RED ALERT: FSA & BOE fiddle while Rome burns.

[alecmac18]

The FSA (Financial Services Authority) is currently in the process of making firms who operate in the industry operate under new regulations which are mean to 'treat customers fairly' - sounds good - right?

 

Lets see if the FSA are treating bank charge claimaints fairly with their 'waiver' for banks that lets them stop paying claims.

 

We have defined 6 consumer outcomes which explain what we want TCF to achieve for consumers.

 

 

Outcome 1: Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture;

 

- Is treating bank charge claimants fairly central to FSA corporate culture?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly;

 

- Does the FSA waiver help banks or claimants? Is this waiver designed to meet our needs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale;

 

- Were we informed or consulted about this waiver? No didn't think so..

 

 

 

Outcome 4 - just waffle

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is both of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect;

 

- Is the FSA performing to expectations? Well Yes actually - but mine were low anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 6: consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.

 

- Do we have barriers put in place as a result of the FSA waiver? Why Yes.......Yes we do.......as a result of the FSA no less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AHHHHHHHHH - If our own regulator can't treat us fairly what chance do we have.................

[Parkvale]

Unless the: Defined 6 consumer outcomes which explain what we want TCF to achieve for consumers. Becomes a compulsary requirement, then they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

[alecmac18]

I have mentioned this before but now \I think it is much, much more urgent. The failure of the FSA to bring the case in unfair overdraft charges to a close is now threatening to undermine stability within the UK banking system.

 

I don't use these words lightly......but we're going down a dangerous path.

 

Average Uk household income after tax (adjusting downwards by stripping out the top 20% of wage 'earners' and increasing by 10% for added benefits for kids etc)

 

Total = anywhere from £1600 to £700 depending on number of kids, single family etc....

 

BANKS ARE CURRENTLY CHARGING PEOPLE UP TO £300 PER MONTH WHILE ALL COSTS LIKE RENT, GAS, ELECTRIC, FOOD, TRANSPORT ETC ETC ARE RISING.

 

 

What happens when bills get too much?

 

1. Credit cards go unpaid

2. Personal loans go unpaid (witness London and Scottish)

3. Rent goes unpaid (see BTL house prices fallings as a result)

 

Most importantly: PEOPLE REVERT TO CASH: this as a direct result of no longer being able to trust their bank as a result of bank charges eating up any income (income they need to live)

 

Net Result: Massive deflation in asset backed paper and 9x loss of lendable funds to the banking sector.

 

 

Final Result? Meltdown.

 

 

And what just might stop it from happening? (or at least delay it for a while).

 

Yes..........Just refund those charges. There is a legal, effective, immediate way to inject cash into the economy: where it is needed most - in [people pockets. The FSA has the power to do it.

 

 

And if they don't? They might just end up being held responsible for the mess that follows.

[alecmac18]

As I sit here eagerly awaiting the FSA test case I'm getting increasing worried at the stories that keep running accross my screen.

 

I've mentioned the systemic threats to the economy before in allowing banks to continue to charge people massivly inflated charges:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/125984-fsa-risking-breakdown-trust.html

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/125284-needs-helicopter-drop-fsa.html

 

 

It might be too late.......

 

Look at the latest job cuts.......

 

Weak US dollar forces Rolls-Royce to cut jobs - Telegraph

Robbie Williams to strike over EMI job cuts - Telegraph

Laundry and Cleaning News

Citi turns to its prince again - Telegraph

 

This is a small fraction of the jobs losses announced in the last few days and they span over engineering, consumer goods and financials.

 

 

RED ALERT: Are you listening BOE & FSA?

 

Jobs are collapsing, house prices are collapsing (just look at how popular housepricecrash.co.uk is now), discrecionary spending is gone. Retail stocks are crashing. This is it. This is what systemic risk is made of.

 

Both the BOE and the FSA have a joint mandate to prevent just this type of systemic risk from occuring. JUST WHAT THE HELL DID YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN WHEN YOU ALLOW BANKS TO TAKE £1 BILLION PER YEAR FROM BANK ACCOUNTS?

 

And here is the clincher: Both the BOE and the FSA still have the power to intervene and halt bank charges immediately in 'the interests of financial stability'. If there was ever a time to use that power it would be now. What just might save the UK economy is a cash injection. There currently exists a legal, regulated, and orderly way to make this happen. REFUND THE DAMNN CHARGES.

