Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[determindator]

The answer is out there!! Also, hello to Destiny of Souls. Great name!

[muggyno1]

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.

 

Can we please please keep these discussions about issues and not reduce them to the personal. As you say zootscoot

 

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

 

I have tried, time and again, to clearly state my reasons for vehemently opposing the charter, all of them about issues and not personalities.

 

Yes, I am angry about the way this was done and yes I do believe that it is the charter, and not those opposing it, that is divisive. That does not stop me admiring much of what has been done for this campaign by its authors and I have said so a number of times.

 

By all means debate and refute our arguments, but we too have been thinking about this very carefully. I don't think that we have a monopoly on being right but neither does anyone else.

 

Muggy

[crfx250]

I don't think anyone is claiming a monopoly here but at the end of the day

someone has to make a decision on the response and that must be the

leaders of the movement who's qualifications and proffesional advice are

indisputabley better than any contributor to the site.

 

You've had your say and been given room to run your own campaign. Give

them a break.

[andrew1]

If I may have my two pennyworth.. I have been on and off the Forum since March 06 and have watched, contributed to and disagreed with many a debate and many of the posters. Many no doubt have disagreed with my contributions too. Zootscoot and many others have been singled out before because they have not only reflected their passion and belief in the overall cause, but they have given a considerable amount of professional knowledge too which they, like thousands of others have bought to the forum. I have seen these heated debates before, seen many leave the forum altogether because they didn't feel their own personal views were being listened to because they felt they were right and others wrong, but the forum continues. Everyones contribution is valued, respected listened to, debated and considered no matter how controversial a point of view and the cause moves on unabated. Of course we faceless individuals from all over the country each have a valued opinion and it is the synergy of us all that brings the results. Personally, I value every posters contributions because I have paid solicitors a fortune over the years and unfortunately they have not always been what I had hoped for or paid for. Here we can challenge, debate, consider and then make our decisions based on a satisfaction level after thrashing the arguments about FOR FREE. If it wasn't for this 'personal opinion' put forward by everyone on here we wouldn't exist, the value would not be so rich and the fight never started. So thank you Zootscoot and everyone else. Keep up the debate, do not look for winners or losers that is not what this or any forum is about. Just thank everyone for empowering each other to make better decisions altogether. Then we all have a win-win and that's what it is all about.

[nevos]

crfx250

 

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.

 

I.m sure 90% of this all came about under the old school tie brigade, nothing democratic about denying people the right to make their claims. We the consumer exist to be ripped off in this country. We and what we do are totally controlled by the financial institutions. When your credit rating can be damaged by missing a payment on a mobile phone bill which, stays with you for 6 years then, sadly there is something very wrong.

 

IMO there can be no such animal as an unauthorised overdraft, unless, you use a guarantee card on a cheque when you do not have funds to cover it, in any other case it has to be authorised for the sake of a penalty charge. It is the banks that have become faceless, automated and completely oblivious to the damage caused to folk on low income.

 

I have to agree with muggy, the charter looks like, wow we missed the boat here what can we do in retrospect to make our point. Fact is, consumer groups and the consumer were swept aside and presented with a fait accompli.

[kennythecelt]

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

 

Good call!

[muggyno1]

Just thank everyone for empowering each other to make better decisions altogether. Then we all have a win-win and that's what it is all about.

 

I couldn't agree more Andrew1. All reasoned debate should be welcomed and nurtured.

 

I just hope that the maxim 'All members are equal but some are more equal than others' doesn't apply.

[Capitulator]

When your credit rating can be damaged by missing a payment on a mobile phone bill which, stays with you for 6 years then, sadly there is something very wrong.

 

Until recently, my missus worked for a financial company and, apparently, every credit search made about you adds (negatively) to your credit rating !

 

On that basis, it could mean that if I applied for loads of credit/store cards, every search would impact my credit rating and could impact my rating such that I would be ineligible simply due to the searches !

 

Talk about loaded dice !

[muggyno1]

Until recently, my missus worked for a financial company and, apparently, every credit search made about you adds (negatively) to your credit rating !

 

On that basis, it could mean that if I applied for loads of credit/store cards, every search would impact my credit rating and could impact my rating such that I would be ineligible simply due to the searches !

 

Talk about loaded dice !

 

Yep, Capitulator, the dice are loaded in every conceivable way.

[muggyno1]

Apologies in advance, I'm going to vent some spleen!

 

What absolute [EDIT] chaos, as the What banks are granting stays? thread shows.

 

Stays being automatically granted, stays being granted (or not) on a case-by case basis, business as usual, stays being granted in error against credit card claims etc. etc. etc.

 

All this guff from the OFT about launching the test case in order to clarify things and benefit the consumer. And these guys are supposed to be regulating the trading environment!! What morons, they launch a test case without a thought in their pretty little heads about the chaos that would inevitably ensue in the legal system. Too [EDIT] concerned about not upsetting the banks so that they would come to court quietly.

 

Neither the lower courts nor the FSA are in any way legally obliged to do anything in response to the launch of this test case. They could just as easily have continued as normal until a final judgement was reached.

