Shareholder as consumer - claim against bank (live case)

[anthonyfca]

Where above you have said this:

 

"

1) a consumer

 

It would have to be established that the shareholder has rights or an interest derived from or attributable to the use of the limited companies bank account "

 

this is the actual text from the glossary:

 

(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

 

If you accept the "another person" is the "micro enterprise" (i.e. company in our case), which I think you do, then it is

 

"to the use of, any such services by another person" so using substitution this reads:

 

"to the use of, services in 2.7.6 by the company"

 

where "services in 2.7.6" include payment services and

"the company" is the "another person".

 

The "respondent" in this case is a bank.

Edited October 16, 2010 by anthonyfca
formatting

[anthonyfca]

I am trying to see in the thread where you have first mentioned the company bank account, or where I have said something that has lead you to mention the company bank account, but I cannot just see it. Please can you indicate where this started so I can have a look at it?

[anthonyfca]

aha! I think it is post 9 where you write:

 

"Taking it to the next step It would have to be established that the shareholder has rights or an intrest derived from or attributable to the use of the limited companies bank account"

 

The relevance of rights and interests is their associated value which may or may not have been damaged.

[anthonyfca]

I have been pondering this a bit further and from your writing I have this:

 

A shareholder is someone who

 

(A) has rights or interest which are derived from, or are otherwise attributable to the use of,

(B) has rights or an interest derived from or attributable to the use of

 

© any such services by a body of persons corporate

(D)the limited companies bank account

 

Where I now see you have aligned A and B and the substituted C with D.

 

The keys here are firstly that the consumer's attachment is indirect. That means the use of the services is made by the "another person" (in our case the (micro enterprise) company), whereas in your substitution it attaches the shareholders to the company bank account as if the shareholder were operating the bank. This is a direct connection whereas the connection is indirect.

 

And secondly it is the relationships with the respondent as defined in 2.7.6 (14 types of) which are relevant.

[NoButYesBut]

(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

 

First my understanding:

 

• who = Shareholder
  
• Services = a service provided by the bank
  
• another person = limited company.
  

I have had another read of the FSA handbook and had some further thoughts

 

1) The complaint would have to be about a service (for example a bank account, credit facility, investment etc) that is used by the limited company and provided by the bank.

 

2) For a shareholder to be a consumer and an eligible complainant, it must have rights or interests derived or attributable to the use of a service by the limited company which has been provided by the bank.

 

So we have four criteria, any of which met, would be sufficent to make a shareholder an eligible complainant. This criteria being:

 

• The Shareholder has rights derived from the use of a service provided a bank by the limited company.
  
• The Shareholder has interests derived from the use of a service provided a bank by the limited company.
  
• The Shareholder has rights attributable from the use of a service provided a bank by the limited company.
  
• The Shareholder has interests attributable from the use of a service provided a bank by the limited company
  

If the answer to the four above points is no, a shareholder is not a consumer and therefore not an eligible complainant.

 

The Cambrige Dictionary defines derive as "to come from something".

The Cambrige Dictionary defines attributable as "caused by"

 

• Therefore, the shareholders rights must either come from or be caused by the use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company, or
  
• The shareholder must have an interest that has either come from or be caused by the use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company.
  

The question that must be answered is what shareholder rights or interests are created by the use of a service provided by a bank by a limited company.

 

The Shareholder owns shares in a limited company and as you have said that shareholding is an asset. Ownership of that asset gives the shareholder a number of rights, as defined by the Companies Act 1985 & 2006 etc. The rights of a shareholder are detailed within my previous post. I have noted none of these rights apply to a service provided to a limited company by a bank or to any form or recourse towards a bank for any adverse value on the value of the shares.

 

I do not consider that any shareholder rights are created by the use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company. If no rights are created, the shareholder does not have any rights either derived or attibutable to use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company. This would mean with regard to rights, a shareholder is not a consumer and not an eligible complainant.

 

By the same token I do not consider that any shareholder interests are created the use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company. If no interests are created, the shareholder does not have any interests either derived or attibutable to use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company. This would mean with regard to interests, a shareholder is not a consumer and not an eligible complainant.