 

In a few months it will be too late. If this case goes to appeal or drags on there wont be any consumers OR banks left.

 

 

In the meantime the bank that rhymes with Shabby has just displayed its brilliance when commissioning and interpreting in-house reasearch.

 

Unexpected events cause widespread financial hardship

 

From the article:

 

"New research published by Abbey reveals that over the past two years, almost 15 million Britons have experienced some sort of financial hardship because of a life-changing event."

 

Hmmm - 15 million you say? A life changing event? Like.....I dont know.........how about in excess of £500 per year in OD charges from all those 15 million customers. I bet that helped their financial position.

[alecmac18]

Quite a good rundown about the FSA's blind loyalty to the banks to the detriment of consumers in the Fool today.

 

Bank Charges Claim Vs. The FSA | Yahoo! Finance UK

[alecmac18]

The Uk economy is currently standing on a knife edge. Today the FT100 almost touched 6000. House prices are falling and the amount of disposable cash available to people is at an all time low.

 

The OFT test case - while well meaning - has run its course. The sheer scale, level size and frequency of bank charges is now at an all time high. I have regularly spoken to people who have had literally £100's taken from their accounts each and every month. Not one of these people could afford £10 to go missing let alone upwads of £300+ (which is all to regular).

 

However all actions have consequences. the OFT, FSA and the Government might not give two hoots about people on benefits, fixed incomes and pensions. However all these people pay bills which support the wider economy. Gas, electric, SKY TV, supermarkets, clothes shops and personal loan and credit card payments. R

 

All of these payments are connected to the wider economy and support much larger amounts of debt than the £1 billion a year banks charge. But if banks continue to take £1 billion a year from consumers at source (via robbing it from your current account) they will contribute to unmitigated disaster.

 

Without a doubt - and faster than anyone thinks - if the OFT Test case continues in its current form and the banks continue to take the same level of charges - we will witness the biggest ever default accross all financial asset classes. This is 100% guaranteed.

 

What ****es me off is the fact that the FSA is actually (on the face of it) not a bad regulator. Its Treating Customers Fairly doctrine is actually quite good - except for one thing - it does not include bank current accounts.

 

There exists - right now - a legal, orderly and regulated way to put cold, hard cash into the hands of consumers - which will support the wider economy. Its a great oppertunity. The banks can even write it off against tax. It can even be done quickly - and might just help UK PLC trundle along a bit longer.

 

What also ****es me off is the fact that the FSA (along with the Bank Of England) has a mandate to look at the broader picture and see that extreme levels of bank charges will have unintended consequences.

 

I've said it before - but the FSA has the power - at the stroke of a pen - to do whatever it likes with regards to banks charges. The OFT is but a pawn in the game.

 

I've still got hope that they will come to their senses - but time really is running out - very shortly it wont matter - if the OFT case goes on for a year (or even 6 months) it will be too late. Defaults will rise, people will go insolvant and bankrupt, share prices will fall, house prices will plummett and books will be written about the great crash of 2008 and people will ask 'was there anything that could be done'

 

And I'll say (from my cardboard box) "We'll Yes, Yes there was - They could have refunded the charges and propped up the whole damnn system"

 

[Guest Wild Billy]

I've said it before about your posts...

 

[alecmac18]

Brace for impact: This is what a collapse looks like.

 

[alecmac18]

However: Wild Billy, rather than just post pictures. If you disagree with the premise of my post at least say why. Its called discussion.

[bloomingflower]

Hi alecmac18

 

You might have to ignore the negative energy coming from some peoples posts!! and although everyone is entitled to their own views ,its good to have a healthy discussion on these forums.

 

No disrespect to Wild Billy, but maybe some people are too well orf and dont have charges slapped on their accounts to even bother with the issue of bank charges and the test case, but for the rest of us on these boards who suffer these ludicrous charges, it isnt a joke anymore.

 

I have to 100% agree with your above post Alec, yes, people are suffering and struggling to make ends meet from month to month because of these charges, and as you have said, it will have a detrimental effect on the uk economy, if not already.

 

But as we know, it would be much too easy for all the bigwigs to come to a conclusion just like that, I guess the banks will want to fight it out tooth and nail, after all, the beggars stand to lose their £1 billion a year profits from all of us.

 

it would be fantastic to not have to wait long weeks and months for a result...

