FSA To Review Waiver

[penniless44]

Just to clarify on breeching of rules. Here is an extract of an FSA principle of business which Banks must follow:

 

1.19 When providing information to customers (Note (11)), Principles 3, 6 and 7 are

particularly relevant. In particular, a firm:

(1) should pay regard to its target market, including its likely level of financial

capability;

(2) should take account of what information the customer needs to understand the

product or service, its purpose and the risks, and communicate information in

a way that is clear, fair and not misleading (Note (12));

(3) should have in place systems and controls to manage effectively the risks

posed by providing information to customers.

[ohoh4312]

Hi Guys

 

Sorry all - I wasn't ignoring you - kids commandeered the laptop and I've only just got it back

 

Thanks for all the input; great advice, and will rewrite the letter shortly.

 

Penniless - if the FSA document is relatively concise then it may be prudent to post it up for all to see, as long as that does not invoke a breach of any kind!

 

Alecmac - by all means you may use whatever you need from my letter; quite a compliment as I didn't think it was that good.

 

Will post back later with revised letter. It bloody well better get printed after all our efforts.

 

Jo xx

[penniless44]

Jo, click on link for letter. This was sent to CEO's of all companies providing current accounts. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/ceo/complaints.pdf

[kog]

I've just been looking at FSA complaint as well

Complaints about the FSA

 

 

 

We have a formal complaints scheme to deal with any complaint against the FSA. You can use this to complain about the way we have carried out, or failed to carry out, any of our functions. We will then investigate your complaint.

 

We can investigate your complaint if it:

 

• amounts to an expression of dissatisfaction;
  
• is directed against us, the FSA, rather than against any other organisation or firm, whether we regulate them or not; or
  
• is about the way we have carried out, or failed to carry out, our functions, other than the things we have to do by law.

We cannot investigate complaints about:

 

• our relationship with our employees;
  
• contractual or commercial disputes involving the FSA;
  
• our making of rules, issuing of codes and general guidance; or
  
• the actions, or inactions, of the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

We will not investigate complaints that:

 

• could or would be more appropriately dealt with in another way (eg at a Tribunal or through the courts);
  
• are connected to, or are the subject of, ongoing FSA action; or
  
• express no more than dissatisfaction with our general policies or the exercise of, or failure to exercise, our discretion where no misconduct is alleged.

[kog]

It does seem very important that we are complaining about the FSA's decision to suspend consumers right to take action in the courts, rather then complain about the banks themselves.

 

Lets stay focused on the issue and keep applying more pressure toward the FSA.

[penniless44]

A complaint about the waiver would not be upheld as this is a rule making another rule obsolete until the test case meaning firms do not have to follow the stringent complaints procedures set out by FSA. In my opinion the way to go forwards is to challenge the waiver against the FSA's TCF (Treating Customers Fairly) motto as they nurture this phrase like a baby.

[pjdavies2000]

Agreed - anything that metnions or hints towards the test case would be thrown out as

are connected to, or are the subject of, ongoing FSA action;

from Kog's post above.

 

Not sure if a complaint to them would deliver what we are all after? I think stick with hitting the MPs, who in turn NEED us to like them and see them doing something for 'the people'. The FSA only needs suck up to the Treasury Committee, which I imagine is a cross-party commitee, and so accountable to the government, but not through the government.

 

Stick with what we are doing, knock it up a gear and start pushing the Human Rights Legislation through the MEPs, and crack onto a few Lords if you can!

 

Hope that helps

 

Peter

 

ps - The papers are always good for this type of thing as well. Especially if it shows the government, through the FSA are crapping over the public.

 

P

[penniless44]

Press is the way forward! I can see the headline now 'Are the FSA treating it's customers fairly'!!!!

[MacBoy]

Let's not lose sight of the issues in the technical detail; Basically the issue is the injustice of the one-way protection offered to the banks by the regulators.

 

Our objective is that our message exposing this injustice reaches the widest audience- via media, public & political repersentatives; whatever it takes.

 

It is as simple and straightforward as that.