The bank account itself has nothing to do with the shareholder. In the sameway if I held shares in IBM, any bank account held by IBM has nothing to do with me.

 

Going by the information you have posted, it would appear that the complaint by the shareholder is that an action or inaction by the bank has effected the value of his/her shareholding. (please let me know if this assumption is incorrect).

 

Is this a publically traded company, if not how has any loss been determined or calculated.

 

If a loss has been made and the value of the shareholding has decreased due to an action or inaction of the bank, does the shareholder have any form or redress against the bank. To answer that question, I would recommend reviewing the recent action commenced by the former shareholders of Northern Rock. They consider that due to the actions of the Government the value of their shareholding decreased.

 

Different circumstances but it would appear that the basis of the argument is the same - being that the value of a shareholding has been decreased due to the action or inaction of a third party.

 

To date the proceedings brought on behalf of the Northern Rock Shareholders has been unsuccessful.

[NoButYesBut]

The following is based upon the assumption that the shareholder's complaint is that the value of their share holding has decreased due to the action or inaction of a bank, whilst providing a service to a limited company.

 

To be an eligible complainant the shareholder must be two things

 

1) A consumer (this is required by DISP 2.7.3 (1)

 

As I have stated above I do consider it highly questionable that a shareholder could be defined or classed as a consumer.

 

However, for the sake of argument and completness if a shareholder was a consumer, it must also be be:

 

2) a person that has a complaint arising from matter relevant to one of the 14 relationships as listed in 2.7.6 - being:

 

2.7.6 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: (1) the complainant is (or was) a customer or payment service user, of the respondent;

Is the shareholder a customer or payment service user of the bank. No the limited company is the customer or dependent upon the circumstances the payment service user.

(2) the complainant is (or was) a potential customer or payment service user , of the respondent;

Is or was the shareholder a potential customer or payment service user, of the bank.It could be argued that anyone is a potentional customer, this argument would overlook that the matter of the complaint must come from this relationship.

 

The complaint is with regard to the shareholder owning shares that have been devalued as a result of the action or inaction of the bank.

 

(3) the complainant is the holder, or the beneficial owner, of units in a collective investment scheme and the respondent is the operator or depositary of the scheme;

The complaint does not arise from the shareholder being the beneficial owner, of units in a collective investivment scheme, therefore this is not applicable.

(4) the complainant is a beneficiary of, or has a beneficial interest in, a personal pension scheme or stakeholder pension scheme;

The complaint does not arise from the shareholder being a beneficiary of, or has a beneficial interest in, a personal pension scheme or stakeholder pension scheme, therefore this is not applicable.

(5) the complainant is a person for whose benefit a contract of insurance was taken out or was intended to be taken out with or through the respondent;

The complaint does not arise from the shareholder being a person for whose benefit a contract of insurance was taken out or was intended to be taken out with or through the bank, therefore this is not applicable.

 

(6) the complainant is a person on whom the legal right to benefit from a claim against the respondent under a contract of insurance has been devolved by contract, assignment, subrogation or legislation (save the European Community (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2002);

The complaint does not arise from the shareholder being a person on whom the legal right to benefit from a claim against the bank under a contract of insurance has been devolved by contract, assignment, subrogation or legislation,therefore this is not applicable.

(7) the complainant relied in the course of his business on a cheque guarantee card issued by the respondent;

The complaint does not arise from the shareholder relying in the course of his/her business upon a cheque guarantee card issues by the bank, therefore this is not applicable.

(8) the complainant is the true owner or the person entitled to immediate possession of a cheque or other bill of exchange, or of the funds it represents, collected by the respondent for someone else's account;

The shareholder is not the true owner or the person entitled to immediate possession of a cheque or other bill of exchange, or of the funds it represents, collected by the bank for someone else's account, therefore this is not applicable.

(9) the complainant is the recipient of a banker's reference given by the respondent;

The complaint does not arise from the shareholder being the recipient of a bankers reference given by the bank, therefore this is not applicable.