Lets just hope the OFT fight it out tooth and nail twice as hard and whip their asses a.s.a.p

 

 

B.Flower xx

[Guest Wild Billy]

However: Wild Billy, rather than just post pictures. If you disagree with the premise of my post at least say why. Its called discussion.

 

Most of the threads you start here are nonsense to be fair. I'm not sure how to even begin discussing them- yesterday SKY's shares were going to drop because of bank charges and today 15 million people won't pay their bills because of bank charges. I would say it is scaremongering but I think it is SO ridiculous and SO uninformed that I don't think anyone could possibly take it seriously. The economy may suffer, some shares may fall and people may not pay their bills but if you think bank charges are a central factor then all I can say is this- I'm sorry mate, but you are talking absolute rubbish. Unfortunately, people like you are a menace and you'd be better off thinking a little harder before you post.

[mrsfoot]

I can see the theory behaind the thought. Yes if banks continue to take charges from accounts that belong to vulnerable people then those said people will not be able to keep up payments.

 

So what do we do...well telling all who will listen that the floor of the economy will drop out from underneath the UK and we will live in cardboard boxes may be harsh and slightly OTT.

 

But if we help those who are on benefits / low incomes to protect their money by using right of appropriation for the basics in life (and SKY TV IS NOT ONE OF THEM!!!) then the UK will dwindle on and survive the "crash of 2008".

 

Just a thought, Mrs Foot x

[alecmac18]

"Unfortunately, people like you are a menace and you'd be better off thinking a little harder before you post."

 

I find it interesting that you rubbish the post but you don't provide an alternative view. Its one way of arguing I suppose.

 

 

I don't think that bank charges are the main factor causing problems in the wider economy. However stopping the charges could have direct, immediate and positive effects. They certainly don't help matters now do they?

 

 

The far bigger menace Mr Billy is the fact that banks can rip cash out of your account at will and there is bugger all that can be done about it. If you dont think that this will affect the wider economy then you are dead wrong. Every pound that is deducted at source is another that cant be spent elsewhere. If follows that this will cause problems down the road.

 

Perhaps you should think a little harder....If the OFT case carries on for another year how do you think people are going to pay ulilities (which went up 17% the other day) - this is only one example of the EXTREME price pressure going on at the moment.

 

I think it is incredibly irresponsible for these charges to continue. At the very least there should be some sort of emergency mandate to stop charges while the case is in progress.

[Guest Wild Billy]

I find it interesting that you rubbish the post but you don't provide an alternative view. Its one way of arguing I suppose.

 

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to provide an alternative view. You say quite clearly that 15m people will stop paying their bills if the OFT test case continues. Why 25% of the population? Why not 20% of the population? Why not 5% of the population? What SPECIFIC evidence can you provide that if the OFT test case continues then that percentage of the population will stop paying bills? Which bills will they stop paying? Or will they just decrease their spending? Give me your analysis backed up with some evidence and we'll play tennis but until then you're just serving into the net and looking ridiculous.

 

And why do you say "if the OFT test case continues.."? Your title suggests if the case DOESN'T continue then 25% of the population WILL NOT stop paying bills. But that's nonsense because without the OFT taking and winning the case then the bank charges will just continue and the money will be taken anyway.

 

Do you want me to debunk your argument about SKY shares in the same way? Why pick SKY? Why decide to start a thread specifically mentioning SKY? Why not any number of other companies? The FTSE dropped dramatically across the board today but do you think ANY of that is to do SPECIFICALLY with this test case or bank charges? IF it has an impact at all which I doubt then it is incredibly minor. Shares are down largely on fears of a US recession.

 

I don't think that bank charges are the main factor causing problems in the wider economy. However stopping the charges could have direct, immediate and positive effects. They certainly don't help matters now do they?

 

This is far more moderate than almost anything you have said and has some truth to it. I'm not an economist so I really can't know the effects this would have though. Would stopping bank charges have a positive impact on the wider economy? Would people spend the money instead of saving it or paying bills? If they did all spend it then wouldn't that drive up inflation in the short-term and the BoE might then not make the expected cuts in interest rates over the next 12 months? What would have a more positive impact on the economy? More spending and higher inflation with a possible rise in interest rates as a result or a cut in interest rates? Can you tell me the behavoural effects?

