Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Destinyofsouls

  1. I sent this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108220-fsa-review-waiver.html#post1050047
  2. I have asked this on another threads, but got no replies. The test case is to be defended by Abbey on the grounds that it is a service. The Abbey defence states quite clearly that it is a breach of contract. So, the test case has no relevance to their defence. All that needs to be proved is- are there charges for breach diproportionate to the actual costs. Is this not correct?/ Somebody put me out of my misery and tell me:confused:
  3. That's what does surprise me Jenny. The amount of people on here complaining and doing nothing! Write to your MP, the FSA, Gordon Brown, The Financial services Consumer Panel, add your name to the petition on the No 10 web site. DO something, anything. If we all pull togehter we just may be able to do something. If we do nothing, then nothing will be done
  4. Just realised what FSA stands for now............. Fish Stress Association. What about our b***dy stress with the banks?
  5. This taken from an analysis of ebay's recent trading results showing revenue up but listings down ~ except on one site apparently: "The UK site bucked the trend and grew apparently despite very expensive fees. Fortunately for eBay, UK users are used to living in an expensive environment and have all but lost any sense of value for money. For some strange reason Brits appear to enjoy the label 'Rip off Britain'!" http://www.pr-inside.com/rss/paypal-weak-dollar-do-the-trick-for-ebay-inc-r178047.htm And 'stuff the consumer Britain' !
  6. try the Financial services Consumer Panel. Again, if enough people complain about this ruling they have got to listen. ( Although I feel I am wasting my time here) but heres the link Financial Services Consumer Panel | About the Panel | Contacting us
  7. Thanks jenny, At least that's two sent. The Mp's will be terrified now! I thought this is what some people wanted, to send complaints in about the FSA, obviously I was wrong. Maybe it would be better if someone else bothered to help.
  8. Jenny I've put something here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108220-fsa-review-waiver.html#post1050047
  9. Oh dear I didn,t see that. OK........... 1 as above 2 I wish that post 1 would disappear 3 I can have 10 more wishes
  10. oops how did I do that?sorry for the repetition,
  11. In the abscence of anything else, have a look at this letter to your MP. Please let me have any comments and any way of improving it. Thanks. The link to the MP is here ( thanks davebeek) WriteToThem.com - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free Mr xxxxxxxx MP xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 1 August 2007 Dear Mr xxxxx, I am one of your constituents in Anytown. I write to you in the hope you can help me in my plight with the bank and in particular the FSA. You may be aware that on 27 July 2007, the OFT commenced litigation proceedings against the big seven banks to try and establish once and for all as to whether these overdraft fees are actually unlawful. Whilst we agree with this course of action, the FSA has waived the regulation that enforces the banks to process claims of this nature until the outcome of this hearing. This means that any claims going through the banks now for reclaiming charges (sometimes in their thousands) are put on hold and will not be processed for what could take up to two years if any appeals are allowed. The FSA has also allowed the banks to apply for a stay in all court proceedings of this nature until the case has finished. The Banks are now to apply to the Master of Rolls to issue a blanket stay on all court hearings. This is a ridiculous situation for all local people who are in the process of reclaiming charges. And, just to rub salt in the wounds, they have allowed the banks to keep on charging!!! The majority of the people I have spoken to ( including myself) were not able to afford the court fees to take the claim to the next step. They have had to save every spare penny to raise the £120.00 needed so they could take the bank to court. In some cases where the claim was over £5000.00 they have had to stump up £250.00, something which was very, very hard for these people to find, considering it was the high cost of these charges that have put them in this position. Some even took out short term loans so they could take the bank to court to try and recoup some of these charges. They are now left with no claim, no compensation and hundreds of pounds out of pocket. Although there may be a slim chance of them being able to recoup some of the court costs, the issue is that they should be allowed to continue with this claim and get their charges back, as have thousands of consumers all over the country. To allow the banks to still charge and not allow the consumer the right to reclaim is against everything the FSA and the OFT and the FOS are supposed to stand for. The OFT web site states : The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive The FSA website states : We have a wide range of rule-making, investigatory and enforcement powers to enable us to meet four statutory objectives summarised as one overall aim: to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets and to help retail consumers achieve a fair deal The FOS Website states; So when we look at a complaint, we give both sides a fair hearing. Protecting consumer interests? - help retail consumers achieve a fair deal? Give BOTH sides a fair hearing? One word that appears in all of their statements is FAIR. How is this fair? How can they be protecting the consumer interest by stopping them reclaiming what is rightfully theirs and still allowing the banks to charge these ridiculously high penalty charges.? I understand that the banks disagree they are unlawful, so why have they kept paying out to consumers at the rate of around £500 million in the last 12 months? This alone should tell the FSA that the consumer has to keep claiming against the banks. This situation alone will save the banks hundreds of millions of pounds, firstly through not paying out claims, not having to pay legal fees and more importantly, due to the Limitation Act 1980, the longer this case goes on the more they will save under the 6 yr rule of the above Act. So, whilst this will save the banks money, the consumer goes further and further into debt by having charges still applied. This is just the tip of the iceberg Mr xxxxx, I am sure there are many more people out there that will be destined for financial hardship as a result of this legislation. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of consumers all over the country who have started their claims and some may also be made bankrupt by allowing the banks to still charge. All this caused by a regulator who is supposed to have the consumer in their best interest. I would like to see how they explain that this benefits them. The problem with all this is, it was all done behind closed doors for months without anyone knowing except the banks, the FSA , the OFT and the FOS, and then, without a care in the world for consumers or anyone else, put into practice. The nice little arrangement that the banks had already sorted with the FSA, the OFT and the FOS, the three regulators set up to protect the public. Mr xxxxxx, someone is having a laugh at your constituents’ expense and it is not the slightest bit funny for us. I also understand that It could also interfere with our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998. Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “ In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.” It is unreasonable to allow an indeterminate stay which depends on some litigation unconnected to the instant case, between other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant case. It is not clear that the matter will be heard as predicted and in the event that it does go to trial, there could then be appeals and subsequent appeals so that the matter might become protracted and even last as long as 3 years or more – from the date of the commencement of trial. I sincerely hope that you can help us in getting the FSA to revoke this unfair and biased legislation and allow the consumer to continue to fight for what is rightfully theirs. I thank you for you time.
  12. I think so Jenny, but no-one seems to be bothered that much. Maybe it's a bad idea after all.
  13. Excellent news that fezza, wish all courts were like that. The thing that amuses me is: It was decided to go to the high court because the whole chargy thing was a 'lottery'. Judges didn't know what to do, some were throwing out, some were against banks. What has happened now? Judges don't know what to do, some are staying , some are not. It's the bl***y same only with a different regulation!!!
  14. Hi Guido, I told her to ignore them and just file for judgment. No doubt they will apply to set it aside, but i tend to think it make it a little more annoying for them when they get judgment.
  15. A freind just called who's got a claim with Abbey for 3,900. No defence has been entered ( last day 29/7/07). She rang the court today to see if a defence had been filed. The guy at the court said 'No not yet, you need to ring their solicitors and find out when they are going to file one' She said ' but I can just apply for judgement cant I? he said ' there's no point, they will be applying for a stay anyway' WTF is going on?
  16. Gordon Brown is preparing for a general election in October this year. Now is the time to put pressure on him and your MP's Anybody any idea how to start this ball rolling?
  17. No decision on bank charges before 2008 - Times Online
  18. 1 to have a lager glass that never empties 2 To have a purse that never empties 3 To have another 20 wishes
  19. The government has ruled that fish may feel pain and will draw up a charter of rights to protect them from inhumane treatment in research laboratories, writes Michelle McGinty. Home Office guidelines will ensure that fish used for scientific study are monitored for signs of stress. Scientists will be required to “enrich” the animals’ lives by putting shelters and other features in aquariums. The charter also stipulates that laboratories and universities should “retire” fish at a reasonable age so they can enjoy their old age
  20. the bill of rights 1689. Apparently hasn't been changed.Not sure what it means but looked good That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal; That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal; And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. English bill of rights 1689 AD
  21. I rang the FSA yesterday and they told me that you have to apply to the bank in writing outlining your case for hardship. They will then decide if it warrants processing. Then you have to take it to the Ombudsman for them to act on your behalf.
  22. Jenny I fully agree with you see here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108220-fsa-review-waiver.html
  23. Thank you for the template letters for these, however, could someone just clear up a rew things for me. The banks are automatically going to ask for a stay I understand so: 1 Can we pre-empt this and send the letter in to the court with a covering letter saying I understand that the bank will apply for a stay, if they do, then this is my reply etc.... 2 If the bank apply at the directions/full hearing stage in court, how do we approach that, as we cannot reads the letter out etc.. 3 If a stay is granted by the judge , we have to pay the £35 to appeal? Is that worth it as it was the judge that ordered it and unlikely to overturn it? 4 If an appeal is granted until the result of the test case, is that set in stone, or can it be revoked if something else develops after the 7/14 days? 5 Abbeys defence is based on fees for a service ( test case) their normal defence was on the basis of breach of contract. Would there be another letter more beneficial to Abbeys application for a stay?
  • Create New...