Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
So here is a thought. As we can not get our money back for the time being. Why don't we complain to fos about how badly the banks have behaved. Idle hands......
I thinking of starting my compliant against HSBC next week. Keep up the pressure.
I'd be more than happy to pile in with this - Halifax are now so far outside the 40-day compliance period to supply me with all data they hold about me (83 days outside!) that I have just filed an N244 for pre-action disclosure, just to get in a position to be able to properly quantify my claim.
They have acted wilfully and contemptuously towards me and dressed it up as incompetence.
04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
A&L Current a/c - You're next..
Write to your MP and COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!
I'd be more than happy to pile in with this - Halifax are now so far outside the 40-day compliance period to supply me with all data they hold about me (83 days outside!) that I have just filed an N244 for pre-action disclosure, just to get in a position to be able to properly quantify my claim.
They have acted wilfully and contemptuously towards me and dressed it up as incompetence.
I agree. There are many of us in this situation.
Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.
Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-
In a place nearby where only love and beauty exists
Posts
607
Re: FSA To Review Waiver
Who can we call on to set up a template letter?
Let's not let this fade away, keep this thread up until we have hundreds that are willing to do this.
Whi is the greatest letter writer on CAG?
Could we have some input maybe form the more experienced people on here?
Keep bumping this thread everyone please, I would hate to see a great idea go down the pan.
( Right I'll get off my soap box now, there's only me on this thread. Talk about deaf ears)
Let's not let this fade away, keep this thread up until we have hundreds that are willing to do this.
Whi is the greatest letter writer on CAG?
Could we have some input maybe form the more experienced people on here?
Keep bumping this thread everyone please, I would hate to see a great idea go down the pan.
( Right I'll get off my soap box now, there's only me on this thread. Talk about deaf ears)
We absolutely have to come up with this letter and swamp the FSA with complaints!!
I am one of your constituents in Anytown. I write to you in the hope you can help me in my plight with the bank and in particular the FSA.
You may be aware that on 27 July 2007, the OFT commenced litigation proceedings against the big seven banks to try and establish once and for all as to whether these overdraft fees are actually unlawful.
Whilst we agree with this course of action, the FSA has waived the regulation that enforces the banks to process claims of this nature until the outcome of this hearing.
This means that any claims going through the banks now for reclaiming charges (sometimes in their thousands) are put on hold and will not be processed for what could take up to two years if any appeals are allowed.
The FSA has also allowed the banks to apply for a stay in all court proceedings of this nature until the case has finished. The Banks are now to apply to the Master of Rolls to issue a blanket stay on all court hearings.
This is a ridiculous situation for all local people who are in the process of reclaiming charges. And, just to rub salt in the wounds, they have allowed the banks to keep on charging!!!
The majority of the people I have spoken to ( including myself) were not able to afford the court fees to take the claim to the next step. They have had to save every spare penny to raise the £120.00 needed so they could take the bank to court. In some cases where the claim was over £5000.00 they have had to stump up £250.00, something which was very, very hard for these people to find, considering it was the high cost of these charges that have put them in this position. Some even took out short term loans so they could take the bank to court to try and recoup some of these charges. They are now left with no claim, no compensation and hundreds of pounds out of pocket.
Although there may be a slim chance of them being able to recoup some of the court costs, the issue is that they should be allowed to continue with this claim and get their charges back, as have thousands of consumers all over the country.
To allow the banks to still charge and not allow the consumer the right to reclaim is against everything the FSA and the OFT and the fos are supposed to stand for.
The OFT web site states :
The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive
The FSA website states :
We have a wide range of rule-making, investigatory and enforcement powers to enable us to meet four statutory objectives summarised as one overall aim: to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets and to help retail consumers achieve a fair deal
The FOS Website states;
So when we look at a complaint, we give both sides a fair hearing.
Protecting consumer interests? - help retail consumers achieve a fair deal? Give BOTH sides a fair hearing? One word that appears in all of their statements is FAIR. How is this fair?
How can they be protecting the consumer interest by stopping them reclaiming what is rightfully theirs and still allowing the banks to charge these ridiculously high penalty charges.?
