I am so sorry about the small percentage contacted, but I don't know anyone on here who hasn't done so. it doesn't seem to make sense, surely the majority are aware of this, are the other sites MSE AND Penalties, writing to the MPs, Can I do anything to help?

OMg Jenny you can even play poker:eek: is real money involved? something went wrong there, I see the answer jenny, brain is haggled now nite nite all you lovely people at this drop in centre val xxx

Are we a bunch of saddos or what? At least I am searching for a loan!!

Just came on here to make sure you are all still up and running;)

I sincerely hope these MPs will join forces with the cross party support group and rock the boat up a storm!!

As MACBOY says on the government are complicit in this. there is no way they are going to agree to lose billions of revenue from the banks is there.

What a fantastic letter, this is what everyone thinks, but its like batting your head against a brick wall, don't you think the true reason behind all this is a conspiracy inolving the government, they are all refusing to budge due to the revenue of billions they stand to lose if they agreed those conditions . Are these MPs part of the 'Cross Party Support Group ' ?? val

Yes I have always said what I cannot understand is how the courts can be manipulated by anyone, how can the OFT FSA or Banks dictate proceedings to JUDGE? val

you're right tez, it's in the genes! AND being active! my OH ignores his age, very young for it, he's itching to get back up that scaffolding! even more anxious to get back on the golf course he's missing that fix more than anything, and if he doesn't get out of the house soon we might bbbbby DIVORCE each other.

Hi How are you Tez ? What a carry on! i was starting to think it was us at the 'drop in centre' they were trying to sabotage ! Are we on the right date now, I think it still 1st Nov.? it's my oldest daughters birthday today 41years today! it's impossible!!! I can't be old enough!!! she's down in their holiday house West Wales, with their FOUR children right now, got her lap top with her I sent her a Picture message after searching, I wanted to do one of those jumping waving about ones, couldn't find out how. val

Well Jenny I was wondering about that, I should think it was, when it says they are recieving cross party support . At last maybe something will come of this if they are prepared to go the distance, against the government, etc. at last we have a voice? if they can get to the FSA and scrap the waiver !

Hi jansus and caro Do you want the info posted on here or have you seen it ? I have posted it on the MPs campaign responses val

