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.
Had some time on my hands today so I wacked off a freedom of information request to that pillar of comsumer rights John Fingleton (for it
is he) of that marvelous organisation we know and love, the Office of Fair
Trading, who seems to think that (judging by their valuation of 12 quid to
send an automated letter) thinks that a pint of milk costs about £750 these days
From: xxxxx
To: John Fingleton
Chief Executive
Office Of Fair Trading
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX
22/2/07
Freedom of information request
Sir
I wish to make a request for information held by The Office Of Fair Trading under the freedom of information act.
My request centres on your ruling that credit card issuers cannot charge more than £12 in ‘penalty fees’ and in particular how the OFT arrived at the figure of £12 as being an acceptable amount.
The reasons for my making this request are actually more related to your forthcoming and eagerly awaited report on current account default charges due shortly. In your report on credit cards the OFT effectively gave the issuers a license to continue charging unrealistically
high ‘fees’ to consumers when they default on their payments. In my conversations
with your staff who were involved in writing the report, they seemed to be under the impression that ‘’forcing the credit card issuers to more than halve these charges’’ was
some kind of resounding success. But surely this issue hinged on the premise that the charges
should reflect only the actual cost incurred. And any idiot would tell you that £12 is simply
too much.
I am very concerned that your ruling on bank charges will recommend a similarly ludicrous
figure. You screwed up big time on credit cards, please don’t do the same on bank charges.
Many poor people are counting on you to get this right.
I am aware that my request is extensive and will be both time consuming and expensive but
frankly I don’t give a monkeys’. Therefore I am prepared to meet any administrative costs
you incur up to £1000. Any more and I will need to evaluate the quality of the information
first.
Information requested
1) The names, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of all OFT personnel involved in
researching and compiling the report.
2) All correspondence to and from the banks and British Banking Association regarding the report including letters, e-mails and phone call logs.
3) All data supplied to you by the banks regarding the calculation of penalty fees.
4) All minutes of internal OFT meetings held in the consideration of the report.
5) All internal OFT e-mails, memos and the like relevant to the consideration of the report.
6) All correspondence and reports by independent consultants employed to advise
you in consideration of the report.
As I am in know doubt you are aware, you are bound to supply information under the freedom
of information act within 20 working days. I would appreciate conformation from you that this will indeed be the case.
they can refuse as well, have you read the act in full?
No. I think It might put me off and that would be counter-productive. All I
know is that I feel the request is not unreasonable and on that basis
alone I think they should give it to me, act or no act. What I wantis the
important thing. What they dont want dosnt interest me.
But you can rest assured that if they dont play ball I'll be up there like a shot, chain myself to his desk and sing the theme tune to neighbours until he gives in
I must say that whilst I admire the cheekiness of the letter I sincerely hope that this is not the actual text you sent...taken in the written context they could actually get quite difficult with you, and take you at your word to " meet any administrative costs you incur up to £1000"
That said I do agree with Nattie but for a couple of different reasons:
Firstly they will no doubt cite commercial confidentiality- just try finding out how much it costs to build the new local school or hospital...you might be paying for it out of your taxes but you have no right to know how much you are actually spending...
Secondly, they can turn down your request on the basis of cost - it is bound to cost more than the allowable upper limit of £450/£600 - your offer of £1,000 will have them rolling in the aisles.
However, the spirit of the letter is fine, and if sent as a "concerned of Tonbridge" letter then if enough people follow your lead they may consider their next announcement on bank charges...then again, they are more likely to spend a huge amount on porcine feather research...
Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.
All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
Well to be honest the text I used was a little different to that in my post in that the figure I quoted was actually £10000 - in an unsuccessfull attempt to discourage the usual disbelievers of my less than formal style. Everything else was as it says.
Everyone to their own but I think that just another 'concerned of Tonebridge Wells' or wherever will just land up in the 'this ones a pushover
file'. I feel far more confident of sucess as 'seething from hell'.
As to the possibility of them getting 'difficult' with me I dont see how that
could possibly be the case. If I do land up getting half the info for £20000
I reckon It would represent very good value for money indeed
If I do land up getting half the info for £20000
I reckon It would represent very good value for money indeed
...???...and you are worried about the £12 "reasonable" fee...???...blimey...
Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.
All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
...???...and you are worried about the £12 "reasonable" fee...???...blimey...
well I look at it like this. Even if, due to my admittedly speculative approach, fees are reduced by just a penny, the consumer as a whole
will benefit far more.
Very true, very true, and I suppose if money was no object to me I would probably take the same approach...
Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.
All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
Had a letter saying they would respond by March 26. In a seperate line of communication I have asked for answers to the following points:
From: xxx
To: Jennifer Slocombe PTO Group Office Of Fair Trading Fleetbank House 2-6 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JX
26/2/07 Dear Jennifer
Thank you for your letter of 23 feb 2007.
Please be advised I did not find enclosed a copy of ‘Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts’ as stated but I have since sourced a copy elsewhere.
1) The title of your report ‘Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts’ leads one to the not unreasonable conclusion that the report sets out to decide what the actual amount of the charge should be, if it is considered to be fair.
