FSA To Review Waiver

[ja-de]

Lloyds once told me not to buy my 2yr old daughter any new clothes or shoes as she could manage with her old ones and paying them was more important!

 

 

What right have anyone to dictate & tell us that we have to pay them before we clothe our children, I think that is totally disgusting.

As a child, I was always told that "as long as we have a roof over our heads (to keep us dry), food in our belly's & cloths on our backs (to keep us healthy & warm), everything else came 2nd." I don't care what anyone says, but in my book, children always come first.

[angelsent]

Here you go guys published review of waiver

 

FSA publishes review of 'waiver' on the handling of complaints in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges

 

 

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/two_month_review.pdf

[ringmaster]

Well done for spotting this Angelsent, I just saw it posted on reclaimunfaircharges.com and wondered if you guys had spotted it as well

 

Ringmaster

[shazzaW]

BBC Link here

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks to keep complaints on hold

 

seems the only good news is that the FSA's own Consumer Panel have stated:-

 

"

The FSA's own Consumer Panel, which represents the view of consumers to the FSA, said it would be hard to justify keeping the waiver in place if the High Court case went beyond next February.

[alecmac18]

Yeah - that is at least something.

[tifo]

the review says 'consumer groups' were consulted. I guess they mean CAG and MSE and PC?

[alecmac18]

From the Beeb article:

 

"John Howard, the chairman of the Panel said: "[The waiver] has had the unfortunate effect of delaying consumers' access to justice, whilst allowing the banks to continue taking money from accounts for what may turn out to be illegal charges.

"The longer this goes on, the more unfair it will be, especially on those in financial hardship."

 

 

 

 

He seems alright (John Howard). At least he realises that the waiver is causing some suffering.

 

 

 

 

and

 

 

"it would be hard to justify keeping the waiver in place if the High Court case went beyond next February."

 

Indeed!

[crfx250]

I think that the views of the FSAs own consumer panel are very significant as they are clearly unhappy with the waiver. The fact that they think the FSA has not done enough ''to publicise the fact that people suffering any financial hardship should not have their claims put on hold.'' could expose the FSA to a legal challenge.

[shazzaW]

So....what iffffffff

 

the Banks or OFT win the case in Jan/Feb and is as widely expected the losing party decides to appeal??

 

The FSA's Consumer Panel seems to be advocating the revoking of the waiver after the initial case is heard so will it not be the case that whilst any appeal is going through claims can be re-started and settled as before.

 

Surely this would make any appeal futile as the majority of cases would be settled whilst the long drawn out appeal is going through the appeals process.

 

Any thoughts??

[crfx250]

The FSA have made it very clear that the waiver will stay in place until not just when any appeals have been completed but then subsequently the OFT have decided on what future charges will be. In other words, years.

[alecmac18]

err....well then how can the OFT continue the justify that the test case was in the best interests of claimants?

[shazzaW]

This being the case - that the Waiver can remain in place through the appeals process - pretty much puts the whole thing to bed.

 

If an appeal is going to take 2-3 years to go through (and both sides have already stated they will appeal) what is the best that the hundreds of thousands of claimants with cases pending can hope for?? That they may or may not - at the very best - get something back in 3 years time!!

 

Pretty dismal if so but I can't see anything else happening apart from this?? :sad:

[crfx250]

Well the OFT would be right but it has said that the waiver is nothing to do with them and they wern't consulted on it so I don't think you can blame them really.

[crfx250]

This is what the FSA have said when I asked them about the duration

of the waiver:

''As you may be aware, in order to determine the relevant legal issues in an expeditious, fair and orderly way; the OFT and banks have agreed to have the test casedetermined in two stages. In summary, stage one of the case will focus on the determination of whether the relevant terms and charges can be assessed for fairness under the UTCCR 1999, and whether they are a charge for a service or a penalty in respect of breach of contract at common law. These are known as

'preliminary issues'. However, once the OFT has concluded it's investigation, and in the event that the arguments it has put forward in stage one are successful, then issues of fairness and genuine pre-estimate of costs/penalty will be determined subsequently at stage two of the proceedings. These are referred to in the test case as the 'substantive issues' ''

[shazzaW]

But surely the FSA have to listen to their own Consumer Panel at some point otherwise whats the point of their being?? (Let alone the massive negative media coverage that will no doubt be printed).

 

If the banks lose in January yet the FSA CONTINUES to keep the waiver in place during an appeal there will be absolute uproar (and surely every justification for the re-instatement of the judicial review)??

[crfx250]

I couldn't agree more Shazza!

 

Here's what the consumer panel have said:

 

Financial Services Consumer Panel | Press Release | Financial Services Consumer Panel calls for better compensation

[fedupconsumer]

I am a little suprised that no one has considered applying for a judicial review of the OFT's decision to allow the banks off the hook!

This is another decision made behinfd closed doors. I would be willing to contribute to a fund to challenge the FSA and the OFT or I am willing to make such an applicaation if I had some help.

[shazzaW]

Just read the link from the FS Consumer Panel which strikes me as as strong as a rebuke they porbably allowed to publish!! Excellent news they think the waiver is unjust as we all do.

 

Surely the FSA are backing further and further into a corner and trying to continue to defend the banks it appears on their very own.

 

With the thousands of claimants fighting them and their own Consumer panel now turning the screw they're going to have to back down or someone higher up will make the decision for them!! (particularly with the recent scandals hitting the press on an almost daily basis) - how much more can the Chancellor deal with??

[tifo]

there's been a recent case in the High Court where Judge Behrens has stated that the blanket stay should only apply until the end of the initial proceedings in Feb and if there is an appeal the courts can decide to stay again.

 

he also stated that banks should not enforce debts where a stay has been granted and which consist entirely of charges. Therefore if you claim more than you owe the bank and they try to enforce, the stay should be lifted.

[crfx250]

I am a little suprised that no one has considered applying for a judicial review of the OFT's decision to allow the banks off the hook!

This is another decision made behinfd closed doors. I would be willing to contribute to a fund to challenge the FSA and the OFT or I am willing to make such an applicaation if I had some help.

 

That has already been looked into and the FSA had a legal right to grant the waiver.

 

However their maybe the possibility of a challenge to the review itself and that is being looked at right now albeit by a lowly solicitor as opposed to a barrister for the time being, and I'll get her opinion by tomorrow. Although having said that she is head of litigation at a large London law firm and at an eye-watering £350 an hour she's somehow reasuringly expensive. And not to mention rather attractive.

 

Profiles - FSI

[adamc6671]

Surely the FSA are backing further and further into a corner and trying to continue to defend the banks it appears on their very own.

 

Hi shazza

 

The FSA aren't defending the banks on their own - the OFT are playing right into the banks hands by bringing a very 'woolly' test case which is certain to drag on for years IMO, and the Courts are very much supporting the banks by staying virtually all claims. 'The System' is protecting the banks, and IMO will always do so unless WE can force a change to that 'System'. I'll repeat here what I've already said on another thread in this forum, as I think it clarifies why I feel the way I do about 'the System'!

 

. . . " Sadly we're a very long way from the law deciding that fees are unfair and, above all, ilegal - in all probability a matter of years before ANY decision is reached. We may all THINK they are, and we may THINK we are all entitled to something back, but thats a very long way from the law deciding they actually are, and we actually are!

 

I think the banks know exactly what they are doing, and if we 'rest on our laurels' and do nothing for the time being, we are, in all probability, in for a nasty shock! There's no point in kidding ourselves. The 'waiver' is a prime example of that - the 'system' always has, and always will, play directly into the banks hands. Why? - because they are a foundation stone of our so called 'establishment'. We either accept that, wait a long time, and then get little or nothing, OR we react now and persuade 'the system' that it MUST pay credence to those of us that fund it - Consumers.

 

There's no point in just whinging that the system is unfair - we all know it is - we must act, and in great numbers, to engender change. If we don't we'll surely loose out. The days of the golden goose that pays out without actually going into Court are over, and gone. That change to the system, that WE made happen, was only temporary. The OFT, the FSA, and the Courts have combined to make sure it was that way in order to protect the banks, and IMO, will go on doing so. WE have got to act NOW to make permanent change happen, as I believe 'the system' will never do that on its own. . . . ."

 

We've changed the system once, temporarily - we now have to do it again, permanently!

 

Adam

[crfx250]

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has defended its decision to keep in place the "waiver" that allows banks to put complaints about overdraft charges to one side.

 

 

First put in place in July it was renewed this week ahead of a High Court test case early next year which may settle the legality of the banks' charges.

 

Some consumer and campaign groups have criticised the waiver as being one-sided and unfair to bank customers. But Clive Briault, a senior FSA executive said: "The aim is not to disadvantage people, the purpose is to get the legal certainty and deal with the complaints on the basis of that."

 

New charges

 

The consumers association Which? has taken a dim view of the FSA's approach.

 

We have not seen any evidence of that Clive Briault, FSA

 

 

Its personal finance campaigner, Doug Taylor, said thaty since the test case was initiated in July, some banks had "muddied the waters by amending their terms and conditions to make their charges appear fairer".

"We do not agree with them [the FSA] that everything is working as it should," he added.

"The FSA needs to be more proactive."