(10) the complainant gave the respondent a guarantee or security for:

(a) a mortgage;

(b) a loan;

© an actual or prospective regulated consumer credit agreement;

(d) an actual or prospective regulated consumer hire agreement; or

(e) any linked transaction as defined in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended);

The complaint does arise from the shareholder giving the bank a guarantee, therefore this is not applicable.

(11) the complainant is a person about whom information relevant to his financial standing is or was held by the respondent in operating a credit reference agency as defined by section 145(8) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended);

The complaint does not arise from the shareholder being a person about whom information relevant to his financial standing is or was held by the bank in operating as a credit reference agency. This is not applicable because a bank is not a credit reference agency.

(12) the complainant is a person :

(a) from whom the respondent has sought to recover payment under a regulated consumer credit agreement or regulated consumer hire agreement in carrying on debt-collecting as defined by section 145(7) of the Consumer Credit Act (1974) (as amended); or6, 7

(b) in relation to whom the respondent has sought to perform duties, or exercise or enforce rights, on behalf of the creditor or owner, under a regulated consumer credit agreement or regulated consumer hire agreement in carrying on debt administration as defined by section 145(7A) of the Consumer Credit Act (1974) (as amended);

The complaint does not arise from the bank has sought to recover repayment from the shareholder or to perform duties etc, therefore this is also not applicable.

 

(13) the complainant is a beneficiary under a trust or estate of which the respondent is trustee or personal representative;

The complaint does not arise from the shareholder being a beneficiary under a trust or estate that the bank is a trustee or personal representative, therefore this is also not applicable.

 

(14) (where the respondent is a dormant account fund operator) the complainant is (or was) a customer of a bank or building society which transferred any balance from a dormant account to the respondent.

Again not applicable.

[NoButYesBut]

2.7.6 uses the word "complainant" in each of the 14 relationships. It occurs to me that the undefined word “complainant” encompasses every conceivable category of complainant including both "ineligible complainant" and "eligible complainant", 2.7.6 is NOT concerned with whether or not the complainant is otherwise eligible, but purely with the type of the relationship.

 

For the record I can not offer suggestions for possible types of complainant beyond eligible or ineligible. If the type of relationship is not listed, then an eligible complainant becomes ineligible. However, the complainant is as defined elsewhere, including consumers and indeed others.

 

DISP 2.7.3 states:

 

An eligible complainant must be a person that is:

(1)a consumer;

(2) a micro-enterprise;

 

DISP 2.7.6 states:

 

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

 

I think the use of the word also in DISP 2.7.6 is the answer.

 

To be an eligible complainant the shareholder must be a consumer (as they aren't a micro-enterprise) and must also have a complaint arising from one of the listed relationships.

 

If the shareholder is a consumer (I still do not consider that it is) but does not have a complaint arising from one of the listed relationships it is not an eligible complainant.

[anthonyfca]

Thank you so much for taking such trouble to work all this through. I have not found anyone willing to invest such time. I need to go through your text in more detail, however here is my pre breakfast comment:

 

"The question that must be answered is what shareholder rights or interests are created by the use of a service provided by a bank by a limited company."

 

There are none.

 

It is the matter of indirectness. The company has an eligible complaint under 2.7.6 item 2.

Therefore a consumer and only a consumer can stand in the shoes of the company if their share value has been damaged.

 

The circumstances are limited of course.

 

I will respond again shortly. And thank you again for taking such an interest.

[anthonyfca]

#

 

Quote Originally Posted by NoButYesBut View Post

(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

First my understanding:

 

* who = Shareholder

 

>> a consumers as defined per 2.7.3 a shareholder is not mentioned anywhere, which is why we are having this discussion.

 

* Services = a service provided by the bank

 

>> any one of the 14 eligible relationship items in 2.7.6,

 

* another person = limited company.

