Jump to content

crfx250

Banned
  • Posts

    780
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by crfx250

  1. Well the OFT would be right but it has said that the waiver is nothing to do with them and they wern't consulted on it so I don't think you can blame them really.
  2. The FSA have made it very clear that the waiver will stay in place until not just when any appeals have been completed but then subsequently the OFT have decided on what future charges will be. In other words, years.
  3. I think that the views of the FSAs own consumer panel are very significant as they are clearly unhappy with the waiver. The fact that they think the FSA has not done enough ''to publicise the fact that people suffering any financial hardship should not have their claims put on hold.'' could expose the FSA to a legal challenge.
  4. The OFT have at long last published the banks defences in the test case. The Office of Fair Trading: Personal current accounts in the UK - banks' defences OFT lawyers had been busy for some time ''redacting sensitive information'' before publication presumabley at the banks insistance but the page count the OFT versions are no less than the court versions although I'm yet to look at them in detail. Also very odd is the discreet way that the OFT have chosen to publish them. The defences have not been included in their site's 'what's new page' nor any of the the press release and 'advice and resources' pages in which all the other test case documentation is found. The Nationwide defence is included which wasn't available from the court but is here if Bookworm could add them to the test case documentation thread. Nationwide-amended-defence.pdf
  5. The OFT have at long last published the banks defences in the test case. The Office of Fair Trading: Personal current accounts in the UK - banks' defences OFT lawyers had been busy for some time ''redacting sensitive information'' before publication presumabley at the banks insistance but the page count the OFT versions are no less than the court versions although I'm yet to look at them in detail. Also very odd is the discreet way that the OFT have chosen to publish them. The defences have not been included in their site's 'what's new page' nor any of the the press release and 'advice and resources' pages in which all the other test case documentation is found. The Nationwide defence is included which wasn't available from the court but is here if Bookworm could add them to the test case documentation thread. Nationwide-amended-defence.pdf
  6. Our ref: FOI0820 Dear crfx Freedom of Information: Right to know request Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), for the following information: "… a copy of FSA's letter of 26 July to The Master of the Rolls recommending that claims be stayed." Following a search of our paper and electronic records I am writing to tell you that we do not hold the information you are seeking. The FSA has never written to the Master of Rolls recommending that claims be stayed. Yours sincerely Roisin Traynor Information Access Team Financial Services Authority Direct line: 020 7066 9832 Local fax: 020 7066 1051 Email: [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: crfx To: Freedom of Information Financial Services Authority Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:20 AM Subject: Re: Freedom of Information - Right to Know Dear Ms Traynor Thank you for your e-mail of 21 November. In it you claim that the FSA has never written to the Master of the Rolls recommending that claims be stayed but I am not convinced that this the case. On my instruction, law firm Finers Stephens Innocent have approached the Master of the Rolls for a copy of the letter and their correspondence to date does not include a denial of its existence. But regardless of this, as the FSA has clearly stated ''This action means that, until the test case is resolved, any bank or building society that applies for the waiver will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges within the time limits set out in the FSA rules. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has adopted a similar approach and the county courts are expected to follow'' it would follow that the FSA would have had some communication with the Master of the Rolls or at least a senior representative of the judiciary to have formed this opinion. Therefore I would like to amend my FoIA request to: Please supply me with all correspondence between the FSA and any area of the judiciary that contributed to the FSA's view that county courts were expected to stay cases. Yours sincerely crfx
  7. Simon I can't tell you how happy I am for you. I must admit I wasn't that confident you would get a result like that so soon.
  8. boston I'd be very interested to know the wording of the FSA's reference to hardship. Is it possible you could post it up? Thanks crfx
  9. Why are CAG not interested? I just don't know that. But the legal advice I have suggests that if the FSA has enough quality evidence that proves the the banks are flouting the waiver conditions but subsequently the review results in the waiver staying in place then a challenge can be made on the review.
  10. CAG could certainly challenge it but their just not interested I'm afraid. And as I know all too well it's not that they couldn't get the financial backing. Iv'e already looked into challenging the introduction of the waiver but legally they have every right to. But there is a fair possibility that if the FSA had enough evidence that the conditions of the waiver were being breached but that the waiver was not revoked as a result of the current review a challenge could be made. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1208395.html
  11. As far as I know the FOS have a 100 percent record in awarding the total amount of all claims. It would be nice if a compromise solution could be found with the banks but I don't think they do compromise! I think the waiver is the single biggest obsticle to claiming and it is also in danger of killing off claim sites who depend on donations from successful claimants. PC being a case in point. Which is another reason why I can't understand why sites like this just seem to have accepted the waiver without so much as a squeek.