 

My inevitable conclusion is that the OFT and FSA have colluded (and I use the word advisedly and with forethought) with the banks against the consumer. This in direct violation of both of their remits.

 

I know that all of this needs toning down, but we should try to expand on these arguments and hopefully use them as the common ground on which we can all fight.

 

Let's turn all of our guns on these two institutions now. We can continue to hit the banks in the courts, where possible, and we know that they are [EDIT], but it is the OFT and FSA that are to blame for the current madness and for hurting the consumer even more than they were being hurt before.

 

Sorry about the rant, burt any ideas anyone?

[kennythecelt]

I think we all need to calm down and I know that is increasingly difficult given the complex and changing situation we are in added to seemingly endless process of closed doors.

 

That said, we have also witnessed stimulating and well thought out debate taking place on here, most of it, the vast majority, very constructive. There has been a wealth of really good work, great work, which has taken place and that includes all who are upset with with certain aspects of the Charter or those who were involved at the outset of some important threads.

 

I think that will be a main part of the key to mutual success, allied to the unlawfulness of bank charges.

 

It appears, and I have only picked this up from threads on here, that whilst some institutions may be using this as an opportunity to stop processing claims for credit card claims and perhaps charges on bank loans and mortgages too, that there may be an overlapping legal issue or at least, an interpretation that this is the case.

 

I have not been here that long but I know and love the power of CAG. Thats only possible because of each person on here and why they arrived.

[muggyno1]

I think we all need to calm down and I know that is increasingly difficult given the complex and changing situation we are in added to seemingly endless process of closed doors.

 

That said, we have also witnessed stimulating and well thought out debate taking place on here, most of it, the vast majority, very constructive. There has been a wealth of really good work, great work, which has taken place and that includes all who are upset with with certain aspects of the Charter or those who were involved at the outset of some important threads.

 

I think that will be a main part of the key to mutual success, allied to the unlawfulness of bank charges.

 

It appears, and I have only picked this up from threads on here, that whilst some institutions may be using this as an opportunity to stop processing claims for credit card claims and perhaps charges on bank loans and mortgages too, that there may be an overlapping legal issue or at least, an interpretation that this is the case.

 

I have not been here that long but I know and love the power of CAG. Thats only possible because of each person on here and why they arrived.

 

Kenny,

 

You are right about the potential power of CAG and that the internal debate is both stimulating and to be encouraged. It is also true that the charter has generated a lot of internal heat.

 

What I'm not sure about is what your view is on turning our guns on the OFT and FSA and/or what the best way is to do this - see my previous post.

 

Cheers.

[Capitulator]

All this guff from the OFT about launching the test case in order to clarify things and benefit the consumer

 

Quite succinctly stated muggyno1 ! If the OFT really were serious about benefitting the customer, why did they allow the banks a waiver to postpone processing of claims until the case is decided but still let them continue to charge their exorbitant fees ?! There's nothing "fair" about that whatsoever !

 

I'm not sure I believe the OFT and FSA have deliberately colluded against the customer though but I firmly believe they have "come to an arrangement" with the banks which hasn't taken the customer into account.

______________________________________

Capitulator aka Tim

[kennythecelt]

Kenny,

 

You are right about the potential power of CAG and that the internal debate is both stimulating and to be encouraged. It is also true that the charter has generated a lot of internal heat.

 

What I'm not sure about is what your view is on turning our guns on the OFT and FSA and/or what the best way is to do this - see my previous post.

 

Cheers.

 

I am still learning and trying to get things right in my own head. At the end of the day, my individual thoughts are not too important, unless I come up with something that no one else has thought of, and I don't see that happening soon.

 

I think the review of the waiver is the next big thing and we need to influence that as powerfully as possible. If the waiver stays in its current form, we may be stuck with the OFT for 2/3/4 years. That is only my opinion in a big cruel sea.

 

Perhaps a debate is needed on the best way of influencing the waiver review. Examples of breaches, etc. Others will think something else. Its something to be considered and how to do it may well emerge. I would imagine however, that the issue is already being actively considered elsewhere already.

 

In all honesty, I am pretty angry too Muggy. But, lets all get talking and outline thoughts.

[kennythecelt]

By that I mean everyone should contribute!!

[muggyno1]

Thanks Kenny, everyone does need to contribute. I'm sure that the issue is being considered in some quarters.

[crfx250]

Let's turn all of our guns on these two institutions now.

 

I'm very pleased you appear to be comming round to the idea of directing

complaints to the right people. I've always questioned the wisdom of moaning to a third party ie some Welsh MEP who has niether any hand in the matter and probably no interest in it.

 

The idea of a mass campaign of complaints to the FSA seemed to have been hatched early on in this thread:http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108220-fsa-review-waiver.html

 

But for some unknown reason the campaign switched to MPs. In the press

artical at the begining it says ''But amid criticism that the waiver could effectively allow firms to wriggle free from handling complaints for years to come, it promised to review the waiver after two months''.

Therefore it must make more sense for consumers to target the FSA directly.

 

On a separate note, I'd be grateful if you would edit out the thinly disguised bad language from your previous post as it is not just against forum rules but some peoples children read these threads, including mine.