 

>> a micro enterprise as defined per 2.7.3

 

>> So an eligible complainant per 2.7.3 with an eligible relationship

 

 

I have had another read of the FSA handbook and had some further thoughts

 

1) The complaint would have to be about a service (for example a bank account, credit facility, investment etc) that is used by the limited company and provided by the bank.

 

2) For a shareholder to be a consumer and an eligible complainant, it must have rights or interests derived or attributable to the use of a service by the limited company which has been provided by the bank.

 

>> The company has to be an eligible complainant, not (at that point) the consumer.

 

So we have four criteria, any of which met, would be sufficent to make a shareholder an eligible complainant. This criteria being:

 

* The Shareholder has rights derived from the use of a service provided a bank by the limited company.

* The Shareholder has interests derived from the use of a service provided a bank by the limited company.

* The Shareholder has rights attributable from the use of a service provided a bank by the limited company.

* The Shareholder has interests attributable from the use of a service provided a bank by the limited company

 

If the answer to the four above points is no, a shareholder is not a consumer and therefore not an eligible complainant.

 

>> The rights or interests are not derived from the bank relationship they are derived from owning the shares.

 

The Cambrige Dictionary defines derive as "to come from something".

The Cambrige Dictionary defines attributable as "caused by"

 

* Therefore, the shareholders rights must either come from or be caused by the use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company, or

* The shareholder must have an interestautolinker.com autolinking image that has either come from or be caused by the use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company.

 

The question that must be answered is what shareholder rights or interests are created by the use of a service provided by a bank by a limited company.

 

>> It is about the right or interests that have been damaged, not created.

 

The Shareholder owns shares in a limited company and as you have said that shareholding is an asset. Ownership of that asset gives the shareholder a number of rights, as defined by the Companies Act 1985 & 2006 etc. The rights of a shareholder are detailed within my previous post. I have noted none of these rights apply to a service provided to a limited company by a bank or to any form or recourse towards a bank for any adverse value on the value of the shares.

 

>> A shareholder has a right or interest in or to the money value of that share. Shares are created by law and derive their value from the value of the company (i.e. share valuation)

 

I do not consider that any shareholder rights are created by the use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company.

 

>> I agree.

 

If no rights are created, the shareholder does not have any rights either derived or attibutable to use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company.

 

>> The rights are not created by this relationship, but they can be damaged by it.

 

>> By the same token I do not consider that any shareholder interests are created the use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company.

 

I agree.

 

If no interests are created,

 

>> this is not the same as having rights or interests that can be damaged.

 

the shareholder does not have any interests either derived or attibutable to use of a service provided by a bank to a limited company.

 

The bank account itself has nothing to do with the shareholder. In the sameway if I held shares in IBM, any bank account held by IBM has nothing to do with me.

 

>> I agree, it is not about the bank account having anything to do with the shareholder, it is about the company doing so and the shareholder suffering loss as a result.

 

Going by the information you have posted, it would appear that the complaint by the shareholder is that an action or inaction by the bank has effected the value of his/her shareholding. (please let me know if this assumption is incorrect).

 

>> Yes!

 

Is this a publically traded company, .

 

>> A publicly traded company would not be a micro enterprise.

 

if not how has any loss been determined or calculated a loss has been made and the value of the shareholding has decreased due to an action or inaction of the bank,

 

>> non publicly traded companies are valued all the time, share valuation is practically a profession in its own right.

 

does the shareholder have any form or redress against the bank. To answer that question, I would recommend reviewing the recent action commenced by the former shareholders of Northern Rock. They consider that due to the actions of the Government the value of their shareholding decreased.

 

>> According to what I have written, no.

 

Different circumstances but it would appear that the basis of the argument is the same - being that the value of a shareholding has been decreased due to the action or inaction of a third party.

 

>> so it would appear they are not claiming their rights and interests were created by their own use of a service.

 

To date the proceedings brought on behalf of the Northern Rock Shareholders has been unsuccessful.

 

>> "Privity of contract" will stop it all in its tracks, in my view. This is why the suspension of privity of contract by the insertion of "another person" is fundamental and changes everything, but only for the consumer and micro enterprise (and two others) defined in 2.7.3

 

 

 

continued in next post shortly...

