FSA and Hardship

[JOSH_IOU]

Hi Jansus thanks for that.
Have these letters been posted to CAG yet?

[JOSH_IOU]

I thought I would post the Waiver for easy reference.

[jansus]

An idea - any comments from mods and others?


there were ome definitions and discussions on this thread - old I know - but nothing much has changed .

No the letters are not on CAG but Banking code authority have also been involved - but of course banking code is voluntary anyway

[JOSH_IOU]

Yes The banking code is volunatry My personal opinion is there should be a mandatory code that the banks subscribe to. A code in the consumers best interests.

Not only this but if they dont subscribe to it they either loose there licence or they scrub up and follow the code.

There should be something that protects individuals that are in recipt of state benefits.(automatically) (Obviously when we are dealling with the recovery of bank debt and the opening and closing of accounts.)

Also I think that those that are in an IVA or a debt management programme should be able to get the same level of protection.

The legislation should governm IVA's and Debt Management. So that if you are in one of these the organisation running either one could apply for the return of the charges. Either to the FOS or to the court.

That is one of the things I think should happen.

[tawnyowl]

Originally Posted by woodwa5

tawnyowl,
you do know the court case doesn't cover business accounts don't you? if you didn't you need to claim on that asap

Getting slightly confused.I thought business claims would be better put on hold due to the argument about common law or something like that.If i have made mistake about that i will carry on.Does common law apply to business claims,or is that being argued as well.If i am talking rubbish i will edit .

[JOSH_IOU]

tawny the FSA are aware of the argument.

They did however leave business claims from the waiver.

The waiver is there to give the banks a sort of protection while they pursue the case in court.

We have to remember that the waiver is designed for perosnal current accounts.

This is why the banks are calling there basic accounts current accounts.
They changed the name of the account from Basic to there own named account.

One has to ask if the basic accounts they opend had a credit check on them. My understanding of the sittuation says that basic accounts dont have a credit check on them. Or did not have a one on them.

Banks are supposed to credit check a client once they recive the aplication before the account is opend. To comply with money laundering regulations.

However the fact still stands Business account claims are not part of the waiver.

[tawnyowl]

Thanks-i think i want common law applied to personal accounts-then also applied to business accounts then surely everyone could get on with their claims-we could collect and get on with spending the money.There surely can only be one final decision.The banks will lose.
It worries me that month by month people must be losing money due to the 6 year rule.If they are making 3.5 billion a year now and have been doing for years from charges alone,all they have to do is keep appealing stalling and whatever-and everyone loses apart from the banks if they keep it going for a few years.Thankyou for helping,i find a lot of it hard to follow but will carry on following thread closely.I have also noticed the charges interest is begining to spread world wide.Good.
Hardship grounds to me speak for themselves there are millions surely in this position.Another reason for the banks to make it difficult.
Suppose this is a simple view of things.
I will carry on with business claim shortly

[JOSH_IOU]

Hi again tawny.

This is why we urge evryone to take the banks to court now.

It is my understanding that the 6 year rule that stops someone from complaining about a debt of over 6 years would not apply in this instance.

Because your claim would already be in court I do not think that the court would discount those charges.

But if you do not bring the claim to court then you would lose out on the money.

[tawnyowl]

Thankyou once again.Now where is that pen.Get the cases to court stageThanks Tawny

[mopster]