For information. Good to speak to you and I will be in touch. ________________________________ From: Jon Gardner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 6:25 PM To: MORDEN, Jessica Subject: BANK CHARGES NEWS UPDATE FOR MPs > 29 October 2007 Dear Member of Parliament BA > NK CHARGES WAIVER UNFAIR, & TEST CASE A WASTE OF TIME Firstly I would like to thank the many MPs who acknowledged and responded to my last letter about the unfair Waiver on Bank Charges compensation cases, and to those of you who have taken the time to make detailed representations to the FSA and FOS. We are receiving cross party support for this issue, and as no other organisation seems to be lobbying on behalf of the consumer, I am writing to keep you posted on developments. The original FSA review period on the Waiver passed at the end of September. There has been no mention of this since - either in the media or on the FSA's website. We have since discovered that hidden away in paragraph 43 of the FSA memorandum 'Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock's Liquidity Crisis' (addressed to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007), that it will be reviewed at the end of this month. The initial two month review period has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on". As it appears that some decision or 'non-decision' is likely from the FSA at the end of this month, it is vital that your constituents are represented. Without urgent pressure from MPs, we feel that this subject will be brushed under the carpet leaving millions of consumers short-changed and in limbo for three years or more. The Waiver is in our opinion completely skewed in favour of the Banks and it should be withdrawn immediately in the interests of consumer fairness. Furthermore, the Test Case which most people think will bring about a decision on unlawful bank charges is unlikely to do so, and we feel it is a complete waste of time. It is highly unlikely that any decision will be reached under the current legal framework for up to three years, or more. Please find attached our detailed press release on this issue of the Test Case , which is going on full circulation to the national media. I would be pleased to meet with you in London or Manchester to discuss this serious issue affecting thousands of your constituents. Please do not hesitate to contact me direct on 0161 926 2579 or e-mail me on [email protected] You can write to me at Brunel Franklin & Company Limited 7th Floor, Station House Stamford New Road Altrincham Cheshire WA14 1EP Yours sincerely Anthony M Sultan Managing Director, BrunelFranklin.com Executive Committee Member - Claims Standards Council ------- Issued on behalf of BrunelFranklin.com "BANK CHARGES TEST CASE A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME" Millions of consumers could be fobbed off for three years or more BrunelFranklin.com, one of the largest regulated claims management companies in the UK, has serious concerns that consumers are again being badly short-changed and misled by the financial services sector. BrunelFranklin.com is of the firm view that the recent OFT Agreement leading to a Waiver on Bank Charges cases and a Stay on related Court proceedings is totally against the consumer interest. In reality, it could be more than three years until consumers know where they stand. BrunelFranklin believes that just like the Governor of the Bank of England was recently called to account by the Treasury Select Committee, the Public Administration Committee should be appointed to review the conduct of both the OFT, the FSA and FOS in this matter. These views are echoed by other leading players in the claims sector, including specialist solicitors Miller Gardner Solicitors. BrunelFranklin.com believes that the public do not understand the very limited nature of the Bank Charges Test Case because it only seeks to deal with certain preliminary issues, and is not structured so as to deal with the issue of whether excessive Bank Charges are lawful or not. The net result is that it could be years before there is clarity on where people stand with their bank charges. Anthony M Sultan, managing director of BrunelFranklin.com, said: "The Test Case has been brought by the OFT in its capacity as Regulator, and supported by The FSA. The OFT is concerned primarily with the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which deals with the question of fairness. The Test Case seeks to determine whether the Regulations apply to bank charges or not. The OFT believes that the Regulations apply, and the Banks believe they are exempt from the Regulations. Therefore, in itself, the question of whether or not the Regulations apply does nothing to resolve matters one way or another, whatever the outcome of the Test Case. "Although well intentioned, the OFT Agreement has the effect of providing the Banks with a moratorium on repayments, and allows them to continue charging. It is well known that until the Agreement was concluded at the end of this year, Banks were voluntarily refunding 100% of such charges when faced with Court proceedings. In hiding behind the Waiver, the banks will save an estimated £500m on claims they would have been paying out, this year alone. "It is difficult not to draw an inference that the Banks must feel their position is in serious jeopardy, and they are stringing the public along for as long as they can. "We have written to the FSA and FOS in the strongest possible terms, outlining we feel the Waiver is so one sided in favour of the Banks and should be withdrawn immediately. Furthermore, we are involved with ongoing briefings with a number of MPs across all parties who agree with our stance." Rodney Gardner, director of Miller Gardner Solicitors, says: "Whilst the OFT proceedings allow the OFT to seek an injunction and to consider the position on penalty charges at common law, it does appear that the law of unintended consequences has given the Banks an unexpected windfall in freezing complaints; this has resulted in Court actions being Stayed, and Banks being allowed to continue making excessive - and in some cases increased - charges in