 

The far bigger menace Mr Billy is the fact that banks can rip cash out of your account at will and there is bugger all that can be done about it. If you dont think that this will affect the wider economy then you are dead wrong. Every pound that is deducted at source is another that cant be spent elsewhere. If follows that this will cause problems down the road.

 

Perhaps you should think a little harder....If the OFT case carries on for another year how do you think people are going to pay ulilities (which went up 17% the other day) - this is only one example of the EXTREME price pressure going on at the moment.

 

I think it is incredibly irresponsible for these charges to continue. At the very least there should be some sort of emergency mandate to stop charges while the case is in progress.

 

Aspects of this might be partially true but I've no idea why you bang the same drum in thread after thread. You end up suggesting an emergency mandate, which may be a good idea but the implication is that without it the whole economy is going to go bust and 25% of the population will be living in doorways. What you're doing isn't informed and isn't helpful to anyone. If you have nothing to say then don't say anything. You don't need to invent stuff all the time and then dramatise it. It's fine. Really. We can live without it.

 

I assume you're lonely or bored which is why you feel the need to get some sort of attention and affimation through these threads but it would be better if you didn't. People coming here need factual information and be introduced to informed discussion about bank charges. You provide neither.

[crash3903]

I assume you're lonely or bored which is why you feel the need to get some sort of attention and affimation through these threads but it would be better if you didn't.

Not very grown up now is it (Only joking)

[GuidoT]

Can we please keep this thread civil and stop the personal insults.

 

If you cannot refrain from such then please do not post anything.

[alecmac18]

"Why 25% of the population? Why not 20% of the population? Why not 5% of the population? What SPECIFIC evidence can you provide that if the OFT test case continues then that percentage of the population will stop paying bills?"

 

A: Absolutely none. It’s simply a guess. But given that we are experiencing rapid inflation, high real interest rates, job losses and a weakening pound then I think it is safe to assume that the pain will be widespread. 25% could end up being on the low side.

 

"Without the OFT taking and winning the case then the bank charges will just continue and the money will be taken anyway."

 

Not necessarily. It didn't have to happen this way. The OFT taking on the case was the WORST possible outcome. The OFT has taken on a case and managed to string it out going on six months now (and they are saying that we have another 12 months to go). That is unacceptable. There is absolutely no reason why the OFT needed to get involved. The banks could have has their day in County Court. The FSA could have simply regulated the market (as happens with EVERY other financial product bar current accounts). Now consumers who were successful in court have had their claims delayed by the OFT while their bank is still allowed to charge them.

 

 

Why pick SKY?

 

A: Why not. Its one of the first things to go when the money goes.

 

 

"The FTSE dropped dramatically across the board today but do you think ANY of that is to do SPECIFICALLY with this test case or bank charges?"

 

A: Nothing. It’s a wider symptom of a declining economy. I never said it had to do with bank charges. But notice no one bought any sofas in the sales? Guess charges don't help do they? Bank charges are hardly a positive influence on retail stocks.

 

 

"Would stopping bank charges have a positive impact on the wider economy?"

 

A: Yes. 100% Guaranteed.

 

"Would people spend the money instead of saving it or paying bills?"

 

A: Who cares, either way it’s helpful.

 

 

"If they did all spend it then wouldn't that drive up inflation in the short-term and the BoE might then not make the expected cuts in interest rates over the next 12 months?"

 

A: Good point. But inflation figures are already manipulated. Should the BOE cut interest rates? I'm not sure they should. If they do the pound will fall and imported goods will be more expensive. But to say that refunding bank charges would be inflationary.........perhaps they would.......but in a good way since they would back up spending that helps the rest of the economy. In any case - I think we can agree that the money does not belong to the banks anyway. It belongs to the people it was taken from. So inflationary or not it’s a moot point. If that’s not your view then you're probably on the wrong forum.

 

"The implication is that without it the whole economy is going to go bust and 25% of the population will be living in doorways."

 

A: I didn't exactly say that - re-read

 

 

"I assume you're lonely or bored which is why you feel the need to get some sort of attention and affirmation through these threads but it would be better if you didn't. People coming here need factual information and be introduced to informed discussion about bank charges. You provide neither"

 

A: Lonely? No. Board? Today - Yes, I'm working from home. But not anymore in fact this discussion has been great.

