An answer worthy of Sir Humpfrey Appleby...

[demon_x_slash]

I received a reply to one of the Number 10 e-petitions. As usual, they miss the point entirely. If I were a cynical person, I would say they'd missed it deliberately. Good thing I'm not a cynical person, eh?

 

14 June 2007

We received a petition asking:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Force the banks to repay unlawful bank charges and remove the six year time bar, forcing them to pay back everything from at least 1980."

Details of petition:

"Thousands of people in this country are in debt through no fault of their own. The fatcat bank bosses have ripped us off for too long, prove you do care Mr Blair and make them pay it back."

• Read the petition

The Governmental response:

 

The setting of charges and their application is a commercial decision for each individual bank. However, we would stress that this is an issue the Government takes seriously, and on which it has already taken action.

In 2004, the Chancellor asked the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to establish a Payments Systems Taskforce, made up of industry, business and consumer representatives. As a result of the work of this body, banks have delivered concrete results on faster electronic payments and cheques. This will benefit consumers and businesses, reducing the uncertainty around clearing times that may cause people to unintentionally exceed their overdraft limit and incur a penalty charge.

With specific regard to high default charges, the OFT investigated credit card default charges. As a result of this investigation, the OFT wrote to leading banks in 2005 and said that the bank's credit card default charges were excessive, challenging their fairness based on existing rules set out in the 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contacts Regulations 1999'. The OFT issued a further statement on this issue, recognising that the principles of fairness and transparency which it has applied to credit card default charges were likely to be applicable to bank account default charges, such as those applied to overdrafts. As a result of a fact-finding exercise, the OFT announced on 29th March 2007 that it would carry out a further in-depth study of retail bank pricing to sit alongside the formal investigation into the fairness of bank account default charges. The full details of this study were announced by the OFT on 26th April 2007. This approach reflects the OFT's desire to take a strategic approach to the examination of the fairness of these charges in the wider context of competition in the UK retail banking sector.

It would not be appropriate for Government to influence the outcome of an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, which is an independent body. However, the Government strongly supports the principles of fairness and transparency which the OFT is applying.

[notsmilingyet]

:o

 

They are side steping but its to be expected. They are saying they have taken action in the last 6 years and are prehaps implying the previous 21 years are outside their juristiction/legacy.

 

Finance accounts for alot of business in this country, it really would be a massive decision to retrospectively change the rules and lumber companies with this 'new ' liability they wont have set aside any funds for.

 

Companies cant vote but they can move their business elsewhere. Its not a fact but the gov might just be acting in everyones best interests. Hence the sidestep:-|

[notsmilingyet]

payusback - epetition response