was in a position to pay the money back?

Iain

Seems my bank simply forwarded their letter to me after all.

<ajja> wrote in message
news:4590
> Seems my bank simply forwarded their letter to me after all.

Your original post said, "His bank have now written to me requesting that I
send them the money
back, ..."

As it turns out then, it seems your information may not have been passed on.
:)

Your point raised was certainly an interesting one. As far as I am aware,
banks not in the same group should not pass information between themselves.
In fact, when a new account is opened, I believe it is usual for the banks
(certainly with NatWest) to try and get you to consent (by signature) to
your information being passed on.

Briefly, I think that the exceptions are along the lines of prevention of
fraud, money-laundering and for certain law enforcement processes.

The fact that certain estate agents also seem to be able to acquire
financial information is a little worrying.

Iain

In message <4o1fpqFcid43U2>, Steve Frazer
<stevefrazer> writes
>>> Banks share information with other banks and financial institutions
>>> and even the police.
>>
>> Not in circumstances like this they dont.
>>
>>> They are allowed to.
>>
>> No they are not.
>
>They're not allowed to find out where they sent their money that they need
>to recover?

Not to the extent of asking for the beneficiary's name and address.