Edited October 17, 2010 by anthonyfca
formatting

[anthonyfca]

and continuation :

 

The following is based upon the assumption that the shareholder's complaint is that the value of their share holding has decreased due to the action or inaction of a bank, whilst providing a service to a limited company.

 

>> Agreed/noted.

 

To be an eligible complainant the shareholder must be two things

 

1) A consumer (this is required by DISP 2.7.3 (1)

 

As I have stated above I do consider it highly questionable that a shareholder could be defined or classed as a consumer.

 

>> you and the Ombudsman's Adjudicator.

 

 

However, for the sake of argument and completness if a shareholder was a consumer, it must also be be:

 

2) a person that has a complaint arising from matter relevant to one of the 14 relationships as listed in 2.7.6 - being:

 

>> No. The complainant must have such a complaint. Not directly the consumer.

 

 

 

2.7.6 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: (1) the complainant is (or was) a customer or payment service user, of the respondent;

 

>> It is common ground that shareholders cannot directly have any of the 14 relationships.

 

>> What is not common ground is that their complaint can be based on an eligible complainant remaining eligible by the nature of the relationship falling within on of the 14 types in 2.7.6

 

>> Your argument here is the one put forward by the Adjudicator and what set me thinking in the first place. Note that the word complainant in 2.7.6 is not defined (not hyper linked). It is the nature of the relationship that is being defined in 2.7.6, not who has it. Who has it and whether they are eligible is discussed at 2.7.3

 

So persons at 2.7.3 can make complaints about matters in 2.7.6

 

2.7.3 allows a person in 2.7.3 to "stand in the shoes of" "another person" in 2.7.3

 

It is this disappearing within itself (2.7.3 in 2.7.3 in 2.7.3) that makes this matter so non intuitive. I liken it to "per stirpes" which in law is where one person can stand in the shoes of another who is deceased. How far it might actually go in the analogy remains to be seen, but "per stirpes" does show there to be a precedent for this process of "standing in the shoes of". I even wondered if it is what the draughtsmen had in mind.

 

 

 

I think the use of the word also in DISP 2.7.6 is the answer.

 

>> Neither 2.7.6 nor 2.7.3 are an answer alone, they need to be read in conjunction with each other, which is what I think the Adjudicator has not achieved.

 

To be an eligible complainant the shareholder must be a consumer (as they aren't a micro-enterprise) and

 

>> Agreed. First hurdle (granted your reservation about that).

 

must also have a complaint arising from one of the listed relationships.

 

>> No and Yes. Yes, the relationship type must be one of those defined in 2.7.6. No, their direct relationship can be with "another person" who has the relationship in 2.7.6.

 

must also have a complaint arising from one of the listed relationships.

 

>> One of the listed "relationship types" (i.e. services), not "relationships" (i.e. people).

 

If the shareholder is a consumer (I still do not consider that it is) but does not have a complaint arising from one of the listed relationships it is not an eligible complainant.

 

>> 2.7.6 defines relationship types, not relationships. So whereas a relationship is between party A and part B, a relationship type is a payment service or whatever. The first A to B is about people, the second is about the nature of the services.

[anthonyfca]

the "another person" makes everything a two step process, first: "does the original potential complainant have an eligible complaint?" and then in each case, via "another person" the consumer can stand in their place. So we are not looking for direct relationships such as a shareholder running a company bank account.

[anthonyfca]

"If the shareholder is a consumer (I still do not consider that it is)"

 

I am saying a shareholder is capable of being a consumer, I am not saying all shareholders are consumers - indeed far from it.

 

There is of course the matter of how the shareholder could have made an investment act based on actions by the bank. In some circles that might be called inside trading. However, insider trading only applies to the stock markets and our players are by definition not in those markets.

 

In fact having written the above it strikes me the "another person" solves that problem. It has only to be the "another person" who had the relationship. I was thinking that despite the third party aspect of "another person" the shareholder would have had to know what was going on in the bank relationship. He doesn't, he just has to be damaged by it.

