Formal complaint to the OFT - you can support this

[BankFodder]

A formal complaint has now been made to the OFT about the Yorkshire Bank and its bank charges.

You can help. You do not need to have an account with Yorkshire bank to help

Kate Farrow
The Office of Fair Trading
London

13 April 2007

Please respond by email in all communications to:-

Dear Ms Farrow


Please treat this letter and attached documents as a formal complaint.

I refer to your letter of the fifth of April 2007 concerning the documents which we supplied to you and which relate to the Yorkshire bank and its defences to bank charges claims.


I am attaching to this letter a collection of further documents. Some of them are the defences which you have already received, but also there is a counterclaim submitted by the Yorkshire bank last year and also a statement from the ex-employee of the Yorkshire bank whose account of the banks costing system was used on the BBC Whistleblower programme.


I am also arranging to send to you a working copy of a spreadsheet containing the CYNthesys codes and which was actually used to calculate timings and costings of the processes involved in handling delinquent accounts by the Yorkshire bank.


Although the statement is unsigned and the identity of the statement-maker is not given, you may be interested to know that the attached documents formed the basis of a presentation of the evidence which was given at the House of Commons to Andrew George MP and also four journalists from the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the BBC and an Australian news agency. Also present at the meeting was the Yorkshire bank informant who has made the attached statement. Andrew George MP and the journalists were all introduced to her and they are fully aware of her identity.

She may be prepared to disclose her identity to you but this has not yet been arranged. Furthermore she may be prepared to sign the statement as an affidavit.

The meeting at the House of Commons lasted about two hours during which time the informant was closely questioned by the journalists and by Andrew George. They were also given a full demonstration of how the Yorkshire bank’s costing system actually worked.

The system is called CYNthesys. It stands for Clydesdale Yorkshire Northern – the system. It is a detailed coded costing system capable of calculating and tracking the costs of any operation which are carried out in the bank. Our informant was particularly employed to develop the system and also to apply it to the handling of delinquent accounts such as bouncing direct debits and so forth.

The informant showed in a convincing way that most processing of any delinquent accounts would never cost more than two pounds at the very outside and maybe less than a Pound assuming manual intervention in the entire process. The informant was not able to give the likely cost of an automated process but it is beyond imagination that it could ever be more than just a few pence. The defences which we supplied you are very surprising because you will see that the bank claims unequivocally that their charges – typically £35 plus additional monthly fees for each delinquency incident – are intended merely to cover their administrative costs.

Even more surprising is the counterclaim which was used against Caro. You will see there that the bank actually asks the court to award it £2941 on the basis that these are the losses which it has suffered as a result of Ms Caro’s breaches. I can tell you that Caro's claim and the banks counterclaim was made merely in respect of 75 delinquency episodes.

Each one of the defences and the counterclaim are signed as Statements of Truth and were filed with the court.

I am sure that your own OFT lawyers will be pleased to explain to you the status of a statement of truth in a court of law.

In the case of the counterclaim, the Yorkshire Bank even attempted to ask the court to award 8% interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

I have to report that Andrew George and the journalists – as well as the makers of the Whistleblower programme were quite astonished at the apparent profitability of around 2000% (two thousand) of the Yorkshire bank’s charges and no one so far has managed to reconcile the level of charges with the actual costs apparently revealed by CYNthesys and with the statements which the bank has made in its court documents.
I think that we are dealing with very serious discrepancies here which are causing confusion both amongst the ordinary public who are the bank’s customers and amongst the courts.

The Yorkshire Bank has responded to the disclosure of their CYNthesys costing system. They have not denied that it exists or that its timings are inaccurate. They have merely said that the figures are misleading.
You may be interested to know that some Yorkshire bank customers have written to the courts to complain as they consider that the bank has misled them in some way. It is of course for the courts to decide whether there has been any misrepresentation and whether it might have been accidental or otherwise. Underpinning all of this is the fact that the court documents have been signed as statements of truth.

The bottom line here is that it seems to many of the 133,000 registered users of the Consumer Action Group with whom I have spoken, that the Yorkshire bank disclosures raise very grave questions.