Mr Briault replied that the possibility that a few people might have been disadvantaged did not mean the waiver should be cancelled.

"What we are doing is reviewing very carefully if there are any individual firms that are not complying with the conditions of the waiver," he said.

"Have they moved the charges definitively against the interests of their customers? We have not seen any evidence of that."

However not everyone is convinced.

"Not only have the banks continued charging, some have made their fee structure even more punitive to consumers," said Martin Lewis of the campaigning website Moneysavingexpert.com.

 

Credit cards

I

n April 2006 the banks agreed, under pressure from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to reduce their default fees on credit cards to £12.

 

If there has been evidence of the banks using our waiver to delay handling other complaints then that is something we want to see evidence of Clive Briault, FSA

 

 

That left some people trying to recover money paid before the agreement was in place.

But there have been examples, in some local courts, of barristers representing banks arguing that the general halt to overdraft claims should also mean a halt to the return of credit card charges.

Both the OFT and the British Bankers' Association (BBA) have said explicitly that the two types of claim should not be confused.

And Mr Briault added that such behaviour by banks would be a clear breach of the conditions of the FSA waiver.

But he said the regulator had not been given any direct evidence that this was actually happening.

"If there has been evidence of the banks using our waiver to delay handling other complaints then that is something we want to see evidence of," he said.

"That would sound contrary to the conditions of our waiver."

 

 

Confusion

 

Some apparent confusion over the issue has been revealed at the highest level of the English and Welsh judiciary.

 

One bank charges campaigner, Bob Egerton, wrote recently to the Lord Justice Moore-Bick, the deputy head of civil justice.

In response, Lord Justice Moore-Bick wrote that it was "for the judge who deals with each case to decide what course to take in the light of the evidence before the court".

"However, I imagine that one thing judges will wish to take into account is the existence of the OFT proceedings," he added.

So the door has been officially opened for local judges, under pressure from banks, to overturn what had been regarded, until now, as an industry-wide settlement.

"It is our impression that it is standard practice," said Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group (CAG). "It is disappointing that the courts, who should know better, are going along with it."

[patrickq1]

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.

We also must not forget the FSA work for the banks and they are working against us at every twist and turn,i am wondering and would like to know ,just what mandate and instructions the FSA had from the finance co...also bearing in mind the FSA is our favourite persons personell baby MR G BROWN so any mail to him concerning the FSA would be binned (probably)

perhaps i am biased about the FSA because of my distrust of them and their advice,and as i have said on many occasions when has the FSA ever done anything in favour of the consumer......i would love to see a case made against the FSA for deliberate and wilfull interferance in favour of the banks and finance companies..we should be taking the FSA to task surely their is a case to answer....i will get of my soap box

patrickq1

[Guest vortex]

The FSA cannot dictate to the banks as to whether or not they defend legal action against them. The banks may apply to the Master of Rolls but he does not have to give them a blanket stay and i would suggest it would be prejudicial if that does indeed hapen.

I would agree with you that the FSA does seem to lack any teeth whatsoever in dealing with major banks. The FSA seem to be reactionary rather than progressive. They have a knee jerk reaction rather than progressively taking financial institutions to task.

[patrickq1]

"The FSA has also allowed the banks to apply for a stay in all court proceedings"patrickq1.....this is not a dictation to the banks this is the "FSA HAVE ALLOWED"

their is a slight difference....the PREjUDICIL part is interesting..........it is the consumer who is feeling the prejudice.............

The FSA seem to be reactionary rather than progressive. They have a knee jerk reaction rather than progressively taking financial institutions to task......

this knee jerk reaction was because the OFT were of the opinion that the consumer was being prejeduced against

the FSA like i have said need to be under the spotlight and investigated, an example being is NORTHERN ROCK

i know the telegraph reports this :Restructure of FSA to aid greater power. The Financial Services Authority has launched a major organisational shake-up to prepare the regulator for greater powers after the Northern Rock fiasco.....

this alone stinks it corrupt and immoral,

the FSA if they had any backbone they would simply put an end to the sneaky ways of the banks and make them accountable and transparent and of their illegal partnership with the DCA & CRA and the allowance of data sharing within the CRA and DCA where they all sleep in the same horrible bed,and soon to all under one roof known as "SCOR – Access to full data is now available to all DBSG Members. Get maximum benefit." Steering Committee on Reciprocity (SCOR)

surely you cannot accept this as being acceptable

all this going on right under the nose of the FSA

just what have the FSA done thats of any benefit to the consumer...and i do find the goverment departments just as guilty for the allowance of all this to happen...and to cap it all of look at the video MAXED OUT...Maxed Out

patrickq1