the interim. The Banks are cock a hoop at the negotiated deal that can only be bad news for consumers." Whilst in the very long run the OFT Agreement may eventually claim to champion the consumers' corner, in the short-medium term of 1-3 years it has done exactly the opposite. Anthony M Sultan concludes: "Hundreds of thousands of Bank Charges claims have been submitted over the past 12 months. It was open to any Bank, at any stage, to allow Courts to adjudicate on the common law position regarding penalties not least, as well as the Regulations. Had this taken place, appeals to the High Court could have been dealt with by now and the law clarified. The OFT, FSA and FOS between them have done nothing to accelerate the process, indeed they have in fact exacerbated the situation; one can only assume that this is because they are protecting the Banks that fund their existence." ENDS Notes to editors The legal arguments If the Regulations (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) do not apply, it does not mean that such charges are lawful - because the common law position that has been adopted on behalf of bank customers in Court claims to date, is that the Banks, irrespective of the Regulations, cannot charge the customer more than the actual cost incurred by the Bank as a result of the default by the customer; i.e, going overdrawn without authority. In practice, the cost to the Bank is minimal, yet, typically £35 or more is debited to customers' accounts. On the other hand, if the OFT obtains a positive ruling that the Regulations apply, it does not mean that the charges are unfair, as there would have to be a further hearing in such circumstances, for the Courts to consider whether fairness does or does not apply. This is likely to take a further period on top of the 12 months that has already been agreed as the initial term of the Waiver in the OFT Agreement. It should be noted that the initial review that the FSA promised after two months seems to have been totally ignored or forgotten by the FSA; the FSA has remained silent on this and not even bothered to comment on their website. The only reference that can be found to this is buried away in paragraph 43 of the memorandum 'Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock's Liquidity Crisis' from the FSA to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007. The 2 month review has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on". Hardship cases Whilst the Agreement reuires banks to entertain hardship cases Rodney Gardner of Miller Gardner Solicitors has confirmed that in practice Banks merely take advantage of the Stay and ignore matters. One Miller Gardner client is currently owed more than £17,000 in bank charges deemed penalties, and notwithstanding the repossession of his house, the presentation of a Bankruptcy petition and legal proceedings being in train against him, the Bank refuses to negotiate or agree the case can go forward. These are apparently not sufficient grounds for a hardship case: "At the very least, I would have expected the Bank to pay out," says Rodney Gardner, "but instead it is seeking a Stay from the Courts, which I view as an utter disgrace". Press contact BeyondPR www.beyondpr.co.uk Mobile: 07930 697773 Issued on behalf of BrunelFranklin.com "BANK CHARGES TEST CASE A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME" Millions ofconsumers could be fobbed off for three years or more BrunelFranklin.com, one of the largest regulated claims management companies in the UK, has serious concerns that consumers are again being badly short-changed and misled by the financial services sector. BrunelFranklin.com is of the firm view that the recent OFT Agreement leading to a Waiver on Bank Charges cases and a Stay on related Court proceedings is totally against the consumer interest. In reality, it could be more than three years until consumers know where they stand. BrunelFranklin believes that just like the Governor of the Bank of England was recently called to account by the Treasury Select Committee, the Public Administration Committee should be appointed to review the conduct of both the OFT, the FSA and FOS in this matter. These views are echoed by other leading players in the claims sector, including specialist solicitors Miller Gardner Solicitors. BrunelFranklin.com believes that the public do not understand the very limited nature of the Bank Charges Test Case because it only seeks to deal with certain preliminary issues, and is not structured so as to deal with the issue of whether excessive Bank Charges are lawful or not. The net result is that it could be years before there is clarity on where people stand with their bank charges. Anthony M Sultan, managing director of BrunelFranklin.com, said: "The Test Case has been brought by the OFT in its capacity as Regulator, and supported by The FSA. The OFT is concerned primarily with the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which deals with the question of fairness. The Test Case seeks to determine whether the Regulations apply to bank charges or not. The OFT believes that the Regulations apply, and the Banks believe they are exempt from the Regulations. Therefore, in itself, the question of whether or not the Regulations apply does nothing to resolve matters one way or another, whatever the outcome of the Test Case. "Although well intentioned, the OFT Agreement has the effect of providing the Banks with a moratorium on repayments, and allows them to continue charging. It is well known that until the Agreement was concluded at the end of this year, Banks were voluntarily refunding 100% of such charges when faced with Court proceedings. In hiding behind the Waiver, the banks will save an estimated £500m on claims they would have been paying out, this year alone. "It is difficult not to draw an inference that the Banks must feel their position is in serious jeopardy, and they are stringing the public along for as long as they can. "We have written to the FSA and FOS in the strongest possible terms, outlining we feel the Waiver is so one sided in favour of the Banks and should be withdrawn immediately. Furthermore, we