anthonyfca
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Yes, but the eligible complainant did, being eligible via 2.7.3 Consumer def'n 2b. None of the 14 relationships apply to the shareholder. That's because complainant has to be as per 2.7.3 and in the case of shareholder add consumer glossary 2b. Rewriting the rules in post 89 does not work, because it excludes everything in 2.7.3 - it's not as simple as that. The word complainant is not used to include all eligible complainants definded in 2.7.3. I have read it a few times today and I can't see where that is implied directly or in directly. I say this because 2.7.6 states: ..... "complainant" includes all complainants, including everyone in 2.7.3 It is neither implied directly or indirectly because it is an all inclusive word and nothing needs to be implied because it is explicit in itself. So. Thanks for taking the immense time.
-
And "2b" allows second hand relationships. which is why direct substitution in 2.7.6 can fail to give the correct result.
-
2.7.3 and 2.7.6 both have to be complied with, it is not an either / or situation. You cannot comply with 2.7.6 and succeed if you do not also comply with 2.7.3. 2.7.3 defines eligible complainants 2.7.6 defines relationships that can be the subject of complaint You cannot have one without the other. And "2b" allows second hand relationships.
-
Each point within 2.7.6 specifically states complainant and not consumer. The complainant is the entity making the complaint The word "complainant" is used to include all eligible complainants defined at 2.7.3Use of the word "complainant" does not exclude consumers and everyone else defined in 2.7.3, it includes them, indeed refers to and means them as well as anyone else. It is meant to be vague because the section is about the services relationship, not the complainant who has already been defined in order to get this far.
-
As you have confirmed, the shareholder (the complainant) does not have any of these relationships with the bank. This must mean that a complaint cannot arise from a relationship that did not exsist. It does look that straight forward. If it was straightforward there would be no definitions at 2.7.3 which define the complainant including the other person as defined in 2b having the relationship. "Define complainant" Your response includes shareholders and anyone else who is unhappy regardless. Definitions of eligible complainant are of course at 2.7.3. and include the indirect other person. By virtue of 2.7.3 glossary consumer 2b the relationship can be with this other person and not directly with the consumer. I'll rewrite 2.76 with that in mind if you like, to see what that looks like.
-
It does exist by the use of such services by another person.
-
me Ok, so who does fulfil the requirements of 2.7.6? you complainant that has a complaint which arises from matters relevant to one or more of the 14 relationships define complainant
-
How about we separate "shareholder" and "consumer"?
-
Is the shareholder any of the above ? That is misquoting 2.7.6, which is not how the rule book works. It uses the undefined word "claimant" just so as to allow the attribution of the definitions is 2.7.3 and indeed the shareholder as consumer does suffer from The use of services by another person and that other person does have such a relationship. Only a consumer has this "second hand" advantage, which seems to me to be as it should be.
-
No, that's the whole point of my original post. The consumer/shareholder "(b) who has rights or interests which are derived from, or are otherwise attributable to the use of, any such services by another person; or" The use of services by another person - it is this other person whose complaint must have the relationship of 14. "To be an eligible complainant a person must also have a complaint which arises from matters relevant to one or more of the following relationships with the respondent" Where eligible complainant is first defined by 2.7.3 in order to proceed to 2.7.6 to examine the service relationship. No one is defined in 2.7.6 - they may be rejected by it, but they are not defined by it, whether shareholders or anyone else. As I said above, to understand it is necessary to substitute the definitions into use of the word complainant. 2.7.6 does not do any defining. 2.7.3 does that and it includes the situation where there is The use of services by another person.
-
If we use the word consumer, The consumer must also have a complaint which arises from matters relevant to one or more of the following relationships with the bank Ok, so who does fulfil the requirements of 2.7.6?
-
I don't think there is anyway of escaping or overcoming the requirements of 2.7.6 It's not about avoidance, it is about compliance. What it takes to comply.I think there is a deeper problem in all this and "shareholder" is acting as a smoke screen. Can we focus on consumer for the time being?
-
I think it is excellent that you are prepared to engage at this length and I thank you for it
-
Can we agree that if the consumer does not have a complaint that arises from one of the 14 relationships, the shareholder is not an eligible complainant. No.That is not what 2.7.6 says. What we may be able to agree is, with the terms as defined:To be an eligible complainant a person must also have a complaint which arises from matters relevant to one or more of the following relationships with the respondent: So can we can agree that the complaint must arise from matters relevant to one or more of the following 14 relationships?
-
For me it does what it says on the tin. I know I do look at things in a very simplistic way. Ok, for every use of the word "complainant" in 2.7.6 you must on this tin, substitute every word of 2.7.3 and then within that you must substitute every definition from the glossary into each term defined therein. Now then, how is the tin looking? Perhaps a bigger can of beans? (hope you like my imagery)
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS