Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Ade,   Stop speaking to them by phone and keep contact in writing only, which you've said you prefer.   Send TT a SAR by post immediately. The data you get back should enable you to see what they think you owe, and how it's made up.   Also write to BW Legal confirming you dispute the alleged debt owed to TT and have written to TT seeking data, so BWL must stop demands until TT have replied to the SAR you've sent them.
    • Please do although obviously I don’t know the facts from your side but at least I can tell you how much of a cut and paste job it is.
    • Please check back for a full reply tomorrow. However, it would help if you would introduce pergo spaces into a story full stop it's very long and especially for people with small screens it's very difficult to follow when it is so compacted.   I think this straight has become rather confused because of the third party account which we received at the outset. I think it will probably be helpful if you could repost your story but on a new thread and more openly spaced please.   Then we can start to have a closer look at it. However, as I've already suggested, I think there are two issues. The question of your liability in the accident and the problem of how you have been persuaded to take a rental car at such a high rate.    I would suggest that you hold off telephoneing anyone until we have had a closer look.before you do anything on the telephone. You have obviously had some very important conversations but you don't have any evidence of them. Although the other side may say that they have recorded them, you you may find it difficult to get hold of those recordings if in fact those recordings incriminate them in any way. for instance if they have promised you that you don't have to pay anything for the hire car, that would be an extremely useful conversation to have but you may find that it is difficult to get hold of.   please start a new thread it will be much easier to continue from there                                
    • When I sadly lost my job a while back, i reportd it immpediately to DWP as you are supposed to, but didnt realise at the time that the day I reported to them was the day before I was paid out for the last month. I was actually paid extra whem I left as it was cheaper than redundancy fort the business and at the time it was a good financial move (so I thought).   I was paid on Fri 26th Jan, they paid me out 2 months in one go. I reported to DWP on the 22nd of Han that I was made unemployed, had the letters and evidence. As they spun the story, because of their assesment dates and that, my first payment was on the 1st May and reassured that it works the other way around. That when work starts again, if I dont actually receive money from the company during the assesment period, there wont be an issue as it balances up.   Can I believe this or was it another spun story? I'm concerned that as I'll be paid monthly, (Starting on the 15th paid on the last day of the month), assment ends on the 22nd. Tha they'll take that money into consideration.   I'm just concerned due to the disparity it would cause between 4 odd months I endured with zero income because of how their system works and whatever they ahe in place to counter at this end of the claim.   Anywa, it's just awonder.   Cheers,   Ade    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

FSA To Review Waiver


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4802 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 479
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So here is a thought. As we can not get our money back for the time being. Why don't we complain to FOS about how badly the banks have behaved. Idle hands......

 

I thinking of starting my compliant against HSBC next week. Keep up the pressure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be more than happy to pile in with this - Halifax are now so far outside the 40-day compliance period to supply me with all data they hold about me (83 days outside!) that I have just filed an N244 for pre-action disclosure, just to get in a position to be able to properly quantify my claim.

 

They have acted wilfully and contemptuously towards me and dressed it up as incompetence. :mad:

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be more than happy to pile in with this - Halifax are now so far outside the 40-day compliance period to supply me with all data they hold about me (83 days outside!) that I have just filed an N244 for pre-action disclosure, just to get in a position to be able to properly quantify my claim.

 

They have acted wilfully and contemptuously towards me and dressed it up as incompetence. :mad:

 

I agree. There are many of us in this situation.

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What we should all be doing now is complaining to those who have put the obsticle in our path.

 

I'm not very good at composing letters, but what we need is a template letter of complaint that we can send off to the FSA and OFT.

 

The fsa have just put a great big wall between us and the banks and the banks continue to profit while we are out of pocket - it is a disgrace.

The Waiver is an FSA Conspiracy with the banks against the consumer - Complain to your MP and the FSA about their shameful act!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who can we call on to set up a template letter?

 

Let's not let this fade away, keep this thread up until we have hundreds that are willing to do this.

Whi is the greatest letter writer on CAG?

Could we have some input maybe form the more experienced people on here?

Keep bumping this thread everyone please, I would hate to see a great idea go down the pan.

( Right I'll get off my soap box now, there's only me on this thread. Talk about deaf ears)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who can we call on to set up a template letter?

 

Let's not let this fade away, keep this thread up until we have hundreds that are willing to do this.

Whi is the greatest letter writer on CAG?

Could we have some input maybe form the more experienced people on here?

Keep bumping this thread everyone please, I would hate to see a great idea go down the pan.

( Right I'll get off my soap box now, there's only me on this thread. Talk about deaf ears)

 

We absolutely have to come up with this letter and swamp the FSA with complaints!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the abscence of anything else, have a look at this letter to your MP. Please let me have any comments and any way of improving it.

Thanks.

 

The link to the MP is here ( thanks davebeek)

WriteToThem.com - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free

 

Mr xxxxxxxx MP

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

1 August 2007

Dear Mr xxxxx,

I am one of your constituents in Anytown. I write to you in the hope you can help me in my plight with the bank and in particular the FSA.

You may be aware that on 27 July 2007, the OFT commenced litigation proceedings against the big seven banks to try and establish once and for all as to whether these overdraft fees are actually unlawful.

Whilst we agree with this course of action, the FSA has waived the regulation that enforces the banks to process claims of this nature until the outcome of this hearing.

This means that any claims going through the banks now for reclaiming charges (sometimes in their thousands) are put on hold and will not be processed for what could take up to two years if any appeals are allowed.

The FSA has also allowed the banks to apply for a stay in all court proceedings of this nature until the case has finished. The Banks are now to apply to the Master of Rolls to issue a blanket stay on all court hearings.

This is a ridiculous situation for all local people who are in the process of reclaiming charges. And, just to rub salt in the wounds, they have allowed the banks to keep on charging!!!

The majority of the people I have spoken to ( including myself) were not able to afford the court fees to take the claim to the next step. They have had to save every spare penny to raise the £120.00 needed so they could take the bank to court. In some cases where the claim was over £5000.00 they have had to stump up £250.00, something which was very, very hard for these people to find, considering it was the high cost of these charges that have put them in this position. Some even took out short term loans so they could take the bank to court to try and recoup some of these charges. They are now left with no claim, no compensation and hundreds of pounds out of pocket.

Although there may be a slim chance of them being able to recoup some of the court costs, the issue is that they should be allowed to continue with this claim and get their charges back, as have thousands of consumers all over the country.

To allow the banks to still charge and not allow the consumer the right to reclaim is against everything the FSA and the OFT and the FOS are supposed to stand for.

The OFT web site states :

The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive

The FSA website states :

We have a wide range of rule-making, investigatory and enforcement powers to enable us to meet four statutory objectives summarised as one overall aim: to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets and to help retail consumers achieve a fair deal

The FOS Website states;

So when we look at a complaint, we give both sides a fair hearing.

Protecting consumer interests? - help retail consumers achieve a fair deal? Give BOTH sides a fair hearing? One word that appears in all of their statements is FAIR. How is this fair?

How can they be protecting the consumer interest by stopping them reclaiming what is rightfully theirs and still allowing the banks to charge these ridiculously high penalty charges.?

I understand that the banks disagree they are unlawful, so why have they kept paying out to consumers at the rate of around £500 million in the last 12 months? This alone should tell the FSA that the consumer has to keep claiming against the banks.

This situation alone will save the banks hundreds of millions of pounds, firstly through not paying out claims, not having to pay legal fees and more importantly, due to the Limitation Act 1980, the longer this case goes on the more they will save under the 6 yr rule of the above Act.

So, whilst this will save the banks money, the consumer goes further and further into debt by having charges still applied.

This is just the tip of the iceberg Mr xxxxx, I am sure there are many more people out there that will be destined for financial hardship as a result of this legislation. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of consumers all over the country who have started their claims and some may also be made bankrupt by allowing the banks to still charge. All this caused by a regulator who is supposed to have the consumer in their best interest.

I would like to see how they explain that this benefits them. The problem with all this is, it was all done behind closed doors for months without anyone knowing except the banks, the FSA , the OFT and the FOS, and then, without a care in the world for consumers or anyone else, put into practice. The nice little arrangement that the banks had already sorted with the FSA, the OFT and the FOS, the three regulators set up to protect the public. Mr xxxxxx, someone is having a laugh at your constituents’ expense and it is not the slightest bit funny for us.

I also understand that It could also interfere with our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “ In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”

 

It is unreasonable to allow an indeterminate stay which depends on some litigation unconnected to the instant case, between other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant case.

It is not clear that the matter will be heard as predicted and in the event that it does go to trial, there could then be appeals and subsequent appeals so that the matter might become protracted and even last as long as 3 years or more – from the date of the commencement of trial.

I sincerely hope that you can help us in getting the FSA to revoke this unfair and biased legislation and allow the consumer to continue to fight for what is rightfully theirs.

I thank you for you time.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm in on this idea-count me in!!!

lloyds S.A.R -sent 04/04/200

statements received 11/05/2007

prelim-14/05/2007 -£4987

lba-30/05/2007

n1-20/07/2007

 

Co-Op prelim sent-20/04/2007-£136.50

settled in full

goldfish prelim-27/06/2007

 

capital one -deemed served -01/07/2007

settlement without cci offered 17/07/2007

halifax prelim-17/07/2007

 

aqua--prelim-13/07/2007

 

welcome-prelim-30/06/2007

lba-14/07/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the abscence of anything else, have a look at this letter to your MP. Please let me have any comments and any way of improving it.

Thanks.

 

The link to the MP is here ( thanks davebeek)

WriteToThem.com - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr xxxxxxxx MP

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

 

 

1 August 2007

 

 

Dear Mr xxxxx,

 

I am one of your constituents in Anytown. I write to you in the hope you can help me in my plight with the bank and in particular the FSA.

 

You may be aware that on 27 July 2007, the OFT commenced litigation proceedings against the big seven banks to try and establish once and for all as to whether these overdraft fees are actually unlawful.

 

Whilst we agree with this course of action, the FSA has waived the regulation that enforces the banks to process claims of this nature until the outcome of this hearing.

This means that any claims going through the banks now for reclaiming charges (sometimes in their thousands) are put on hold and will not be processed for what could take up to two years if any appeals are allowed.

 

The FSA has also allowed the banks to apply for a stay in all court proceedings of this nature until the case has finished. The Banks are now to apply to the Master of Rolls to issue a blanket stay on all court hearings.

 

This is a ridiculous situation for all local people who are in the process of reclaiming charges. And, just to rub salt in the wounds, they have allowed the banks to keep on charging!!!

 

The majority of the people I have spoken to ( including myself) were not able to afford the court fees to take the claim to the next step. They have had to save every spare penny to raise the £120.00 needed so they could take the bank to court. In some cases where the claim was over £5000.00 they have had to stump up £250.00, something which was very, very hard for these people to find, considering it was the high cost of these charges that have put them in this position. Some even took out short term loans so they could take the bank to court to try and recoup some of these charges. They are now left with no claim, no compensation and hundreds of pounds out of pocket.

Although there may be a slim chance of them being able to recoup some of the court costs, the issue is that they should be allowed to continue with this claim and get their charges back, as have thousands of consumers all over the country.

 

To allow the banks to still charge and not allow the consumer the right to reclaim is against everything the FSA and the OFT and the FOS are supposed to stand for.

 

The OFT web site states :

 

The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive

 

The FSA website states :

 

We have a wide range of rule-making, investigatory and enforcement powers to enable us to meet four statutory objectives summarised as one overall aim: to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets and to help retail consumers achieve a fair deal

 

The FOS Website states;

 

So when we look at a complaint, we give both sides a fair hearing.

 

Protecting consumer interests? - help retail consumers achieve a fair deal? Give BOTH sides a fair hearing? One word that appears in all of their statements is FAIR. How is this fair?

 

How can they be protecting the consumer interest by stopping them reclaiming what is rightfully theirs and still allowing the banks to charge these ridiculously high penalty charges.?

 

I understand that the banks disagree they are unlawful, so why have they kept paying out to consumers at the rate of around £500 million in the last 12 months? This alone should tell the FSA that the consumer has to keep claiming against the banks.

 

This situation alone will save the banks hundreds of millions of pounds, firstly through not paying out claims, not having to pay legal fees and more importantly, due to the Limitation Act 1980, the longer this case goes on the more they will save under the 6 yr rule of the above Act.

 

So, whilst this will save the banks money, the consumer goes further and further into debt by having charges still applied.

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg Mr xxxxx, I am sure there are many more people out there that will be destined for financial hardship as a result of this legislation. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of consumers all over the country who have started their claims and some may also be made bankrupt by allowing the banks to still charge. All this caused by a regulator who is supposed to have the consumer in their best interest.

 

I would like to see how they explain that this benefits them. The problem with all this is, it was all done behind closed doors for months without anyone knowing except the banks, the FSA , the OFT and the FOS, and then, without a care in the world for consumers or anyone else, put into practice. The nice little arrangement that the banks had already sorted with the FSA, the OFT and the FOS, the three regulators set up to protect the public. Mr xxxxxx, someone is having a laugh at your constituents’ expense and it is not the slightest bit funny for us.

 

I also understand that It could also interfere with our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

 

Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “ In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”

 

 

It is unreasonable to allow an indeterminate stay which depends on some litigation unconnected to the instant case, between other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant case.

 

It is not clear that the matter will be heard as predicted and in the event that it does go to trial, there could then be appeals and subsequent appeals so that the matter might become protracted and even last as long as 3 years or more – from the date of the commencement of trial.

 

I sincerely hope that you can help us in getting the FSA to revoke this unfair and biased legislation and allow the consumer to continue to fight for what is rightfully theirs.

 

I thank you for you time.

 

 

oops how did I do that?sorry for the repetition,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have sent my second complaint to the FSA requesting information has to why they ruled that banks get a waiver while at the same time are allowed to continue making these unlawful charges against customers accounts.

 

I also want to know why it is banks haver the right to access my account and take whatever charges they impose without my consent. Not even the government, or any other company have this privilage so why on earth do the banks get it, just because they look after our cash?

 

The banks should be made to send out a bill like any other company, and if the bill isn't paid then the bank should apply for a court oder to retreive the money.

 

THEY SHOULD NOT JUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE IT!

The Waiver is an FSA Conspiracy with the banks against the consumer - Complain to your MP and the FSA about their shameful act!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I have sent my second complaint to the FSA requesting information has to why they ruled that banks get a waiver while at the same time are allowed to continue making these unlawful charges against customers accounts.

 

I also want to know why it is banks haver the right to access my account and take whatever charges they impose without my consent. Not even the government, or any other company have this privilage so why on earth do the banks get it, just because they look after our cash?

 

The banks should be made to send out a bill like any other company, and if the bill isn't paid then the bank should apply for a court oder to retreive the money.

 

THEY SHOULD NOT JUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE IT!

 

That is a great point! If someone else accessed your account without your permission it is fraudulent. So what makes the bank different?

27th April - Requested Statements

13th May - Received Statements:D

15th May - Preliminary request for £4780 sent.:D

16th May - Royal Mail confirm Letter received.:D

23rd May - Received Letter considering claim. :grin:

30th May - Letter Before Action sent. :D

10th July - Times Up!! FOS claim going in.

16th July - Measly 30% of claim offered as goodwill

17th July - Rejected offer letter sent

25th July - Acknowledgement of Reject Letter received

26th July - Screwed over by the OFT,Banks, FSA & FOS all in one go.:evil:

Never even felt it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was the case that a bank had to send a customer a bill or obtain a court order before claiming money for a charges then the situation we all find ourselves would never have arisen.

 

The bank would have had to take the individual to court if he/she disputed the charge and it would then be up to a judge to decide if it was a legitimate claim, hence the banks would not be so braisen charging customers with unlawful charges.

The Waiver is an FSA Conspiracy with the banks against the consumer - Complain to your MP and the FSA about their shameful act!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So.. they have created this monster themselves! IMHO This is an extremely valid point. Well done!

I wonder if this would make a substantial point in a legal argument?

27th April - Requested Statements

13th May - Received Statements:D

15th May - Preliminary request for £4780 sent.:D

16th May - Royal Mail confirm Letter received.:D

23rd May - Received Letter considering claim. :grin:

30th May - Letter Before Action sent. :D

10th July - Times Up!! FOS claim going in.

16th July - Measly 30% of claim offered as goodwill

17th July - Rejected offer letter sent

25th July - Acknowledgement of Reject Letter received

26th July - Screwed over by the OFT,Banks, FSA & FOS all in one go.:evil:

Never even felt it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the abscence of anything else, have a look at this letter to your MP. Please let me have any comments and any way of improving it.

Thanks.

 

The link to the MP is here ( thanks davebeek)

WriteToThem.com - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr xxxxxxxx MP

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

 

 

1 August 2007

 

 

Dear Mr xxxxx,

 

I am one of your constituents in Anytown. I write to you in the hope you can help me in my plight with the bank and in particular the FSA.

 

You may be aware that on 27 July 2007, the OFT commenced litigation proceedings against the big seven banks to try and establish once and for all as to whether these overdraft fees are actually unlawful.

 

Whilst we agree with this course of action, the FSA has waived the regulation that enforces the banks to process claims of this nature until the outcome of this hearing.

This means that any claims going through the banks now for reclaiming charges (sometimes in their thousands) are put on hold and will not be processed for what could take up to two years if any appeals are allowed.

 

The FSA has also allowed the banks to apply for a stay in all court proceedings of this nature until the case has finished. The Banks are now to apply to the Master of Rolls to issue a blanket stay on all court hearings.

 

This is a ridiculous situation for all local people who are in the process of reclaiming charges. And, just to rub salt in the wounds, they have allowed the banks to keep on charging!!!

 

The majority of the people I have spoken to ( including myself) were not able to afford the court fees to take the claim to the next step. They have had to save every spare penny to raise the £120.00 needed so they could take the bank to court. In some cases where the claim was over £5000.00 they have had to stump up £250.00, something which was very, very hard for these people to find, considering it was the high cost of these charges that have put them in this position. Some even took out short term loans so they could take the bank to court to try and recoup some of these charges. They are now left with no claim, no compensation and hundreds of pounds out of pocket.

Although there may be a slim chance of them being able to recoup some of the court costs, the issue is that they should be allowed to continue with this claim and get their charges back, as have thousands of consumers all over the country.

 

To allow the banks to still charge and not allow the consumer the right to reclaim is against everything the FSA and the OFT and the FOS are supposed to stand for.

 

The OFT web site states :

 

The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive

 

The FSA website states :

 

We have a wide range of rule-making, investigatory and enforcement powers to enable us to meet four statutory objectives summarised as one overall aim: to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets and to help retail consumers achieve a fair deal

 

The FOS Website states;

 

So when we look at a complaint, we give both sides a fair hearing.

 

Protecting consumer interests? - help retail consumers achieve a fair deal? Give BOTH sides a fair hearing? One word that appears in all of their statements is FAIR. How is this fair?

 

How can they be protecting the consumer interest by stopping them reclaiming what is rightfully theirs and still allowing the banks to charge these ridiculously high penalty charges.?

 

I understand that the banks disagree they are unlawful, so why have they kept paying out to consumers at the rate of around £500 million in the last 12 months? This alone should tell the FSA that the consumer has to keep claiming against the banks.

 

This situation alone will save the banks hundreds of millions of pounds, firstly through not paying out claims, not having to pay legal fees and more importantly, due to the Limitation Act 1980, the longer this case goes on the more they will save under the 6 yr rule of the above Act.

 

So, whilst this will save the banks money, the consumer goes further and further into debt by having charges still applied.

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg Mr xxxxx, I am sure there are many more people out there that will be destined for financial hardship as a result of this legislation. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of consumers all over the country who have started their claims and some may also be made bankrupt by allowing the banks to still charge. All this caused by a regulator who is supposed to have the consumer in their best interest.

 

I would like to see how they explain that this benefits them. The problem with all this is, it was all done behind closed doors for months without anyone knowing except the banks, the FSA , the OFT and the FOS, and then, without a care in the world for consumers or anyone else, put into practice. The nice little arrangement that the banks had already sorted with the FSA, the OFT and the FOS, the three regulators set up to protect the public. Mr xxxxxx, someone is having a laugh at your constituents’ expense and it is not the slightest bit funny for us.

 

I also understand that It could also interfere with our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

 

Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “ In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”

 

 

It is unreasonable to allow an indeterminate stay which depends on some litigation unconnected to the instant case, between other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant case.

 

It is not clear that the matter will be heard as predicted and in the event that it does go to trial, there could then be appeals and subsequent appeals so that the matter might become protracted and even last as long as 3 years or more – from the date of the commencement of trial.

 

I sincerely hope that you can help us in getting the FSA to revoke this unfair and biased legislation and allow the consumer to continue to fight for what is rightfully theirs.

 

I thank you for you time.

 

 

 

 

Message sent and a bump while i am here, thanks DOS>

 

Jenny x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I would like to state that the latest "buzzword" that the FSA have used within the last couple of years is "TCF", better known as "Treating Customers Fairly". The FSA have already fined a number of financial services companies for not treating customers fairly.

 

As an IFA, (without a single client complaint in 19 years I would add) I've had to take an online test in this area and every financial services company has had to implement TCF in every one of its procedures.

 

I would therefore suggest to all that decide to complain against the FSA that they quote TCF, as they are breaking their own main principle of the last couple of years.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks jenny,

At least that's two sent. The Mp's will be terrified now! I thought this is what some people wanted, to send complaints in about the FSA, obviously I was wrong. Maybe it would be better if someone else bothered to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I have sent my second complaint to the FSA requesting information has to why they ruled that banks get a waiver while at the same time are allowed to continue making these unlawful charges against customers accounts.

 

I also want to know why it is banks haver the right to access my account and take whatever charges they impose without my consent. Not even the government, or any other company have this privilage so why on earth do the banks get it, just because they look after our cash?

 

The banks should be made to send out a bill like any other company, and if the bill isn't paid then the bank should apply for a court oder to retreive the money.

 

THEY SHOULD NOT JUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE IT!

 

try the Financial services Consumer Panel. Again, if enough people complain about this ruling they have got to listen. ( Although I feel I am wasting my time here) but heres the link

Financial Services Consumer Panel | About the Panel | Contacting us

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...