It was not. Your report actually set out to establish a benchmark to satisfy your own internal administrative criteria and this was not reflected in the title.
How do you reconcile this?
2) The word ‘calculate’ in all three dictionaries at my disposal , without exception, define it as to ‘compute mathematically’. And therefore one would expect that the £12 figure you arrived at was the conclusion of a mathematical computation and must have involved other numbers in order to reach it.
The report itself carries no actual calculations whatsoever. Indeed the only number in the report at all is the £12.
How do you reconcile this?
3) With regard to the £12, the assertion appearing in your letter and the report that you ‘’wanted to bring about a swift change across the whole market’’ needs clarification. Can I infer from this that a lower figure would have been less profitable to the credit card issuers and therefore more difficult to impose in the shortest possible time frame?
Could you clarify this?
I would appreciate it if you could respond to my points in the same numerical order and detail as they were made, in order to avoid any confusion.
The OFT have responded to my most recent enquiries re the April 2006 statement on credit card defualt charges. Not unpredictably they hav'nt answered in any meaningful sense and their response is just the meaningless drivel I got the last time. Though to be fair my third and final question was badly worded and I'm kicking myself for wasting the opportunity
Needless to say I have appealed against the refusal of my original freedom of information act request, which will be handled by...err...the same people who turned it down in the first place. But then at least I have the right to appeal to the information commissioner, after the 25 days it'll take the OFT to say bo****ks.
#Mr xxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
Your ref
Direct line
(020) 7211 5823
Our ref
T/C/3815
Fax
(020) 7211 8465
Date
29 March 2007
Email
jennifer.slocombe@oft.gsi .gov.uk
By email and post
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Mr xxxxxxxxx
Credit Card Charges
I refer to your email dated 19 March, in response to our letter of 16 March.
I set out your questions together with our answers with the same numbering that you have used.
‘In your response to my first point, you state that ‘The statement did not seek to determine what a fair level of charge might be’ even though the statement was entitled ‘Calculating fair default charges…’ I’ve read and re-read your explanation and am struggling to understand these two opposing concepts in the same context. Logic can only suggest that these concepts are contradictory. Which one is correct?’
We do not agree that the title of our April statement contradicts the statement quoted above, made in our letter of 16th March. That letter explained the purpose of the statement which was to provide guidance to credit card issuers when calculating default charges so that they could each apply the principles therein to their own particular business circumstances and arrive at a fair default fee (paras1.1 - 1.7 of the April 5 statement). Its purpose was not, as we have also explained, to set a fair fee for individual issuers. Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs) only a court can determine a fair fee. (paras 2.1 – 2.2 of the April 5 statement) We have nothing further to add on this point.
‘As none of your own calculations appeared in the report and ‘in calculating the threshold we took into account information provided by eight leading credit card issuers’ it seems to me that the only calculations used for the report were those made by the credit card issuers themselves. Am I correct?’
We consider that our previous response adequately addressed this point, including reasons why no calculations or data appeared in the statement. However we can add that your assumption, as stated above, is fundamentally wrong in that calculations were carried out by the OFT using empirical data provided by the eight credit card issuers. Further information about how the threshold for intervention was calculated is set out at paragraph 5.8 of the April statement.
‘You stated that ‘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’. As I’m sure you are aware, many studies on defaults on credit card payments/ unauthorised current accounts have that the maximum it could possibly cost the issuers/ banks is £4.50, nearly 3 times your threshold. This means that the British public are still being ripped off by billions of pounds each year. My question is: what other cases do you deal with that are more seriously detrimental to the consumer than default charges.’
It is important to recognise that the £12 threshold for intervention, in the April statement, relates only to the charges applied in respect of credit card defaults. It has no status beyond that of being the level above which OFT will consider further intervention in respect of those charges. It does not apply in any event to other charges, including unauthorised overdraft charges. We are not in a position to comment on the findings of the studies that you refer to, but for the reasons given in our previous response, we consider that the threshold for intervention is set at an appropriate level.
The OFT is publicly committed to the principles of good enforcement as set out in the Cabinet Office’s Enforcement Concordat (enclosed for your information). We judge each case for action on its merits, in accordance with these principles, and make informed decisions about the appropriate enforcement action.
In the credit card default charges investigation we decided that, in the circumstances, the best way to achieve a swift reduction in fees across the market was the use of the threshold for intervention. This avoided heavy handed, time consuming regulation and brought significant benefits for consumers in a relatively short timeframe. Following the credit card issuers’ decision to reduce their default charges, we concluded that further intervention in this area was no longer a priority for the OFT.
We were then able to direct our resource to the consideration of similar charges in the personal current account market. On that basis, we launched a 3 -6 month fact finding exercise in September 2006. We made an announcement on this today (enclosed for your information).
You may be interested in our Annual plan for the year 2007 – 2008 which sets out where we are directing our resource. I enclose a copy for your information.
I trust that the above information clarifies your understanding.
Yours sincerely
Jennifer Slocombe
Consumer Protection Enforcement Group
OFT freedom of information request
logs.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by NATTIE