  12. The question of whether the revoking of the waiver would affect court stays is an interesting one. But it was the FSA afterall who wrote to the Master of the Roles reccomending that judges stay cases and not the OFT. But regardless of the waiver's effect on court cases, if the waiver was lifted the FOS would have to recomence settling claims. The only reason the FOS has suspended claims is that they don't have the power to proccess them unless the claims have exhuasted the banks complaints system first and it's because of the waiver that that can't happen.
  13. There's no doubt that the banks had knowledge of the waiver guidelines prior to the waivers' introduction as the FSA can only consider a waiver scheme if it is applied for first by the banks. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/direction_disp.pdf
  14. I certainly agree with the view that the test case is going to take a very long time to come to a the point of a legal ruling but that's just part of the proccess that will lead to a final conclusion on what the level of charge will be set at. Assuming the OFT win the legal argument they will then have to eek out of the banks the true cost of proccessing charges before they can agree on the level. The FSA have made this clear: In summary, stage one of the case will focus on the determination of whether the relevant terms and charges can be assessed for fairness under the UTCCR 1999, and whether they are a charge for a service or a penalty in respect of breach of contract at common law. These are known as 'preliminary issues'. However, once the OFT has concluded it's investigation, and in the event that the arguments it has put forward in stage one are successful, then issues of fairness and genuine pre-estimate of costs/penalty will be determined subsequently at stage two of the proceedings. These are referred to in the test case as the 'substantive issues' The process of determining a genuine pre-estimate of costs relies entirely on the integrity of the banks and will no doubt involve endless bartering. This will surely take several years to achieve. The above FSA statement was made in the context of the duration of the waiver which means that it will stay in place until the substantive issues have been settled which is why I'm so keen to attack it as so long as it stays in place, any temporary mid-stream solution as you suggested wouldn't be possible.
  15. ''Barclays bank is investing in technology to increase sales of payment protection insurance (PPI), despite damning reports on this type of loan cover from the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the Office of Fair Trading and a continuing investigation by the Competition Commission.'' Consumer groups blast hard sell by Barclays - Times Online
  16. Original Message ----- From: crfx To: CCC Consumer Enquiries Financial Services Authority Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 8:19 PM Subject: Re: Contact with the FSA Dear Miss Cully Thank you for your e-mail Firstly I need to make a correction to your account of my telephone conversation with Mr Brombreger. Mr Bromberger was less than forthcoming with the information you claim he provided me and in fact he referred me to Andrea Kinnear of the FSA press office whom, he said, would be able to update me on the status of the 2 month waiver review. But over the course of the next 3 days, Ms Kinnear refused to answer any of my e-mails or numerous phone calls even though she was in her office on every occasion. My original enquiry did indeed begin at the CCC and then the FSA consumer helpline and on both occasions I was advised that the 2 month waiver review was in fact an on-going review and that no announcement would be made in consideration of the review except in the event of the waiver being withdrawn from a bank. But in a subsequent conversation with Robert Skinner, Chief Executive of the Banking Code Standards Board, Mr Skinner describe this advice as ''nonsense''. This is by no means the first time I have been given completely inaccurate information by both the CCC and the consumer helpline and this is precisely the subject of my complaint referred to in your e-mail. Both these departments are wholly inadequate as a source of information as on every occasion I have used them the information provided is either wildly inaccurate or simply untrue. The staff are ill-informed, inept and can often barely string a sentence together. Therefore any future enquires I make to FSA will be made directly to the relevant department, by a method of my choosing and as I see fit. Regards crfx
  17. Try this http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/OFT's-joint-reply-and-def.pdf?version=1
  18. While of course you're perfectly entitled to that opinion it could also be said that the op, in being able to open and close his thread, apparently at a point of his choosing and without feeling it appropriete to reveal subject of it and thus making it impossible to have an even debate, wouldn't nessesaraly fall into the catagory of 'the interests of fairness'.
  19. I'm lost for words...my head is in my hands. I'm sorry but I just can't take you seriously.
  20. Tell me something, have you ever read your own posts? it'e a remarkable experience. Try it sometime.
  21. I think you need to have a word with yourself. Then how about being honest and naming the site?
  22. Are you familiar with the concept of a straight forward and honest debate?
  23. Your going to have to excuse me here but I'm genuinely struggling to make any sense of what you're saying. You're now claiming you were ''merely making a point that people shouldn't make (sic) opinions about CAG and the way Mods and Admin run it'' (and then oddly ending the post defending freedom of speech). There is no mention of this in any of your posts on the thread! If there is then please point me there. But if that is your view then why do you find it acceptable to voice your opinions about OTR and the way their Mods run it in your original post? I find this very difficult to understand. I'm in no doubt that the site you are referring to is Legal Beagels. It is the only site that refers to CAG as OTR. It's hardly baffling. And finally I'd be very grateful if you would kindly take on board that these Chinese whispers you seem to think hold such significance are something I'm not remotely interested in and frankly I couldn't give a monkeys.
×
×
  • Create New...