[pjdavies2000]

Or

'FSA test case: truth or future guarantee of financial commitment'

 

In a strange twist to the recent bought of consumer uprisings over alleged unfair bank and credit card charges, the FSA have brought thousands of potential litigants to their knees by agreeing terms with the 7 banking leaders in the country to try and settle the dispute in a managed and controlled way

 

So far millions of punds have been returned to customers across the country, with banks settling the majority of these out of court through fear of releasing information which could have seen the return of billions of pounds to customers across the country.

 

When asked why the FSA didn't support a current case brought to the courts by consumers, the FSA refused to comment, stating that it had the interests of it's customers and consumers at heart, and as an independent government [trying not to laugh here!] organisation, it felt a mediated, timed and logical court challenge was required

 

This paper has learnt, however, that although stating independence from the banks it is taking to court, the FSA is wholly financed by said banks. When asked how this conflict of interest could be managed to ensure a fair trial for the thousands now being held back from both complaining and taking their own cases to court, the FSA merely stated: 'We need time to find new jobs before the banks withdraw the funding, and hide from those B*****ds at the Consumer Action Group. we would have got away with it too, if it wouldn't have been for those pesky CAGs!'

 

***nothing written above is more than pure fiction, and if it infers relevance to real situations, people or instituitions this is mere chance and was never intended**

[Destinyofsouls]

I think the press and the TV are the way to go as well. But, as the Treasury control the FSA why not let alistair darling also have some of our venom?

Browny may be looking for an election in October, he needs our votes.

Contact Us

[kog]

Numbers is the key here - the more people we have complaining the more Westminister is going to take note, the FSA will change their direction like a wind sock in a storm.

[Destinyofsouls]

We are not getting the numbers though Kog. Anyone any ideas how to get people here?

[penniless44]

Well I only found this site today and before this I thought I was alone in my quest!! Again publicity and Press is the way as I got all my information from the papers!

[ohoh4312]

Hi again

 

Okay how is this?

 

None of my own work BTW - cribbed from everyone here

 

As many readers will be aware, the OFT announced on 27 July 2007 that they are to commence litigation proceedings against the big seven banks to try and establish once and for all whether overdraft fees are actually unlawful.

Whilst I welcome the Test case wholeheartedly, the impact on the Consumer from the FSA ruling in favour of the banks has left me cold. This is a subject which seems to have been conveniently glossed over by those involved.

The FSA has 4 main statutory objectives as set out by the Financial Services and Markets Act:

• market confidence: maintaining confidence in the financial system;
  
• public awareness: promoting public understanding of the financial system;
  
• consumer protection: securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and
  
• the reduction of financial crime: reducing the extent to which it is possible for a business to be used for a purpose connected with financial crime.

Their mission statement also states:

 

To promote efficient, orderly and fair markets and to help retail consumers achieve a fair deal.

However, until judgement is served on this case, which we all know could take years, the FSA has granted a waiver, which allows the banks to:

Hold without actioning all new “complaints” re charges;

Request an indeterminate stay on all cases currently in the Court system;

Continue charging the Consumers, at the same exorbitant rate, for any “breaches of contract.”

Is this championing the rights of the Consumer?

Is this in line with their statutory objectives?

Or the Mission statement?

NO. It is blatantly one-sided, and was agreed without any public consultation.

Granted not all Judges will agree to the stay applications, and the FSA have said they will review the waiver in September, but it doesn’t bode well for the man in the street who is already out of pocket from submitting a Court claim. I have paid out £350 in court fees so far, which I may never recover if the ruling is given in favour of the banks, or I might just get it back, in 2/3 years time!

However, as an active member of the CAG – www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk – I am fighting back, and I would urge everyone concerned to sign up here (totally free) to benefit from the wealth of advice and experience in relation to all consumer issues. We are currently lobbying our MP’s to help us remove this waiver, and there are on-line petitions appealing against the FSA decision.

Our objective is that the message exposing this injustice reaches the widest audience, via media, public & political representatives.