[anthonyfca]

For reference: (quoted from glossary definition of a consumer)

 

(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

[anthonyfca]

speaking to the principle, there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson that wonderful underpinning case in tort, where the big company provided goods (ok not a service) to a customer and that customer's customer claimed there was a duty of care - and won. There we have the basis of "another person" enshrined in equity and is one of the most famous decisions in British legal history. Also a lovely tale and one of success. If it comes to that, it was the famous "she" who found another person in her cafe customer friend, who himself found another person in the cafe, which actually had the relationship with the manufacturer.

 

Nothing at all direct in the relationships there, so we do have precedent all the way to the House of Lords.

[anthonyfca]

and before you ask, yes the bank was arguably negligent, but that is quite another discussion.

[NoButYesBut]

Good Morning, I just like things that make me have to think. It is like a puzzle and I enjoy solving (well at least trying to) puzzles.

 

I think really think my post about the use if the word also is where there is a problem.

 

The complainant is the entity that is bringing the complaint. In this instance the entity is a shareholder.

 

Dependent upon the circumstances the shareholder when making a complaint can be one of two things. It can either be an eligible complainant or not an eligible complainant.

 

The DISP section of the FSA handook would appear to set out a certain criteria that must be met for the shareholder (being the entity bringing the complaint and thus the complainant) to be an eligible complainant.

 

2.7.3 requires the shareholder must be a consumer

2.7.6 requires that the shareholder must also have a complaint that arises from any one of the listed 14 relationships.

 

If the shareholder is not "a person" that is a consumer and that does not also have a complaint arising from one of the 14 specified relationships it is not an eligible complainant.

 

The FSA Handbook defines "a person" as per 2.7.3 & 2.7.6 as:

 

Glossary Definition

 

person (in accordance with the Interpretation Act 1978) any person, including a body of persons corporate or unincorporate (that is, a natural person, a legal person and, for example, a partnership).

 

To comply with the criteria as set out by 2.7.6 the shareholder must have a complaint arising from it's relationship with the bank. However, from what you have said the complaint arises from the relationship between the limited company and the bank.

 

I read it and reread it several times last night and this morning and I honestly can't see that the shareholder complies as a person (as defined) who has a complaint arising from one of the required relationships. To my own eyes it does look that straight forward.

 

 

Obviously, my view is a very simplistic one and does not look into the applicable legislation.

[NoButYesBut]

Please excuse the typo's I am in my way to church and using my mobile. I will edit it when I get home

[anthonyfca]

"I read it and reread it several times last night and this morning and I honestly can't see that the shareholder complies as a person (as defined) who has a complaint arising from one of the required relationships. To my own eyes it does look that straight forward"

 

Taking the second part of your statement first "…. a complaint arising from one of the required relationships."

 

From 2.7.6

 

" person must also have a complaint which arises from matters relevant to one or more of the following relationships with the respondent"

 

In our case I can be specific and give you the actual position with the Adjudicator which regarding the complaint is:

 

2.7.6

 

(2) the complainant is (or was) a potential customer or payment service user of the respondent;

 

Specifically direct debit.

 

So it is not a point at issue whether the complaint … "arises from matters relevant to one or more of the following relationships with the respondent"

 

The complaint itself is accepted as eligible.

Whether the complainant is? First of all, it is not the shareholder who has the complaint it is the company, because the company does, so then can the shareholder step in, in the right circumstances as a consumer affected by "another person". I will address this in my next message.

[anthonyfca]

Yours statement commences:

 

"that the shareholder complies as a person (as defined) who has…"

 

Does the shareholder fall within the definition?

That is of course back to my original post's presentation

 

 

However, I will have another crack at it here to see if I say anything differently.

 

 

"that the shareholder complies as a person (as defined) who has..."

 

"(1) (except as specified in this definition)

 

any natural person"

 

The shareholder must be a natural person.

Not something we have discussed, but a potential cause of failure to meet the definition.

Our shareholder is a natural person.