are involved with ongoing briefings with a number of MPs across all parties who agree with our stance." …/cont Rodney Gardner, director of Miller Gardner Solicitors, says: "Whilst the OFT proceedings allow the OFT to seek an injunction and to consider the position on penalty charges at common law, it does appear that the law of unintended consequences has given the Banks an unexpected windfall in freezing complaints; this has resulted in Court actions being Stayed, and Banks being allowed to continue making excessive - and in some cases increased – charges in the interim. The Banks are cock a hoop at the negotiated deal that can only be bad news for consumers." Whilst in the very long run the OFT Agreement may eventually claim to champion the consumers’ corner, in the short-medium term of 1-3 years it has done exactly the opposite. Anthony M Sultan concludes: "Hundreds of thousands of Bank Charges claims have been submitted over the past 12 months. It was open to any Bank, at any stage, to allow Courts to adjudicate on the common law position regarding penalties not least, as well as the Regulations. Had this taken place, appeals to the High Court could have been dealt with by now and the law clarified. The OFT, FSA and FOS between them have done nothing to accelerate the process, indeed they have in fact exacerbated the situation; one can only assume that this is because they are protecting the Banks that fund their existence." ENDS Notes to editors The legal arguments If the Regulations (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) do not apply, it does not mean that such charges are lawful - because the common law position that has been adopted on behalf of bank customers in Court claims to date, is that the Banks, irrespective of the Regulations, cannot charge the customer more than the actual cost incurred by the Bank as a result of the default by the customer; i.e, going overdrawn without authority. In practice, the cost to the Bank is minimal, yet, typically £35 or more is debited to customers’ accounts. On the other hand, if the OFT obtains a positive ruling that the Regulations apply, it does not mean that the charges are unfair, as there would have to be a further hearing in such circumstances, for the Courts to consider whether fairness does or does not apply. This is likely to take a further period on top of the 12 months that has already been agreed as the initial term of the Waiver in the OFT Agreement. It should be noted that the initial review that the FSA promised after two months seems to have been totally ignored or forgotten by the FSA; the FSA has remained silent on this and not even bothered to comment on their website. The only reference that can be found to this is buried away in paragraph 43 of the memorandum ‘Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock’s Liquidity Crisis’ from the FSA to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007. The 2 month review has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on". Hardship cases Whilst the Agreement requires banks to entertain hardship cases Rodney Gardner of Miller Gardner Solicitors has confirmed that in practice Banks merely take advantage of the Stay and ignore matters. One Miller Gardner client is currently owed more than £17,000 in bank charges deemed penalties, and notwithstanding the repossession of his house, the presentation of a Bankruptcy petition and legal proceedings being in train against him, the Bank refuses to negotiate or agree the case can go forward. These are apparently not sufficient grounds for a hardship case: "At the very least, I would have expected the Bank to pay out," says Rodney Gardner, "but instead it is seeking a Stay from the Courts, which I view as an utter disgrace". …/cont Press contact Jon Gardner BeyondPR Beyond - PR & Communications Mobile: 07930 697773 Dear Member of Parliament BANK CHARGES WAIVER UNFAIR, & TEST CASE A WASTE OF TIME Firstly I would like to thank the many MPs who acknowledged and responded to my last letter about the unfair Waiver on Bank Charges compensation cases, and to those of you who have taken the time to make detailed representations to the FSA and FOS. We are receiving cross party support for this issue, and as no other organisation seems to be lobbying on behalf of the consumer, I am writing to keep you posted on developments. The original FSA review period on the Waiver passed at the end of September. There has been no mention of this since – either in the media or on the FSA’s website. We have since discovered that hidden away in paragraph 43 of the FSA memorandum ‘Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock’s Liquidity Crisis’ (addressed to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007), that it will be reviewed at the end of this month. The initial two month review period has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on". As it appears that some decision or ‘non-decision’ is likely from the FSA at the end of this month, it is vital that your constituents are represented. Without urgent pressure from MPs, we feel that this subject will be brushed under the carpet leaving millions of consumers short-changed and in limbo for three years or more. The Waiver is in our opinion completely skewed in favour of the Banks and it should be withdrawn immediately in the interests of consumer fairness. Furthermore, the Test Case which most people think will bring about a decision on unlawful bank charges is unlikely to do so, and we feel it is a complete waste of time. It is highly unlikely that any decision will be reached under the current legal framework for up to three years, or more. Please find attached our detailed press release on this issue of the Test Case , which is going on full circulation to the national media. I would be pleased to meet with you in London or Manchester to discuss this serious issue affecting thousands of your constituents. Please do not hesitate to contact me direct on 0161 926 2579 or e-mail me on [email protected] Yours sincerely Anthony M Sultan Managing Director, BrunelFranklin.com Executive Committee Member – Claims Standards Council