I understand that the banks disagree they are unlawful, so why have they kept paying out to consumers at the rate of around £500 million in the last 12 months? This alone should tell the FSA that the consumer has to keep claiming against the banks.
This situation alone will save the banks hundreds of millions of pounds, firstly through not paying out claims, not having to pay legal fees and more importantly, due to the limitation act 1980, the longer this case goes on the more they will save under the 6 yr rule of the above Act.
So, whilst this will save the banks money, the consumer goes further and further into debt by having charges still applied.
This is just the tip of the iceberg Mr xxxxx, I am sure there are many more people out there that will be destined for financial hardship as a result of this legislation. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of consumers all over the country who have started their claims and some may also be made bankrupt by allowing the banks to still charge. All this caused by a regulator who is supposed to have the consumer in their best interest.
I would like to see how they explain that this benefits them. The problem with all this is, it was all done behind closed doors for months without anyone knowing except the banks, the FSA , the OFT and the FOS, and then, without a care in the world for consumers or anyone else, put into practice. The nice little arrangement that the banks had already sorted with the FSA, the OFT and the FOS, the three regulators set up to protect the public. Mr xxxxxx, someone is having a laugh at your constituents’ expense and it is not the slightest bit funny for us.
I also understand that It could also interfere with our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998.
Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “ In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”
It is unreasonable to allow an indeterminate stay which depends on some litigation unconnected to the instant case, between other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant case.
It is not clear that the matter will be heard as predicted and in the event that it does go to trial, there could then be appeals and subsequent appeals so that the matter might become protracted and even last as long as 3 years or more – from the date of the commencement of trial.
I sincerely hope that you can help us in getting the FSA to revoke this unfair and biased legislation and allow the consumer to continue to fight for what is rightfully theirs.
I am one of your constituents in Anytown. I write to you in the hope you can help me in my plight with the bank and in particular the FSA.
You may be aware that on 27 July 2007, the OFT commenced litigation proceedings against the big seven banks to try and establish once and for all as to whether these overdraft fees are actually unlawful.
Whilst we agree with this course of action, the FSA has waived the regulation that enforces the banks to process claims of this nature until the outcome of this hearing.
This means that any claims going through the banks now for reclaiming charges (sometimes in their thousands) are put on hold and will not be processed for what could take up to two years if any appeals are allowed.
The FSA has also allowed the banks to apply for a stay in all court proceedings of this nature until the case has finished. The Banks are now to apply to the Master of Rolls to issue a blanket stay on all court hearings.
This is a ridiculous situation for all local people who are in the process of reclaiming charges. And, just to rub salt in the wounds, they have allowed the banks to keep on charging!!!
The majority of the people I have spoken to ( including myself) were not able to afford the court fees to take the claim to the next step. They have had to save every spare penny to raise the £120.00 needed so they could take the bank to court. In some cases where the claim was over £5000.00 they have had to stump up £250.00, something which was very, very hard for these people to find, considering it was the high cost of these charges that have put them in this position. Some even took out short term loans so they could take the bank to court to try and recoup some of these charges. They are now left with no claim, no compensation and hundreds of pounds out of pocket.
Although there may be a slim chance of them being able to recoup some of the court costs, the issue is that they should be allowed to continue with this claim and get their charges back, as have thousands of consumers all over the country.
To allow the banks to still charge and not allow the consumer the right to reclaim is against everything the FSA and the OFT and the fos are supposed to stand for.
The OFT web site states :
The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive
The FSA website states :
We have a wide range of rule-making, investigatory and enforcement powers to enable us to meet four statutory objectives summarised as one overall aim: to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets and to help retail consumers achieve a fair deal
The FOS Website states;
So when we look at a complaint, we give both sides a fair hearing.
Protecting consumer interests? - help retail consumers achieve a fair deal? Give BOTH sides a fair hearing? One word that appears in all of their statements is FAIR. How is this fair?
How can they be protecting the consumer interest by stopping them reclaiming what is rightfully theirs and still allowing the banks to charge these ridiculously high penalty charges.?
I understand that the banks disagree they are unlawful, so why have they kept paying out to consumers at the rate of around £500 million in the last 12 months? This alone should tell the FSA that the consumer has to keep claiming against the banks.
