Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[muggyno1]

Hi Nevos,

 

IMO, the best way forward at this point is:

 

1. To maintain public pressure on the FSA and OFT a) by signing petitions that have been running for some time such as this and this b) by writing to your MP as described here and any other appropriate means.

 

2. In maintaining this pressure to stick to our position as it has always been that charges must be both fair and lawful as tested against contract and consumer law.

 

3. To stress that there is no fair maximum level of charges and no limitation of 6 years until and if this has been thrashed out in court.

 

4. To encourage those that have some private influence on the OFT and FSA (mostly government ministers) that it is in their interest to bring this influence to bear. This will only happen if they believe that it is politically expedient to do so ie with maximum public pressure.

 

There is no point in trying to engage with the banks at this stage. Unless we can persuade one of them that it is in their commercial interest to practice ethical banking, that is. I am thinking about how this might be done.

 

We could do worse than remeber what happened with cash machine withdrawal charges ie. public campaign followed by groundswell of opinion followed by one bank removing charges, followed by all of them doing it.

 

Again IMO, the charter makes all of the above more difficult because it undermines the position as stated above and because it has begun to fragment the opposition to these charges where there was a large measure of agreement in the past.

 

Cheers.

 

Muggy.

[crfx250]

4. To encourage those that have some private influence on the OFT and FSA (mostly government ministers) that it is in their interest to bring this influence to bear. This will only happen if they believe that it is politically expedient to do so ie with maximum public pressure.

Muggy.

 

Come again? Are you suggesting that individual government ministers privately influence regulators for their their own political ends?

 

There must be at least 100 laws, regulations and rules that are designed to prevent that kind of stuff from happening and quite rightly too. Any

democracy worth it's salt would never allow it.

[muggyno1]

Crfx250,

 

Lovely to see that you have such faith.

 

Muggy.

[noomill060]

Come again? Are you suggesting that individual government ministers privately influence regulators for their their own political ends?

 

There must be at least 100 laws, regulations and rules that are designed to prevent that kind of stuff from happening and quite rightly too. Any

democracy worth it's salt would never allow it.

 

 

 

ROFLMFAO!!!!

[crfx250]

Crfx250,

 

Lovely to see that you have such faith.

 

Muggy.

 

I have more faith in government ministers than you. Thats for sure.

[un1boy]

Crfx, is your surname Blair and your first name Antony? hehe

[kennythecelt]

Or as we are living in little ole Britain, could it be George W as he's the one that tries to pull the strings?

[muggyno1]

I have more faith in government ministers than you. Thats for sure.

 

Crfx250,

 

I'm not sure whether you are questioning my faith in Government ministers or saying that you have no faith in me. If it's the former then thanks, you're right and have a cigar. If it's the latter, I'm frankly puzzled as to why you think you would need any.

[crfx250]

Now you've got me confused, can you rewind to this and elaborate?

 

 

Crfx250,

 

Lovely to see that you have such faith.

 

Muggy.

[muggyno1]

Now you've got me confused, can you rewind to this and elaborate?

 

Just rewind to post 927 and read consecutively from there. It should be self explanatory.

[TideTurner]

Now you've got me confused, can you rewind to this and elaborate?

 

We sit, we wait, as does the opposition. We don't bicker as that would only strengthen their position.

 

There is a difference between debate and argument. Those who debate are considered members.

 

Tide

[crfx250]

I'm none the wiser really but to go with your action plan, especially part

4, one would have to have some faith in it and it's author.

 

And if you seriously think government ministers are going to risk their careers by privately attempting to influence financial regulators on the promise of a couple of votes, then you should questioning your own faith, not mine.

[muggyno1]

You're right Tide and there is a healthy debate going on on this and a number of other threads. Sometimes there are just some unfortunate distractions.

 

Muggy

[crfx250]

Yes it's unfortunate those distractions seem get in the way of justifying your action

plan

[muggyno1]

Yes it's unfortunate those distractions seem get in the way of justifying your action

plan

 

Actually they sometimes help.

 

NMTBSOTS!!

[crfx250]

I bet they do. You've spent a lot of time being critical of the charter, picking holes in it, demanding explanations and voicing your disapproval.

 

Zootscoot has been very accomodating. But when it comes to pointing out the obvious flaws in your effort, you just can't hack it can ya

[MacBoy]

I bet they do. You've spent a lot of time being critical of the charter, picking holes in it, demanding explanations and voicing your disapproval. Zootscoot has been very accomodating. But when it comes to pointing out the obvious flaws in your effort, you just can't hack it can ya

 

It's called constructive debate - we're not all serial conformists. Muggy has every right to 'demand explanations' of those who would presume to speak for him.

 

Why are all your posts so rude?

[kog]

Very good reason to keep complaining to your MP

 

The FSA is accountable to Ministers of the Treasury and thence to Parliament, but it operates independently of the Government and is funded by the firms that it regulates. Open and transparent, the FSA provides full information for firms, consumers and others about is objectives, policies, plans and rules.

KEEP COMPLAINING TO YOUR MP!

[crfx250]

My point is that right for an explaination should be reciprical should'nt it?

 

Dodging the question is hardly constructive debate.

[muggyno1]

Zootscoot is certainly open to reasoned debate, here and in other threads, and this is very welcome.

 

When you can add something to that debate other than personal abuse, that will be welcome too. Otherwise, as I said, NMTBSOTS.

 

Muggy

[crfx250]

So are you going to justify your plan or not? Or are you just desperatley

hoping I'll forget about it? If you want people to take it seriously then you

need to be doing a bit better than that.

[zootscoot]

I think there is a fine line between constructive debate and destructive argument.

 

Some people seem to be of the opinion that they have greater knowledge of the issues than the three people who have been leaders of campaign for over 18 months and have spent quite some time looking very closely at these issues. In addition to consuting a principle solicitor of consumer law and a top QC in banking law.

 

Why some people have to divide the campaign and attack those who have fought so hard and made such personal sacrifices is quite beyond me.

 

Yes there have been several rude comments in this thread. Not all from CRFX although several aimed at him for simply defending the campaign which has been fully considered and debated.

 

Could all users please keep the thread on topic and refrain from personal attacks.

[ICY]

>>>>>>>

 

Remember

 

together we are strong

una nos es validus

[determindator]

I think one of the things democracy can do is change things which need changing for the better.

[TECHSPEC]

 

Why some people have to divide the campaign and attack those who have fought so hard and made such personal sacrifices is quite beyond me.

 

Could all users please keep the thread on topic and refrain from personal attacks.

 

Here here!

 

I for one, am grateful to this site, for all the help that i have recieved. Were it not for this site, and Martin Lewis of MSE, then this 'revolution' would never have even got off the ground.

 

The OFT, FSA AND FOS have made things difficult for us, not the mods on here, or Martin Lewis.

 

I have today written to all three of them to complain, as the anger should be directed at them, not each other.

 

All ideas should be embraced. If you don't like someone elses idea, then don't attack it, just carry out another approach yourself. Many ideas may be the right way to go. But attacking fellow consumers, is definately the wrong way.