Hi Tez I am a bit afraid to put another long post over here, and I am too dull to know how to post a link?, but anyway if you do want to see it's on Martins Blog and the link there click DDOS (Distributed denial of service attack) and it tells all. val

IN the mean time read this lot? this is what Jessica Morden MP sent me. For information. Good to speak to you and I will be in touch. ________________________________ From: Jon Gardner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 6:25 PM To: MORDEN, Jessica Subject: BANK CHARGES NEWS UPDATE FOR MPs > 29 October 2007 Dear Member of Parliament BA > NK CHARGES WAIVER UNFAIR, & TEST CASE A WASTE OF TIME Firstly I would like to thank the many MPs who acknowledged and responded to my last letter about the unfair Waiver on Bank Charges compensation cases, and to those of you who have taken the time to make detailed representations to the FSA and FOS. We are receiving cross party support for this issue, and as no other organisation seems to be lobbying on behalf of the consumer, I am writing to keep you posted on developments. The original FSA review period on the Waiver passed at the end of September. There has been no mention of this since - either in the media or on the FSA's website. We have since discovered that hidden away in paragraph 43 of the FSA memorandum 'Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock's Liquidity Crisis' (addressed to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007), that it will be reviewed at the end of this month. The initial two month review period has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on". As it appears that some decision or 'non-decision' is likely from the FSA at the end of this month, it is vital that your constituents are represented. Without urgent pressure from MPs, we feel that this subject will be brushed under the carpet leaving millions of consumers short-changed and in limbo for three years or more. The Waiver is in our opinion completely skewed in favour of the Banks and it should be withdrawn immediately in the interests of consumer fairness. Furthermore, the Test Case which most people think will bring about a decision on unlawful bank charges is unlikely to do so, and we feel it is a complete waste of time. It is highly unlikely that any decision will be reached under the current legal framework for up to three years, or more. Please find attached our detailed press release on this issue of the Test Case , which is going on full circulation to the national media. I would be pleased to meet with you in London or Manchester to discuss this serious issue affecting thousands of your constituents. Please do not hesitate to contact me direct on 0161 926 2579 or e-mail me on [email protected] You can write to me at Brunel Franklin & Company Limited 7th Floor, Station House Stamford New Road Altrincham Cheshire WA14 1EP Yours sincerely Anthony M Sultan Managing Director, BrunelFranklin.com Executive Committee Member - Claims Standards Council ------- Issued on behalf of BrunelFranklin.com "BANK CHARGES TEST CASE A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME" Millions of consumers could be fobbed off for three years or more BrunelFranklin.com, one of the largest regulated claims management companies in the UK, has serious concerns that consumers are again being badly short-changed and misled by the financial services sector. BrunelFranklin.com is of the firm view that the recent OFT Agreement leading to a Waiver on Bank Charges cases and a Stay on related Court proceedings is totally against the consumer interest. In reality, it could be more than three years until consumers know where they stand. BrunelFranklin believes that just like the Governor of the Bank of England was recently called to account by the Treasury Select Committee, the Public Administration Committee should be appointed to review the conduct of both the OFT, the FSA and FOS in this matter. These views are echoed by other leading players in the claims sector, including specialist solicitors Miller Gardner Solicitors. BrunelFranklin.com believes that the public do not understand the very limited nature of the Bank Charges Test Case because it only seeks to deal with certain preliminary issues, and is not structured so as to deal with the issue of whether excessive Bank Charges are lawful or not. The net result is that it could be years before there is clarity on where people stand with their bank charges. Anthony M Sultan, managing director of BrunelFranklin.com, said: "The Test Case has been brought by the OFT in its capacity as Regulator, and supported by The FSA. The OFT is concerned primarily with the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which deals with the question of fairness. The Test Case seeks to determine whether the Regulations apply to bank charges or not. The OFT believes that the Regulations apply, and the Banks believe they are exempt from the Regulations. Therefore, in itself, the question of whether or not the Regulations apply does nothing to resolve matters one way or another, whatever the outcome of the Test Case. "Although well intentioned, the OFT Agreement has the effect of providing the Banks with a moratorium on repayments, and allows them to continue charging. It is well known that until the Agreement was concluded at the end of this year, Banks were voluntarily refunding 100% of such charges when faced with Court proceedings. In hiding behind the Waiver, the banks will save an estimated £500m on claims they would have been paying out, this year alone. "It is difficult not to draw an inference that the Banks must feel their position is in serious jeopardy, and they are stringing the public along for as long as they can. "We have written to the FSA and FOS in the strongest possible terms, outlining we feel the Waiver is so one sided in favour of the Banks and should be withdrawn immediately. Furthermore, we are involved with ongoing briefings with a number of MPs across all parties who agree with our stance." Rodney Gardner, director of Miller Gardner Solicitors, says: "Whilst the OFT proceedings allow the OFT to seek an injunction and to consider the position on penalty charges at common law, it does appear that the law of unintended consequences