 

However I actually assume you work for a bank, The OFT or similar. Nothing concrete but you've only made a few posts and you give the impression that you don't think the banks should lose this case............I may be wrong.......as I said.....it’s just an impression.

 

"People coming here need factual information and be introduced to informed discussion about bank charges. You provide neither."

 

A: You want factual information about bank charges? Okay..

 

The OFT test case has been a disgrace. They would have been better to stay out of it. It has caused millions of claims to be put on hold while giving the banks a license to steal. This is a fact.

 

Another fact: If you think that continuing to levy bank charges won't have wider economic implications.....regardless of what those implications might be then you are sadly mistaken.

[Guest Wild Billy]

Can we please keep this thread civil and stop the personal insults.

 

If you cannot refrain from such then please do not post anything.

 

I said that quite seriously. A lot of people post excessively on message boards because they are lonely or bored; they just need the feeling of importance, and a sense of community and connection. It's not an insult at all, just a psychological condition so best not to accuse me of anything buddy.

 

As some sort of moderator, you might want to think about talking to our friend yourself. You could do a lot worse than deleting some of his continuous threads or do you think they are a useful contribution and aid discussion? I'd be genuinely interested to know.

[alecmac18]

"A lot of people post excessively on message boards because they are lonely or bored; they just need the feeling of importance."

 

Unlike your good self of course.

[crash3903]

"A lot of people post excessively on message boards because they are lonely or bored; they just need the feeling of importance."

 

Unlike your good self of course.

 

[renegotiation]

I think everyone understands your respective positions guys. You're just going to keep posting back and deconstructing each other though. You'd probably come to some consensus over a chat and a drink, but textual forums aren't really conducive to that after threads have developed in this manner.

[richwhit1]

To conclude..........

 

Wild Billy - your opinion as to what will happen on the test case. Banks win, OFT win, compromise deal?? be interested (in no more than 200 words!!) what is going to happen.

 

Alec - your opinion ??

 

Lets just say in how many days / weeks / months / decades it will be interesting to see who go it right!!

 

Be honest guys - no sitting on the fence - your calls

[alecmac18]

Ok....to conclude....

 

Ideal world: The FSA step in (late in the day) and take over the matter. They simply regulate current accounts (as they do every other financial product) They have the mandate to do this if they want to. Politically it would be very embarressing for the OFT but I've come to the view that to allow the case to continue for another year would be disasterous economically. This is what I think should happen. And the FSA aren't daft......they may come round to this view in time. Certainly their (internal) consumer panels have been sounding the alarm bells regarding systemic risk for the last few months so its not outside the relm of possibility.

 

If this happens they will almost certainly keep some form of charge....but they will cap the level. What the level will be I don't know. The banks would rather retain the ability to charge OD fees than lose this cash cow completely.

 

So.......for a prediction.........I'm going for some sort of big resolution in about Apr/May. Probably a 'grand bargain' that helps all involved save face.

[Guest Wild Billy]

It would genuinely help if you could learn to use the quote function.

 

"Why 25% of the population? Why not 20% of the population? Why not 5% of the population? What SPECIFIC evidence can you provide that if the OFT test case continues then that percentage of the population will stop paying bills?"

 

A: Absolutely none. It’s simply a guess. But given that we are experiencing rapid inflation, high real interest rates, job losses and a weakening pound then I think it is safe to assume that the pain will be widespread. 25% could end up being on the low side..

 

Where to start?

• You admit you have no evidence and it's simply a guess. Yet you chose to start a thread.
  
• The UK is not experiencing rapid inflation. That is COMPLETELY factually incorrect.
  
• Interest rates are NOT high by historical standards and actually on their way down. Again you are COMPLETELY factually incorrect.
  
• Some job losses but still record employment levels in the UK.

Oh dear.

 

""Without the OFT taking and winning the case then the bank charges will just continue and the money will be taken anyway."

 

Not necessarily. It didn't have to happen this way. The OFT taking on the case was the WORST possible outcome. The OFT has taken on a case and managed to string it out going on six months now (and they are saying that we have another 12 months to go). That is unacceptable. There is absolutely no reason why the OFT needed to get involved. The banks could have has their day in County Court. The FSA could have simply regulated the market (as happens with EVERY other financial product bar current accounts). Now consumers who were successful in court have had their claims delayed by the OFT while their bank is still allowed to charge them...