for info - FSA press release FSA/PN/073/2008 21 July 2008 The Financial Services Authority (FSA) today issued a new waiver from its complaints handling rules regarding unauthorised overdraft charges. The waiver replaces an existing one, which expires on 26 July 2008, and has been offered to those firms who signed up to the previous waiver. This represents approximately 98% of the market. Signatories will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges within the time limits set out in the Dispute Resolution manual. The key points of the waiver include: * A duration of six months and a review early in 2009; * Continuation of the FSA’s consumer protection measures including record keeping requirements and a suspension of the limitation period for making a complaint; * Additional guidance on the identification of those complainants in financial difficulty; * Enhanced monitoring of firms focussing on consumers’ experience whilst the waiver is in place. Dan Waters, Director, Retail Policy, said: "The FSA continues to work closely with the OFT and banks in reaching a resolution on the fairness of unauthorised overdraft charges. Our objectives continue to be certainty over this complex issue, and a fair and consistent resolution of consumer complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges. The FSA has reviewed the prevailing circumstances and has decided to offer firms a new waiver. The waiver will be for six months, when we expect to have a decision from the Court of Appeal." The FSA can revoke the waiver at any time if it considers a waiver is no longer appropriate, for example, if it no longer provides adequate consumer protection, or material progress is not being made in the test case, or a firm fails to comply with the conditions set out in the waiver. The FSA first granted a waiver for 12 months from its complaints handling rules regarding unauthorised overdraft charges in July 2007. The waiver means that while it is in operation, any bank or building society granted the waiver will not be required to handle this type of complaint within the time limits set out in the FSA rules. The county courts have 'stayed' cases referred to them and the Financial Ombudsman Service has adopted a similar approach. Notes for editors 1. The waivers are available on the FSA website. 2. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and fighting financial crime. 3. The FSA aims to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets, help retail consumers achieve a fair deal and improve its business capability and effectiveness.

[mopster]

apologies for lack of formatting

[JOSH_IOU]

Promoting public understanding they must be joking right.

Either that or they are failing beond words.

You no I dont think any firm is being fair. What is a hardship case? There seems to be alot of confusion from where I am standing.

[veester]

Fair banks??? In the same sentence....
They provide a service we have to have.
They abuse that power.
They subscribe (voluntarly aka when they feel like it) to a code that insures they apply a draconian approach to debt and hardship.

They are using the waiver to change T&Cs to ensure that when the nice middle ground is agreed in the courts, we all still get screwed just for less!

[Bigmac versus]

Absolute joke I agree. Protect consumers? Where is the protection for consumers from the FSA?

No action against banks breaking the waiver conditions leaves no doubt as to who the FSA are protecting.

They should change their main objectives to protecting the banking industry than at least the waiver would make sense.

I truly believe the result will be the same in the end but that is no help to the many peeps who are currently feeling the pinch and the banks know it. Im surprised they havent dangled carrots in front of many to reduce their eventual payout but I suppose theres time yet.

The allowance of the waiver extension is a disgrace especially to those who have cases stayed or sisted and is in disregard to claimants human rights to a fair trial within a reasonable period of time. Is 18 months a reasonable period of time to wait?

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[MARTIN3030]

Recently I have heard about 2 claimants that have cited hardship and informed their banks of this.
In one case its taken them 9 weeks to send out a response and a form for them to fill out requesting financial details.
Given that he has to then return it and await further response it seems that its not the level playing field that it should be.The extension of the 8 weeks liason period as allowed within the waiver does not appear as an exclusion to hardship cases-merely the word sympathetic is used to determine how hardship should be treated.
In view of this and after discussing it-I think we need to have a copy of the means enquiry/financial status form available on the site so that claimants who wish to cite hardship can send it along with a letter.Hopefully this will then cut out weeks,and they will be obliged to act more speedily-given that they have been provided with evidence of it.

[yourbank]

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Re...sp_monthly.pdf
waiver conditions above.
When i started this thread I knew a provision was due to go into the waiver on £500 mark. For reference, see above annex 2 section 3(vii).
No one was really that bothered. Comments made on this thread are sometimes why I don't make more comments. Sometimes you need to work with the devil to produce results in spite of what the devil has done to you. Anyway, at least, something is being done after the fact to reduce times in which people who are claiming hardship will get a response.
I will leave this thread alone now I think.

[MARTIN3030]

Thank you YB.
You have been with Cag long enough to know how things are digested and when its time to move away to other things.At least theres been food for thought and of course people are now much more informed.