has given the Banks an unexpected windfall in freezing complaints; this has resulted in Court actions being Stayed, and Banks being allowed to continue making excessive - and in some cases increased - charges in the interim. The Banks are cock a hoop at the negotiated deal that can only be bad news for consumers." Whilst in the very long run the OFT Agreement may eventually claim to champion the consumers' corner, in the short-medium term of 1-3 years it has done exactly the opposite. Anthony M Sultan concludes: "Hundreds of thousands of Bank Charges claims have been submitted over the past 12 months. It was open to any Bank, at any stage, to allow Courts to adjudicate on the common law position regarding penalties not least, as well as the Regulations. Had this taken place, appeals to the High Court could have been dealt with by now and the law clarified. The OFT, FSA and FOS between them have done nothing to accelerate the process, indeed they have in fact exacerbated the situation; one can only assume that this is because they are protecting the Banks that fund their existence." ENDS Notes to editors The legal arguments If the Regulations (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) do not apply, it does not mean that such charges are lawful - because the common law position that has been adopted on behalf of bank customers in Court claims to date, is that the Banks, irrespective of the Regulations, cannot charge the customer more than the actual cost incurred by the Bank as a result of the default by the customer; i.e, going overdrawn without authority. In practice, the cost to the Bank is minimal, yet, typically £35 or more is debited to customers' accounts. On the other hand, if the OFT obtains a positive ruling that the Regulations apply, it does not mean that the charges are unfair, as there would have to be a further hearing in such circumstances, for the Courts to consider whether fairness does or does not apply. This is likely to take a further period on top of the 12 months that has already been agreed as the initial term of the Waiver in the OFT Agreement. It should be noted that the initial review that the FSA promised after two months seems to have been totally ignored or forgotten by the FSA; the FSA has remained silent on this and not even bothered to comment on their website. The only reference that can be found to this is buried away in paragraph 43 of the memorandum 'Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock's Liquidity Crisis' from the FSA to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007. The 2 month review has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on". Hardship cases Whilst the Agreement reuires banks to entertain hardship cases Rodney Gardner of Miller Gardner Solicitors has confirmed that in practice Banks merely take advantage of the Stay and ignore matters. One Miller Gardner client is currently owed more than £17,000 in bank charges deemed penalties, and notwithstanding the repossession of his house, the presentation of a Bankruptcy petition and legal proceedings being in train against him, the Bank refuses to negotiate or agree the case can go forward. These are apparently not sufficient grounds for a hardship case: "At the very least, I would have expected the Bank to pay out," says Rodney Gardner, "but instead it is seeking a Stay from the Courts, which I view as an utter disgrace". Press contact BeyondPR www.beyondpr.co.uk Mobile: 07930 697773 Issued on behalf of BrunelFranklin.com "BANK CHARGES TEST CASE A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME" Millions ofconsumers could be fobbed off for three years or more BrunelFranklin.com, one of the largest regulated claims management companies in the UK, has serious concerns that consumers are again being badly short-changed and misled by the financial services sector. BrunelFranklin.com is of the firm view that the recent OFT Agreement leading to a Waiver on Bank Charges cases and a Stay on related Court proceedings is totally against the consumer interest. In reality, it could be more than three years until consumers know where they stand. BrunelFranklin believes that just like the Governor of the Bank of England was recently called to account by the Treasury Select Committee, the Public Administration Committee should be appointed to review the conduct of both the OFT, the FSA and FOS in this matter. These views are echoed by other leading players in the claims sector, including specialist solicitors Miller Gardner Solicitors. BrunelFranklin.com believes that the public do not understand the very limited nature of the Bank Charges Test Case because it only seeks to deal with certain preliminary issues, and is not structured so as to deal with the issue of whether excessive Bank Charges are lawful or not. The net result is that it could be years before there is clarity on where people stand with their bank charges. Anthony M Sultan, managing director of BrunelFranklin.com, said: "The Test Case has been brought by the OFT in its capacity as Regulator, and supported by The FSA. The OFT is concerned primarily with the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which deals with the question of fairness. The Test Case seeks to determine whether the Regulations apply to bank charges or not. The OFT believes that the Regulations apply, and the Banks believe they are exempt from the Regulations. Therefore, in itself, the question of whether or not the Regulations apply does nothing to resolve matters one way or another, whatever the outcome of the Test Case. "Although well intentioned, the OFT Agreement has the effect of providing the Banks with a moratorium on repayments, and allows them to continue charging. It is well known that until the Agreement was concluded at the end of this year, Banks were voluntarily refunding 100% of such charges when faced with Court proceedings. In hiding behind the Waiver, the banks will save an estimated £500m on claims they would have been paying out, this year alone. "It is difficult not to draw an inference that the Banks must feel their position is in serious jeopardy, and they are stringing the public along for as long as they can. "We have written to the FSA and FOS in the strongest possible