 

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

• The OFT taking the case was the worse possible outcome? That's so blinkered and wrong that I can hardly muster the energy to tell you why. Is it wrong for the millions and millions of people who don't reclaim bank charges, many of whom will be the most vulnerable and elderly? As long as the thousands who have reclaimed successfully or have cases in the pipeline are successful then screw them right? And it's a terrible thing to set legal precedent and put this matter to bed once and for all? Yeah, you convinced me, no need for the OFT to get involved at all. What was I thinking!
  
• You obviously have no concept of how long court cases of this magnitude and subsequent appeals take. I'm not sure what it's got to do with the OFT either? Do they set the length of the court case? No.

Why pick SKY?

 

A: Why not. Its one of the first things to go when the money goes.

 

"Why not?" isn't the greatest response. How many people have SKY? How many of those are specifically affected by Bank Charges to the extent they need to get rid of it? Won't other factors have an input too? Couldn't you just as easily say rising gas costs will affect the share price? How many people does it need to get rid of it before it directly affects the share price? I don't know and neither do you. Why start a thread about it? What was the point? What were you trying to acheive?

 

"The FTSE dropped dramatically across the board today but do you think ANY of that is to do SPECIFICALLY with this test case or bank charges?"

 

A: Nothing. It’s a wider symptom of a declining economy. I never said it had to do with bank charges. But notice no one bought any sofas in the sales? Guess charges don't help do they? Bank charges are hardly a positive influence on retail stocks.

 

Nothing?! But you implied it did?! You posted a thread about 25% of the population not being able to pay their bills in a forum about bank charges. And you mentioned the downturn in the economy and linked bank charges (and in other threads too).

 

"Would stopping bank charges have a positive impact on the wider economy?"

 

A: Yes. 100% Guaranteed.

 

100% guaranteed? Wrong. I've already explained why.

 

"Would people spend the money instead of saving it or paying bills?"

 

A: Who cares, either way it’s helpful.

 

Wrong. How does saving money help boost the economy? That's money not being spent.

 

"If they did all spend it then wouldn't that drive up inflation in the short-term and the BoE might then not make the expected cuts in interest rates over the next 12 months?"

 

A: Good point. But inflation figures are already manipulated. Should the BOE cut interest rates? I'm not sure they should. If they do the pound will fall and imported goods will be more expensive. But to say that refunding bank charges would be inflationary.........perhaps they would.......but in a good way since they would back up spending that helps the rest of the economy. In any case - I think we can agree that the money does not belong to the banks anyway. It belongs to the people it was taken from. So inflationary or not it’s a moot point. If that’s not your view then you're probably on the wrong forum.

 

How are inflation figures manipulated? Tell me. It's a bold statement that has no evidence to support it. And if you think inflation is a good thing then you really need to think again. It's the low inflation that will help the economy.

 

"The implication is that without it the whole economy is going to go bust and 25% of the population will be living in doorways."

 

A: I didn't exactly say that - re-read.

 

You quite obviously implied it. That's why I said you implied it and I didn't say you said it.

 

"I assume you're lonely or bored which is why you feel the need to get some sort of attention and affirmation through these threads but it would be better if you didn't. People coming here need factual information and be introduced to informed discussion about bank charges. You provide neither"

 

A: Lonely? No. Board? Today - Yes, I'm working from home. But not anymore in fact this discussion has been great.

 

However I actually assume you work for a bank, The OFT or similar. Nothing concrete but you've only made a few posts and you give the impression that you don't think the banks should lose this case............I may be wrong.......as I said.....it’s just an impression.

 

You're wrong. On all counts. I don't work for any bank, the OFT, FSA or anything similar. And I think the banks are unlikely to be successful.

 

"People coming here need factual information and be introduced to informed discussion about bank charges. You provide neither."

 

A: You want factual information about bank charges? Okay..

 

The OFT test case has been a disgrace. They would have been better to stay out of it. It has caused millions of claims to be put on hold while giving the banks a license to steal. This is a fact.

 

Another fact: If you think that continuing to levy bank charges won't have wider economic implications.....regardless of what those implications might be then you are sadly mistaken.

 

No, you've confused fact with fiction. See my previous answer about the OFT's involvement.

 

I'll leave it there and let others decide whether your thoughts hold much validity.

[renegotiation]

'It would genuinely help if you could learn to use the quote function.'

 

 

LOL. I was still working on that one myself... :)