This situation alone will save the banks hundreds of millions of pounds, firstly through not paying out claims, not having to pay legal fees and more importantly, due to the limitation act 1980, the longer this case goes on the more they will save under the 6 yr rule of the above Act.
So, whilst this will save the banks money, the consumer goes further and further into debt by having charges still applied.
This is just the tip of the iceberg Mr xxxxx, I am sure there are many more people out there that will be destined for financial hardship as a result of this legislation. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of consumers all over the country who have started their claims and some may also be made bankrupt by allowing the banks to still charge. All this caused by a regulator who is supposed to have the consumer in their best interest.
I would like to see how they explain that this benefits them. The problem with all this is, it was all done behind closed doors for months without anyone knowing except the banks, the FSA , the OFT and the FOS, and then, without a care in the world for consumers or anyone else, put into practice. The nice little arrangement that the banks had already sorted with the FSA, the OFT and the FOS, the three regulators set up to protect the public. Mr xxxxxx, someone is having a laugh at your constituents’ expense and it is not the slightest bit funny for us.
I also understand that It could also interfere with our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998.
Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “ In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”
It is unreasonable to allow an indeterminate stay which depends on some litigation unconnected to the instant case, between other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant case.
It is not clear that the matter will be heard as predicted and in the event that it does go to trial, there could then be appeals and subsequent appeals so that the matter might become protracted and even last as long as 3 years or more – from the date of the commencement of trial.
I sincerely hope that you can help us in getting the FSA to revoke this unfair and biased legislation and allow the consumer to continue to fight for what is rightfully theirs.
Well I have sent my second complaint to the FSA requesting information has to why they ruled that banks get a waiver while at the same time are allowed to continue making these unlawful charges against customers accounts.
I also want to know why it is banks haver the right to access my account and take whatever charges they impose without my consent. Not even the government, or any other company have this privilage so why on earth do the banks get it, just because they look after our cash?
The banks should be made to send out a bill like any other company, and if the bill isn't paid then the bank should apply for a court oder to retreive the money.
Well I have sent my second complaint to the FSA requesting information has to why they ruled that banks get a waiver while at the same time are allowed to continue making these unlawful charges against customers accounts.
I also want to know why it is banks haver the right to access my account and take whatever charges they impose without my consent. Not even the government, or any other company have this privilage so why on earth do the banks get it, just because they look after our cash?
The banks should be made to send out a bill like any other company, and if the bill isn't paid then the bank should apply for a court oder to retreive the money.
THEY SHOULD NOT JUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE IT!
That is a great point! If someone else accessed your account without your permission it is fraudulent. So what makes the bank different?
27th April - Requested Statements 13th May - Received Statements 15th May - Preliminary request for £4780 sent. 16th May - Royal Mail confirm Letter received. 23rd May - Received Letter considering claim. :grin: 30th May - Letter Before Action sent. 10th July - Times Up!! FOS claim going in. 16th July - Measly 30% of claim offered as goodwill 17th July - Rejected offer letter sent 25th July - Acknowledgement of Reject Letter received 26th July - Screwed over by the OFT,Banks, FSA & FOS all in one go. Never even felt it happen.
If it was the case that a bank had to send a customer a bill or obtain a court order before claiming money for a charges then the situation we all find ourselves would never have arisen.
The bank would have had to take the individual to court if he/she disputed the charge and it would then be up to a judge to decide if it was a legitimate claim, hence the banks would not be so braisen charging customers with unlawful charges.
So.. they have created this monster themselves! IMHO This is an extremely valid point. Well done!
I wonder if this would make a substantial point in a legal argument?
27th April - Requested Statements 13th May - Received Statements 15th May - Preliminary request for £4780 sent. 16th May - Royal Mail confirm Letter received. 23rd May - Received Letter considering claim. :grin: 30th May - Letter Before Action sent. 10th July - Times Up!! FOS claim going in. 16th July - Measly 30% of claim offered as goodwill 17th July - Rejected offer letter sent 25th July - Acknowledgement of Reject Letter received 26th July - Screwed over by the OFT,Banks, FSA & FOS all in one go. Never even felt it happen.
FSA To Review Waiver
in two months time
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Destinyofsouls
