.... is that Bank's can give your information to debt collectors or receivers etc. Is this not breaking your confidentiality agreement with them?
I know that some banks scan all the paperwork and store in large storerooms. They don't shred.
I don't think using thrid parties is breaking confidentiality, and is likely covered in the T&Cs.
After all, the bank can use many of it's own employees in the administration of a file. So they can use accountants, debt profilers, credit control departments, etc etc. Using a third party is an extension of that, providing that data protection, and data confidentiality is covered.
Receivers have a legal right to the info, .... if a bank is sold (or placed into receivership), then the new owners legally own the new info, and it's not breaking confidentiality to give them the new info.
Using third party debt collectors seems to be legal, and if, in an incredible situation, it was ruled not to be, .. well, even then all that would happen is that banks would be prevented from doing it from then on, .. it wouldn't be backdated.
The issue of not having original documentation could easily be a problem for the banks. There are two answer on AAM about this,... if you're an individual who's asking about badly written speeding tickets, or your bank having lost your mortgage application, you're often told, .. just pay up, you owe the money. But if NAMA or a bank loses documentation then people say, well, the moneys gone, nothing can be done, you can't chase that money.
If I had a mortgage, and my solicitor said that original paperwork and signatures were required in court, then I'd strongly consider challenging the bank. The reason is that mortgages are very large, and getting one wiped out would be hugely valuable,.. so it's worth at least some time and effort if it's at all possible.
But I just cannot see it working.
edited to add:
I've just downloaded and read some of his book,.. not very impressive in my view.
I'd rate the book at 0 out of 10 for comprenhensability. If he has a point he should make it simply. The points he does make seem completely silly, like that all banks have a concious and continuing desire to defraud you, and that they murder people.
