Banks using Private Investigators...Data Comissioner Investigating

From experience I would be a bit more sanguine about this.(I don,t support any illegal methods)
1. Most time any checking being done is to confirm that the person being checked is telling the truth.
2. Since we bailed out Banks , I do not want liars getting off under the cover of (invasion of privacy)
This overarching on Privacy issues can be nitpicking
Eg.
Under the (new) Private Investigator Rules , a summons server must only serve summons on person in the place summons is addressed to, they cannot enquire or get info on where the person on whom the summons is served works etc.
To be allowed to do summons , you must register , get insurance etc etc .
Upshot is that only larger organisations can serve summons.
Summons , as an example, are something that should be easily served.

I fear that this (privacy) thing , more protects the sinners , not society.
 
Gerry I'm not entirely sure what you are saying but privacy aside are you saying its ok for a bank to break the law to enforce a loan agreement
 
Hiring PI's is a standard Recovery process used by all banks. However, in the case of the bank that employs me we only use credible licenced PI's on an approved listing is there would be significant consequences where inappropriate or illegal practices were being used by agents acting on a bank's behalf. Similar controls are in place with all of the major banks. This is a generic article with no specific banks or other organisations being identified as countenancing such practices.
OP you are quite correct. These practices should not be and are not allowed. No doubt the findings of any investigation on the issue will establish whether they are still taking place!
 
Raging Bull said:
What would be the ramifications for the Bank if proven? I saw a PI outside my house
Click to expand...

Well, he wasn't very private if you saw him!

And as for ramifications, has this more to do with a bigger issue being blinded by an aside?

mf
 
If the PIs can get the data when they shouldn't whether for 'valid' reasons or not, so can scammers ... clearly the institutions need to tighten up their data protection implementations.
 
If the Banks and Credit Unions were to build in to their Contracts with Borrowers, a consent to access personal data in the event of a Default, this may go some way in reducing the losses suffered by the Lending Industry, as a result of the limits on accessing data for the sole purpose of locating Debtors and Fraudsters!!
It is a sad fact that the may in which this 20th century "social law" has the affect of protecting the criminals, and criminalises the Investigators who break the rules for the quite legitimate purpose of hunting down the offenders. Something seems out of balance in Society?? - Ian (D. Withers) Retired PI - 55 years in Practice
 
I think Ian D Withers , sums up my views.
Raging Bull, I clearly said I do not support illegal methods.
It is probable your (PI) was nothing more than an agent confirming state of some house to show lender what shape it was in.

For clarity.

I am of the opinion that too much time is spent protecting the perceived slights over privacy over the real rights of society.
Shout (privacy) and it becomes a bigger issue than the investigation?

I do NOT support illegal trawling for information , but I fail to see normal enquiries eg asking where someone works etc can be subsumed into a bureaucratic system that dis empowers sensible investigation.
From experience ,once privacy is mentioned the enquirer becomes the enquired.
 
I'm not surprised by this article. Similar to Raging Bulls story a relative also had a PI photograph them in their property. Oddly enough they were not in arrears. It was never quite understood why this action was taken but lets say it never happened again.
 
This was referred to in a report in yesterday's Sunday Times.

"The alleged data breach was discovered last February after an AIB customer received a letter at his new address from the solicitor. The man, who had a judgment against him over an AIB credit card debt and who is facing repossession proceedings from the bank over a Dublin property, believed only social welfare officers had his new address."

Of course it's wrong for a lender to get information illegally from the Department of Social Welfare. But if someone owed me money, I would try to find them.

Brendan
 
We use properly licenced PI's as a normal part of the collection process! Generally used to confirm details supplied by the client such as employment status and standard of living etc. There is never any question of access to SW or any illegal method of information collection as our Compliance Dept would be extremely vigilant in closing down such activities and disciplining anyone involved.
 
The PRIVACY thing has now got to even serving a Court Summons.

To now serve a court summons , I need to register etc etc , cost circa k2.
I can only assume the reasoning was to keep (undesirables) eg convicted criminals serving them?
All that most of this PRIVACY fobia will do, is slow things down and put costs up.
I strongly think the balance is now skewed into protecting possible sinners versus the overall good of getting info.

And I repeat I do not condone illegal activity , but its now illegal to even enquire from anyone !
 
Im familiar with this case..it goes further than a breach of social welfare

I had a PI on my case too. They took pictures of me in my own house and many other unsavoury things to boot.
 
This is a very interesting thread.

We as a nation seem overly sympathetic towards debtors.

In the US, the "victims" of PIs would be branded "deadbeats" and receive zero sympathy.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
This is a very interesting thread.

We as a nation seem overly sympathetic towards debtors.

In the US, the "victims" of PIs would be branded "deadbeats" and receive zero sympathy.
Click to expand...


You only tell half the tale, also in the US when you hand back the keys of the property, that's it. The debt is settled. There is no judgment debt outstanding against you for the next 12 years. In fact I would go as far as to say, that being declared bankrupt is a right of passage, for any serious businessman. Most successful ones have been declared such, two or three times at least. They can also open bank accounts again and move on with their lives, contribute to the economy etc.
 
HelpingHand said:
You only tell half the tale, also in the US when you hand back the keys of the property, that's it. The debt is settled.
Click to expand...

That's not the case in the vast majority of US States. There are actually only 12 "non-recourse" States, which, unsurprisingly, traditionally have the highest foreclosure rates.

In the remaining 38 States, lenders can register a deficiency judgment against a borrower if the sales proceeds of a foreclosed property are insufficient to discharge the outstanding balance of the loan. Such judgments are obviously unsecured and can, of course, be discharged in bankruptcy (as is the case in Ireland).

I personally think the legislation that is currently expected to be adopted before year-end to bring the bankruptcy term in Ireland in line with that in the US (and the UK) is long overdue. Hats off to Willie Penrose for driving this through.
 
Sarenco said:
That's not the case in the vast majority of US States. There are actually only 12 "non-recourse" States, which, unsurprisingly, traditionally have the highest foreclosure rates.

In the remaining 38 States, lenders can register a deficiency judgment against a borrower if the sales proceeds of a foreclosed property are insufficient to discharge the outstanding balance of the loan. Such judgments are obviously unsecured and can, of course, be discharged in bankruptcy (as is the case in Ireland).

I personally think the legislation that is currently expected to be adopted before year-end to bring the bankruptcy term in Ireland in line with that in the US (and the UK) is long overdue. Hats off to Willie Penrose for driving this through.
Click to expand...

You are conveniently forgetting about "stay judgement-proof" in the remainder of the federal states that do not impose non recourse. Lived there, done that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry but I'm not conveniently forgetting anything.

You are simply wrong. Again.

A debtor is "judgment proof" if they lack the resources to satisfy a court judgment. It is not an affirmative defence to enforcement proceedings and does not settle or discharge a debt.

The position is is no different to Ireland in this regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top