If you feel that there is any problem as to our locus in this matter then please let me know by return. I can assure you that it will only be a formality as I can easily arrange that this same complaint is made by someone more satisfactory to you.

I would like to make it clear to you that I have been in discussion with a number of journalists about this matter and also that one of the people who recommended that I approach you formally was Andrew George MP.
Every British MP received a Whistleblower information pack and they will now all be informed that this complaint has been brought. They will receive a copy of this complaint and accompanying materials as well as copies of any responses we receive from you. All material will also be circulated to the press.

You will probably be aware by now that the bank charges issue affects millions of people in this country. The banks’ style of sham litigation has blocked the courts and has been a drain on the public resource as well as amounting to a denial of justice.

The OFT has neglected its duty to remedy this.

I would not normally want to conduct a complaint to the OFT so publicly but I am sorry to say that the OFT record in dealing with the charges issue has been so poor. You do not enjoy public confidence and bearing in mind that the OFT refused to discuss the matter with me in March 2006 and again in December 2006 and apparently failed to consult any consumer group at any time in relation to this matter, a system of reporting -back seems to be a straight-dealing way of operating.

I am fully aware that you have announced that you are to carry out an investigation into the fairness of bank charges. I hope that you will find some of the information in this complaint is useful to that investigation.
However, this complaint is made as a separate issue. This complaint involves allegations of discrepancies which cannot be explained by reasonable people and which the bank has so far refused to explain.
I believe that it would be disingenuous of you to say that this complaint would be incorporated into your investigation or that in some other way the outcome of this complaint will be dependent on your other investigation.
We feel that this is not a matter for investigation by you.

We feel that this is a matter for investigation by the courts. There is sufficient evidence.
Your duty is now to take action to seek an injunction under the powers given to you under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Yours sincerely


The Consumer Action Group


Copy to:-
Andrew George MP
All UK MPs


Print, Radio and TV media
All members of The Consumer Action Group

If you have seen the Whistleblower programme, if you have read the description of the Yorkshire/Clydesdale Banks' CYNthesis costing system:-
Clydesdale, Yorkshire, Northern - the system - Whistleblower

and if you believe that it truly suggests that the bank's costs of dealing with delinquency are less than its £35 charge, then send your own email of complaint to
retailbanking.study@oft.g si.gov.uk.


Ask them to treat your complaint as a separate formal complaint but also that you are writing in support of The Consumer Action Group's formal complaint.

Make sure that you give a proper name and address for postal reply as well as your email address.

You do not need to have an account with Yorkshire Bank to do this.

.

[BankFodder]

Our prediction is that an excuse will be found not to deal with this complaint before their next report at the end of the year - or at all.

[crfx250]

Originally Posted by BankFodder

Our prediction is that an excuse will be found not to deal with this complaint before their next report at the end of the year - or at all.

Precisely

[adamc6671]

I would certainly wish to do whatever I can to assist in putting pressure on the OFT to deal fairly, properly, and openly with the whole bank charges issue. The consumer is NOT, in any way, being treated fairly by the banks over this issue, and indeed over many others. The whole 'reason for being' of the OFT, as I understand it, is to formally investigate and openly report on, any consumer issue in which big companies are treating large numbers of their consumers unfairly. There can surely be no larger issue than this one.

To that end, would it be possible for you to suggest a form of text to use for making a formal complaint to the OFT about the bank charges issue in general terms?

Many thanks.

[crfx250]

Originally Posted by adamc6671

IThe whole 'reason for being' of the OFT, as I understand it, is to formally investigate and openly report on, any consumer issue in which big companies are treating large numbers of their consumers unfairly. There can surely be no larger issue than this one.


Many thanks.

my sentiments entirely. In their mamouth rejection to my FOiA request
as to why they settled on the ludicrous figure of £12 as their threshold
on fair credit card defualt charges - at least six times the actual cost and running into billions of ripped off pounds - they replied:

‘We consider that to investigate charges set at a lower level would not be the most appropriate use of our resources which would be better directed at cases involving more serious consumer detriment’

Which presumably they mean they're too busy seeing to far more important matters like Mrs Smith's MOT bill from her local garage.