I think it is a bit too long, but I can't seem to shorten it without losing sight of the main points.

Again, any comments welcomed - deadline for editorial is midday tomorrow for Fridays' issue, so I need to get moving.

Thanks all

Jo xx

[kog]

You will be suprised how many have visited today.

[Destinyofsouls]

You will be suprised how many have visited today.

 

 

How do you find out?

[ohoh4312]

NO. It is blatantly one-sided, and was agreed without any public consultation.

I need 1/2 lines here re the Human Rights issue, but I am no good at concise statements - bit of a waffler :o so if anyone could compose something for me I'd be extremely grateful.

Thanks

Jo xx

[bluewillow07]

Jim Knight done. I'm loving it!!!

[Destinyofsouls]

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time

 

Any good ohoh?

Article 6

[Destinyofsouls]

6. - (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if-

(a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or

(b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.

(3) In this section "public authority" includes-

(a) a court or tribunal, and

(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,

but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.

[kog]

DoS dont worry these things start off slowly but they are exponential in nature and suddenly grow at a phenominal rate.

 

People need to vent their anger and so will be looking for a place to do so - what better place to vent ones anger - than at the FSA.

[ohoh4312]

Excellent DoS - you're a star!

 

So my thinking is to put:

 

NO. It is blatantly one-sided, and was agreed without any public consultation. It also, most importantly, would appear to be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, namely:

 

Article 6 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.”

Does that sound okay? Would love to put the lot in, but trying not to make the letter so long that the Editor refuses to publish it!

And is the rest alright?

Thanks for all your invaluable help.

 

Jo xx

[Destinyofsouls]

Whilst I welcome the Test case wholeheartedly, the impact on the Consumer from the FSA ruling in favour of the banks has left me cold. This is a subject which seems to have been conveniently glossed over by those involved.

What about,

Whilst I welcome the test case, I ( and thousands of others) feel that the ruling by the FSA is a kick in the teeth for consumers. ( Let 'em know we are seething!

[MacBoy]

Jo - excellent work. My comments in red and I've shortened the letter slightly. Well done!

 

As many readers will be aware, the OFT announced on 27 July 2007 that it is to commence litigation proceedings against a group of banks to try and establish whether overdraft fees are unlawful.

 

What is not so well-reported is the fact that the FSA has taken steps to ensure that these proceedings will be conducted not only without consultation with consumer bodies, but that it will protect the banks' interests by excusing them from handling further complaints (and putting existing ones 'on hold'), whilst leaving the consumer still completely exposed to further imposition of the disputed charges.

 

The FSA has 4 main statutory objectives, set out by the Financial Services and Markets Act:

• Market confidence: maintaining confidence in the financial system
  

 

• Public awareness: promoting public understanding of the financial system
  

• Consumer protection: securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers
  

• Reduction of financial crime: reducing the extent to which it is possible for a business to be used for a purpose connected with financial crime.
  

 

Their mission statement also commits them:

 

• To promote efficient, orderly and fair markets and to help retail consumers achieve a fair deal
  

This cosy arrangement is hardly championing the rights of the Consumer, and makes their worthy mission statements look completey hollow.

The fact is that what is supposed to be an arrangement to give pause and allow the parties to seek guidance, looks like a complete stitch-up for the poor consumer.

 

Granted, not all Judges will agree to the stay applications, and the FSA have said they will review the waiver in September, but it doesn’t bode well for the man in the street; who is already out of pocket from submitting a Court claim. I personally have paid out £350 in court fees so far, which I may never recover if the ruling is given in favour of the banks; or I might just get it back, in 2/3 years time!

 

However, as an active member of the Consumer Action Group or CAG http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk – I and many others are fighting back; and I would urge everyone concerned to sign up here (totally free) to benefit from the wealth of advice and experience in relation to all consumer issues. We are currently lobbying our MP’s to help us remove this waiver, and there are on-line petitions appealing against the FSA decision.

 

Our objective is that the message exposing this injustice reaches the widest audience, via media, public & political representatives.