terms, outlining we feel the Waiver is so one sided in favour of the Banks and should be withdrawn immediately. Furthermore, we are involved with ongoing briefings with a number of MPs across all parties who agree with our stance." …/cont Rodney Gardner, director of Miller Gardner Solicitors, says: "Whilst the OFT proceedings allow the OFT to seek an injunction and to consider the position on penalty charges at common law, it does appear that the law of unintended consequences has given the Banks an unexpected windfall in freezing complaints; this has resulted in Court actions being Stayed, and Banks being allowed to continue making excessive - and in some cases increased – charges in the interim. The Banks are cock a hoop at the negotiated deal that can only be bad news for consumers." Whilst in the very long run the OFT Agreement may eventually claim to champion the consumers’ corner, in the short-medium term of 1-3 years it has done exactly the opposite. Anthony M Sultan concludes: "Hundreds of thousands of Bank Charges claims have been submitted over the past 12 months. It was open to any Bank, at any stage, to allow Courts to adjudicate on the common law position regarding penalties not least, as well as the Regulations. Had this taken place, appeals to the High Court could have been dealt with by now and the law clarified. The OFT, FSA and FOS between them have done nothing to accelerate the process, indeed they have in fact exacerbated the situation; one can only assume that this is because they are protecting the Banks that fund their existence." ENDS Notes to editors The legal arguments If the Regulations (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) do not apply, it does not mean that such charges are lawful - because the common law position that has been adopted on behalf of bank customers in Court claims to date, is that the Banks, irrespective of the Regulations, cannot charge the customer more than the actual cost incurred by the Bank as a result of the default by the customer; i.e, going overdrawn without authority. In practice, the cost to the Bank is minimal, yet, typically £35 or more is debited to customers’ accounts. On the other hand, if the OFT obtains a positive ruling that the Regulations apply, it does not mean that the charges are unfair, as there would have to be a further hearing in such circumstances, for the Courts to consider whether fairness does or does not apply. This is likely to take a further period on top of the 12 months that has already been agreed as the initial term of the Waiver in the OFT Agreement. It should be noted that the initial review that the FSA promised after two months seems to have been totally ignored or forgotten by the FSA; the FSA has remained silent on this and not even bothered to comment on their website. The only reference that can be found to this is buried away in paragraph 43 of the memorandum ‘Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock’s Liquidity Crisis’ from the FSA to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007. The 2 month review has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on". Hardship cases Whilst the Agreement requires banks to entertain hardship cases Rodney Gardner of Miller Gardner Solicitors has confirmed that in practice Banks merely take advantage of the Stay and ignore matters. One Miller Gardner client is currently owed more than £17,000 in bank charges deemed penalties, and notwithstanding the repossession of his house, the presentation of a Bankruptcy petition and legal proceedings being in train against him, the Bank refuses to negotiate or agree the case can go forward. These are apparently not sufficient grounds for a hardship case: "At the very least, I would have expected the Bank to pay out," says Rodney Gardner, "but instead it is seeking a Stay from the Courts, which I view as an utter disgrace". …/cont Press contact Jon Gardner BeyondPR Beyond - PR & Communications Mobile: 07930 697773 Dear Member of Parliament BANK CHARGES WAIVER UNFAIR, & TEST CASE A WASTE OF TIME Firstly I would like to thank the many MPs who acknowledged and responded to my last letter about the unfair Waiver on Bank Charges compensation cases, and to those of you who have taken the time to make detailed representations to the FSA and FOS. We are receiving cross party support for this issue, and as no other organisation seems to be lobbying on behalf of the consumer, I am writing to keep you posted on developments. The original FSA review period on the Waiver passed at the end of September. There has been no mention of this since – either in the media or on the FSA’s website. We have since discovered that hidden away in paragraph 43 of the FSA memorandum ‘Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock’s Liquidity Crisis’ (addressed to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007), that it will be reviewed at the end of this month. The initial two month review period has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on". As it appears that some decision or ‘non-decision’ is likely from the FSA at the end of this month, it is vital that your constituents are represented. Without urgent pressure from MPs, we feel that this subject will be brushed under the carpet leaving millions of consumers short-changed and in limbo for three years or more. The Waiver is in our opinion completely skewed in favour of the Banks and it should be withdrawn immediately in the interests of consumer fairness. Furthermore, the Test Case which most people think will bring about a decision on unlawful bank charges is unlikely to do so, and we feel it is a complete waste of time. It is highly unlikely that any decision will be reached under the current legal framework for up to three years, or more. Please find attached our detailed press release on this issue of the Test Case , which is going on full circulation to the national media. I would be pleased to meet with you in London or Manchester to discuss this serious issue affecting thousands of your constituents. Please do not hesitate to contact me direct on 0161 926 2579 or e-mail me on [email protected] Yours sincerely Anthony M Sultan Managing Director, BrunelFranklin.com Executive Committee Member – Claims Standards Council

