Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

enaid

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About enaid

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder
  1. Thank you, already on FB and twitter, just think people think it wont affect them, but watch this space lol x
  2. The government are proposing to increase the court fee for a general application in civil proceedings ( the N244 application used to ask to set aside a default judgment, apply for a stay, compliance with a 31.14 request, strike out a statement of case... and so on ) from £155 to £255. A large number of people who receive a court claim need to use an application at some point during the defence of their case. I believe this is a disproportionate rise and will have a detrimental affect on vulnerable consumers and only serve to further restrict access to justice. I have started a petition to ask Government to reconsider. PLEASE SIGN Last year the government held a consultation, 96% of respondents, including the law society and money advice service said NO to the raise. Yet the government have decided to go ahead with it regardless. You can see that consultation http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry-name/ The rises also include divorce court fee rising by £140 and the maximum court fee doubling from £10k to £20k for bringing high value cases ( such as for medical negligence / personal injury ). I'm concentrating on the Application fee as this affects everyone who has ever received a court claim or default judgment. Applications are generally made ex-parte in the following situations. • to suspend a possession order to pay back mortgage or rent arrears in instalments; • to suspend a warrant of possession for rent or mortgage arrears; • to pay a county court judgment in instalments; • to vary the terms of an instalment order on a county court judgment; • to suspend a warrant of control to stop enforcement agent action; • to pay the warrant in instalments as part of the suspension of a warrant of control; • to ask for a stay of execution in the High Court to suspend a writ of control • to ask for a transfer to your local court for a hearing; • to vary the terms of a charging order or to pay by instalments on a charging order; • to apply for a time order in the course of proceedings for eligible agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (secured loans, hire purchase and conditional sale agreements and unsecured loan agreements); • to set aside a judgment made in error or where there is a defence to the claim; • to vary the terms of an attachment of earnings order or to apply for a consolidated attachment of earnings order. I have started a petition to ask Government to reconsider. PLEASE SIGN and PLEASE SHARE https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104762/
  3. 1) The FoI request was made by a colleague. 2) The 22,191 figure represents the number of claimants that initially claimed they were in financial difficulty and not the number of claimants that were subsequently deemed to actually be in financial difficulty by the banks. I suspect that figure would be a lot lower. The important figure, for your purposes, is that the sample data indicates that 64% of claimants who were recognised as being in financial difficulty were offered a refund and I suspect this figure would have increased over time for the reasons set out below. But it would be interesting at least to know what proportion of the 22,191 claiming financial difficulty actually were recognised as such by the banks. The criteria for which banks should judge financial difficulty was requested in a separate FoI request by the same person and in response the FSA claimed that the ‘’definition’’ was set out in the then banking code. But on investigation the banking code standards board declared that what the FSA were describing as a ‘’definition’’ was only in fact guidance and shouldn’t be used to define financial hardship. As a result the FSA published their own detailed definition in the next waiver extension. The criteria is set out in Annex 2 here http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Re...nthly_0790.pdf ‘’Firms’’ means all regulated companies ie banks. 3) As far as I know no further request was made to update the data. I would suggest you make one yourself. Normally no charge is made for this kind of information. It’s easy to do by e-mail Request for information In making an FoI request it is important to consider the wording of your request carefully as the FSA will only release the information you specifically request. They will only provide aggregate data and won’t release firm-specific information which is exempt for commercial confidentiality reasons. Under the FoI Act they are obliged to release information within 20 working days. __________________
  4. Our Ref: FOI0914 13 May 2008 Dear Sir Freedom of Information: Right to know request Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), for information in relation financial hardship data that forms the exemption from FSA's complaints handling waiver for banks: 1. To date, or from the latest date available, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many customers making complaints have been identified by the banks as being cases of financial hardship since the introduction of the waiver? 2. To date, or from the latest date available, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many identified cases of financial hardship have been offered a partial or full refund of charges claimed? Your request has now been considered and I will respond to each point below. Please be aware that we have used the term ‘financial difficulty’ in place of ‘financial hardship’. 1. For the period ending 29 February 2008 (latest date available) all of the firms (that is, banks and building societies) who were granted the waiver, reported a total of 22,191 relevant charges complaints where financial difficulty has been claimed by the customer. The FSA has observed that claims made by customers to be in financial difficulty, were subject to an assessment by firms in conjunction with their own criteria for accepting financial difficulty. 2. The FSA has asked several larger firms to provide information relating to how they have handled relevant charges complaints where financial difficulty had been accepted. Based on the data sample received from these firms in February 2008, we found that 64%* of relevant charges complainants, who were accepted as being in financial difficulty, received a refund offer. (*Refers to 101 cases from a sample population of 157 complaints where financial difficulty had been confirmed. N.B. A high proportion of customers had not responded to a request for details of their income and expenditure) Yours sincerely K. Edwards Information Access Financial Services Authority
  5. Where does your figure of one million come from? According the the Ministry of Justice it was more like 65000 BBC NEWS | Business | Frozen overdraft claims revealed
  6. Under the Enterprise Act 2002 only designated consumer bodies can make 'super complaints' to the OFT. These currently include Which?, CAMRA, CAB, Consumer Direct and the National Consumer Council. Only consumer bodies designated by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Section 11(5)) can make a super-complaint. Notwithstanding it would be utterly pointless any designated consumer group asking the OFT to investigate bank charges because they already have and failed. Remember?
  7. The Supreme Court judgment effectively quashed any prospect of mounting a challenge on the basis of how the charges were previously accounted for or presented: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decid...0_Judgment.pdf 88. When the relevant facts are viewed as a whole, it seems clear that the Relevant Charges are not concealed default charges designed to discourage customers from overdrawing on their accounts without prior arrangement. Whatever may have been the position in the past, the Banks now rely on the Relevant Charges as an important part of the revenue that they generate from the current account services. If they did not receive the Relevant Charges they would not be able profitably to provide current account services to their customers in credit without making a charge to augment the value of the use of their funds.
  8. I did a word search for 'forums' in the main document and all the other related documents and it didn't find it once. Maybe Bigdebtor is getting confused with 'Consumer Focus' ? __________________
  9. I don't dispute that but looking at it objectively I believe that there is no legal case for historic misrepresentation and the Supreme Court made that clear in it's judgment: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decid...0_Judgment.pdf ''88. When the relevant facts are viewed as a whole, it seems clear that the Relevant Charges are not concealed default charges designed to discourage customers from overdrawing on their accounts without prior arrangement. Whatever may have been the position in the past, the Banks now rely on the Relevant Charges as an important part of the revenue that they generate from the current account services. If they did not receive the Relevant Charges they would not be able profitably to provide current account services to their customers in credit without making a charge to augment the value of the use of their funds.
  10. Plain intelligible language is a UTCCR requirement of contract terms only. A description of a bank’s business model or revenue breakdown is not a contractual term or a regulatory requirement I’m afraid. __________________
  11. Maybe you will find the one you want on here http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/markets-work/completed/personal/personal-test-case/personal-documents
  12. I think Aequitas is right. The Supreme Court found that both (a) and (b) apply. In particular exemption (a) applied by virtue of the cross subsidy argument which the court found as ''core'' to the bargain. ''Even if the Court of Appeal’s interpretation had been correct, I do not see how it could have come to the conclusion that charges amounting to over 30 per cent of the revenue stream were (para 111) “not part of the core or essential bargain.” (SC judgment page 22) http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decid...0_Judgment.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...