[muggyno1]

Crfx,

 

The campaign to write to MPs is about bringing pressure to bear on the relevant bodies. My point has always been to put pressure on these people, the debate is about how to do it.

[un1boy]

I'm very pleased you appear to be comming round to the idea of directing

complaints to the right people. I've always questioned the wisdom of moaning to a third party ie some Welsh MEP who has niether any hand in the matter and probably no interest in it.

 

The idea of a mass campaign of complaints to the FSA seemed to have been hatched early on in this thread:http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108220-fsa-review-waiver.html

 

But for some unknown reason the campaign switched to MPs. In the press

artical at the begining it says ''But amid criticism that the waiver could effectively allow firms to wriggle free from handling complaints for years to come, it promised to review the waiver after two months''.

Therefore it must make more sense for consumers to target the FSA directly.

 

On a separate note, I'd be grateful if you would edit out the thinly disguised bad language from your previous post as it is not just against forum rules but some peoples children read these threads, including mine.

 

The FSA don't have the power to grant a waiver anyway, so I am going to point that out to them.

 

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 gives them their power and also sets the "8 Week rule." The act clearly states that the "Authority" (FSA) can only amend the rules if the benefit to the consumer is in proportion to the change.

 

Now, if we were to enter a legal case agains the FSA, can they prove that the benefit to us of having our claims not paid is in proportion to allowing the banks to keep charging?

 

Hope this makes sense.

[determindator]

My PC is showing the last page as 49 on this thread, but that does not seem to be right. Any thoughts??

[elsinore]

I think it's OK, determindator.

 

970 posts at 20 posts per page = 48.5, or page 49.

 

Els:)

[The Phantom]

The FSA don't have the power to grant a waiver anyway, so I am going to point that out to them.

 

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 gives them their power and also sets the "8 Week rule." The act clearly states that the "Authority" (FSA) can only amend the rules if the benefit to the consumer is in proportion to the change.

 

Now that is something one can do something with. I never knew this.

Yes, I am one of the members who wrote to their MP who in turn will write to the FSA and make some enquiries about htis waiver business, but now that I know the above, I will also write to them personally, because such facts make a better letter than just a complaint that may end up with a standard fob off reply

Great work un1boy:)

[patrickq1]

would nt it be interesting to see the MINITS OF THE MEETING between the FSA/BANKS/OFT to see what led them to their decision of a stay...because some of the first words to be used was , this meeting was establish TRANSPARENCY as i see it this was dropped on further investigation of the wording to the OFT AND FSA when it changed TRANSPARENCY ,so the outcome will be excactly what the BANKS AND ALL OTHER FINACE Co want is that they as PAYMASTERS to the FSA want and demanded a meeting with a GOVERMENT DEPARTMENT(should nt their be some sort of minits to this meeting),FAIRNESS as long as its in their favour TRUTH as long as it suits them and JUSTICE AND CLARITY that they want your money without a court appearance without having to explain there charges/penalties...and for us to even to try to come to a consensious with pathetic attempts by some to ridicule others perhaps they are the one who are helping to pull the trojan horse into this domain who knows,everyone is entitled to an opinion

[itchyfrog]

Maybe it's possible to obtain the minutes of those meetings under the Freedom of Information Act?

[crfx250]

Maybe it's possible to obtain the minutes of those meetings under the Freedom of Information Act?

 

 

 

 

Dear FSA FoIA coordinator

 

I am writing to you to request information about the July 26 announcement 'FSA grants waiver on complaints handling'.

 

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and I believe should not be subject to any of the qualified or absolute exemptions.

 

The request is in 6 parts:

 

1) On what date was it agreed that the OFT and banks would take a test case? Was the FSA involved in those discussions?

 

2) On what date was it agreed that the FSA would introduce a waiver?

 

3) On what date was your report entitled 'FSA grants waiver on complaints handling' agreed for publication' ?

 

4) On what date was it decided to publish the said report on 27 July?

 

5) Please provide the advice supplied to senior management in regard to the date of publication.

 

6) Please supply all correpondence (either letter or e-mail) between the OFT and the FSA between January 2007 and 27 July 2007 in relation to bank charges.

 

I look forward to a substantive response within 20 working days. I have considered this request carefully, checking each request against the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and if you fail to provide the information requested then I will ask for an internal review. If I am unsatisfied with that response then I will make a complaint to the Information Commissioner and ask him to make a Decision Notice requiring the FSA to release the information. Having analysed previous Decision Notices, I am more than confident that the Information Commissioner would require ALL this information to be released.

crfx

Our ref: FOI0737

 

Dear crfx

 

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

 

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

 

Your request was received on 2 August 2007 and will be processed in accordance with the Act.

 

There may be a fee payable for the information you have requested. If that is the case, you will be informed of the likely charges before we proceed. The fee must be paid before the information is released.

 

If you have any queries please contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Sandra Collins (Mrs)

Information Access Team

Financial Services Authority

25 The North Colonnade

Canary Wharf

London E14 5HS

Tel: 020 7066 7120

Fax: 020 7066 1051