OK tez Am I allowed to paste something from over there to over here, for the people who want to know but may be too laaaaaaaaaaa ytired to go and look?

What do you think of the attack on the MSE site? the underhand lengths some people will go to they must be really desperate to stop the underdog getting justice.

Thanks Tez I still have a few DDs I have been mulling over getting a Loan, pay off Bs and CCards start in new bank or leave overdraft in Barclays, pay in enough to cover the interest and go to Alliance & Leicester parachute account with everything else, but I would still have to pay off C Cards still more going out than coming in methinks:( val

Can I just say about the phone call I have just received from JESSIA MORDEN MP She is emailing me something of interest in connection with a cross party support group I will post it on mine when it comes.

HELLO is ja-de on here now, I have just had a phone call from JESSICA MORDEN MP !! I am still in shock:eek: She is championing our cause, she said that she and others are getting together, cross party support !because they think it is unfair! and she is emailing me the details she has from some company Do you want it posted here or not when I get it?

OMG Jenny I have just had a phone call from Jessica Morden MP She is championing our cause! well it sounded like it! I can't believe it, she is emailing me now I wil get back to you

OK now I think i need to do something about my debt. Is it a good move to get rid of Barclays after 45 years of banking with them and put the overdraft on to a loan with the cheapest interest rate? or should I keep barclays mounting up charges? As I knew when that stupid Bs sol. made her stupid comment to the judge! that I was 1000 under my limit!! by the end of the month I was up to the £5000 and by tomorrow will probably be hit! can't transfer any more that makes £9000 owing now. Any good tips would be nice.

by the way Ja-de have you heard of posts by Pill Boy ?

they are all over the place, not only that but over on novice my posts have turned into tez's somewhere along the way hope it is only the web and not the same interference as the attack on MSE ?

Yes thanks I was surprised when Jessica Morden phoned me like that, maybe there is some hope if they get enough support. Also I hope this is of some help to CRFX when he gets back after that disappointment!