Thread: Banks apply to Master of rolls not FSA

Hi.

After being lead to believe on this site that the banks have applied to the FSA I called the FSA.

It would appear That from the telephone conversation the banks did no such thing.

The FSA said the banks applied to the master of rolls and the master of rolls applied for a stay.

Any comments?

So is the courts preventing us from making a claim?

Similar Threads:

• Stays - what did Master of Rolls say?
• FSA to be given more power over banks
• FSA letter to Master of the Rolls?
• Now the FSA accuses banks of lying

The FSA is different from the courts. The FSA has granted a waiver, which applies only to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

This waiver is irrelevant as far as the courts are concerned.

Each court will decide on the cases merits whether a particular case should be stayed. At this time, considering that the OFT test case is over (for now) very few cases will be proceeding.

The Banks & OFT wrote to the Master of the Rolls.

The MoR decided not to issue an order staying all outstanding cases.


Instead he asked the Deputy Head of Civil Justice to write to all Designated Civil Judges, inviting them to consider staying outstanding claims on a case by case basis as appropriate.

Originally Posted by tomterm8

The FSA is different from the courts. The FSA has granted a waiver, which applies only to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Yes I know this.

Its the FSA who Are saying the Master of rolls applied for the waiver.

Would you no if we could get a copy of the original application?

Maybe we could see for sure who is on that form.

Ive asked for a copy of it under the FOI by email so far no response.

No, the banks applied to the FSA for a waiver, which they granted:

Modification by consent of certain DISP rules

The Banks & OFT wrote to the Master of the Rolls asking for an order to stay existing and future claims

The two are completely separate

Do you no why the OFT asked for the waiver?

If there acting on our behalf Wouldn't it be in there best interests to have the claims continue?

Do you no why the OFT asked for the waiver?

The OFT weren't involved in the waiver, only the request for a stay order. You're muddling the two.

Originally Posted by JOSH_IOU

Do you no why the OFT asked for the waiver?
it did NOT apply to anyone for a waiver.

If there acting on our behalf Wouldn't it be in there best interests to have the claims continue?
The OFT has no say in whether claims continue. It is a matter for the courts and the F.A.S.

..

Originally Posted by JOSH_IOU

If there acting on our behalf Wouldn't it be in there best interests to have the claims continue?

Absolutely not.
If claims were allowed to continue, someone, perhaps even lots of people could end up opposite a bank in court fighting a case on the "to cover our costs" principle for a claim made before all the T&Cs were fiddled to present charges as fees for a service.
It would be quite a straightforward case to fight & as long as the claimant doesn't use Kevin Berwick's POCs it should be a walkover.

What would the OFT look like (and the high court for that matter) if ordinary people started trouncing banks in a courtroom over bank charges & getting judgment in their favour using help received from the internet, whilst their all important high court test case drags on & on?
You wouldn't be able to see their faces again for the all mountains of Egg..

It is in the OFT's best interest that no claimant gets to have their day in court, whether they have any power to say so or not.

the waiver would have been fair if it had applied to both sides of the arguement. Ok, banks dont have to deal with complaints now BUT at the same time, banks should have been forced to stop taking money from accounts for being as little as 1p over drawn!

Mailman