I'm afraid that that OFT's meaningless voyage into the sunset continues apace, aboard the HMS Useless.

[adamc6671]

‘We consider that to investigate charges set at a lower level would not be the most appropriate use of our resources which would be better directed at cases involving more serious consumer detriment’


It would be VERY hard, if not impossible, to find an issue of greater consumer detriment! They seem to have completely lost the plot - why do they think they exist?

It does make me wonder, though, if some senior people in the regulatory authorities, and the Government, have a vested interest in seeing the banks maximise their profits. Ummmmmmmm . . .? ? ? ?

[crfx250]

Another memorable line from the same letter was that of course
''The statement did not seek to determine what a fair level of charge might be '' and what was this woman of wisdom refering to? Surley not the OFT's own study ‘Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts’ ? Yep.

I asked the dear lady if I could enter her statement in Private Eye's 'quote of the year' competition but sadly, she did'nt respond.

[bennyowen]

My e-mail message is gone to Christine Wad. Christine's e-mail will be swamped in no time.

[barracad]

Originally Posted by adamc6671

To that end, would it be possible for you to suggest a form of text to use for making a formal complaint to the OFT about the bank charges issue in general terms?

I would suggest that for something like this it is important that you word the letter yourself, to give more impact, rather than the OFT receiving numerous identical/templated letters and e-mails.

[BankFodder]

Originally Posted by adamc6671

‘We consider that to investigate charges set at a lower level would not be the most appropriate use of our resources which would be better directed at cases involving more serious consumer detriment’

This has no relevance in this case.

The YB complaint is a specific complaint about a specific bank about what may be perceived to be specific wrongdoing and which is supported by specific evidence.

[JulesTools]

Excellent , hopefully a huge step forward.

May I also humbly suggest a follow up letter/email to your local MP along the same lines as described here -http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/campaign/78610-whistleblower-house-commons-press.html
But this time asking for a response to BankFodder`s information pack sent regarding the OFT complaint .

Something along the lines of :-

Dear XXXX ,

I have been actively involved with the Consumer Action Group since June 2006 who , together with a registered membership of over 130,000 people , are a dedicated group concerened primarily with the dispicable and unlawful actions of the banking system.

I am aware that you should have received an information pack from our group following the BBC Whistleblower programme aired last recently. I would be very interested to hear your opinions on the subject matter contained within the `Whistleblower Pack`you received recently . I would also be greatful if you could inform me of your proposals to deal with the matter now that the true costs of the unlawful charges have been revealed.

You should also have received a copy of the formal complaint made by The Consumer Action Group to the Office of Fair Trading. A copy of which is [enclosed] [attatched]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/post-727669.html

As you are no doubt aware the bank charges issue affects millions of people in the UK. The banks’ style of sham litigation has blocked the courts and has been a drain on the public resource as well as amounting to a denial of justice.

I am fully aware that the OFT have announced that they are to carry out an investigation into the fairness of bank charges,but I feel this complaint is made as a separate issue. This complaint involves allegations of discrepancies by Clydesdale Bank Plc which cannot be explained by reasonable people and which the bank has so far refused to explain.The OFT has neglected its duty to remedy this even though it is within its power to take action and seek an injunction under the powers given to them under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

I would strongly insist that you raise the matter to the house and remind the OFT of their duties and remit to the public they are obliged to protect.

Yours sincerely

Mr Julestools

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...er.php?u=43410


Also take a look at the original letter I sent to my local MP Whistleblower - House of Commons press release - write to your MP now.

[SteveH2508]

Julestools
Mr Picky here -
Line 3 - concerened
Line 4 - despicable

[JulesTools]

Not picky at all Steve , thank you.

My typing always seems to go to pot in the early am


Note to self-------> must use spellchequer

[mochamoo]

Letter sent to OFT, I am not in Yorkshire do you want me to send letter to My MP or Yorkshire MP....?

[monkey_uk]

Originally Posted by mochamoo

Letter sent to OFT, I am not in Yorkshire do you want me to send letter to My MP or Yorkshire MP....?

It'd be YOUR MP, it makes no difference where you live!