 

"acting for purposes outside his trade, business or profession."

 

The shareholder must not be acting in his trade, business or profession.

Not something we have discussed, but a potential cause of failure to meet the definition.

Our shareholder is a housewife.

 

So, if the shareholder is a natural person and is acting for purposes outside his trade, business or profession, then they comply. A housewife is both. As is a domestic engineer (joking).

 

Now then... next post deals with the real issue that causes all the misunderstandings.

[anthonyfca]

"(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"

 

Here is the nub of the issue.

 

Shares are both rights and interests, but need only be one of these to comply.

Shares are a package of rights.

Shares are an interest.

Both rights and interest can be damaged in different ways.

Rights can be withdrawn or altered.

Interests can be reduced in value.

I suppose also the value of rights can also be diminished.

 

The point here is that a share is a thing (think of a share certificate). It represents money value.

If that value is diminished by what someone else gets up to, you look for redress.

 

Normally there is none because of "privity of contract", leaving aside the whole world of investment advice of course.

 

So the value of these rights and the interest derives from and is attributable to the existence of the company by which they were issued.

 

If that company diminishes in value, that is represented by the fall in value of its shares.

 

So if someone harms the company, they harm your share value (the value of your interest).

 

more in next post:

[anthonyfca]

now then, the company has an eligible claim, being a micro entity, and indeed it could and may pursue this claim.

 

Meanwhile, the company represents (is) the "another person" as introduced here:

 

(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

 

and this is the point, the issue, the bone of contention, the nub,

 

the consumer's share value is affected by the impact on the company which has the complaint and this reference to another person means the consumer can become the complainant, despite the fact the relationship was with the company and not them directly. "Another person" means indirectly.

 

I will try to put that better, but there it is.

[anthonyfca]

(b) (re-written to illustrate) the shareholder has shares (being rights or interests) the values of which are derived from, or are otherwise attributable to the use of, any such services including bank services by another person such as the micro entity company that issued the shares.

[NoButYesBut]

Hello Anthony

 

No matter how I look at this and no matter how many times I read 2.7.3 and 2.7.6, I think you may find that you are flogging a dead horse and I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

Looking at this objectively with no vested interest in a desired pointed of view. The way I read it, to be an eligible complainant - the entity making the complaint must meet the criteria of both 2.7.3 and 2.7.6.

 

"(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"

 

This section would only appear to apply to the requirement to be a consumer as required by 2.7.3. However, for the consumer (if accepted that a shareholder is a consumer) to be an eligible complainant it must also have a complaint that arises from 1 of the 14 relationships.

 

I honestly can't see anyway that it can be said that a shareholder does have a complaint arising from any of the 14 relationships. 2.7.6 does not make reference to the term consumer therefore the defination (as quoted above) is not applicable.

 

2.7.6 states:

 

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:

 

The shareholder as a natural person (human being) does not have a complaint arising from a matter relevant to 1 of the 14 relationships. I really don't understand your argument that the shareholder is an eligible complainant. Can you please break it down into simple terms for me as I really don't see it.

 

To be an eligible complainant rather than not an eligible complainant the shareholder has to tick the two boxes of 2.7.3 and 2.7.6. I am just going by what each says.

[anthonyfca]

Hi, and thanks once more for offering some care to my horse.

 

I will post a reply to your response, but first let me a try a different approach and ask you a question, based on the following from the definition of consumer:

 

(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

 

what do you think is the meaning and effect of the use of the words "by another person"?

[NoButYesBut]

Hi, and thanks once more for offering some care to my horse.

 

I will post a reply to your response, but first let me a try a different approach and ask you a question, based on the following from the definition of consumer:

 

(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

 

what do you think is the meaning and effect of the use of the words "by another person"?

 

For me personally the section quoted refers to what makes someone a consumer. To be a consumer is not enough to be an eligible complainant. It only fulfils the criteria for 2.7.3 and not 2.7.6.

 

Putting aside any concerns I have with regard to a shareholder being a consumer, which one of the relationships does the shareholder have with the bank ?