FSA To Review Waiver

[jules1973]

What a shame! Maybe that's a clue that consumers don't like what they've done.

 

 

Hear hear totally agree, maybe my complaint is in their ever growing mountain of paperwork.

[enoughisenough]

OHOH3412! Hi.

 

I've looked at your letter and thought it was really good. I'm not good at drafting but I've got certain skills at redrafting - so people say - so I thought I'd have a go, taking on board advice from others! Anyway this is what I've come up with. Let me know what you think before it goes. Others feel free to chip in. Let's get this going! Here goes...

 

Clive Briault

Managing Director

Retail Markets

25 The North Colonnade,

Canary Wharf,

London E14 5HS

 

Dear Mr Briault,

 

Firstly, please be assured that this is not a complaint, rather a request for clarity, to which I expect more than a mere pro forma response. I would also respectfully request that the specific questions I have put below are met with specific responses.

 

I am writing to you to ask if you can explain the reasoning behind the current waiver on bank charge claims, whilst allowing the banks to continue to apply such contested charges and how you perceive that this action benefits the consumer in any manner whatsoever.

 

1. What is your reasoning behind the decision to allow the banks to apply charges up to £39 for alleged breaches of contract, whilst the test case between the banks and the OFT is proceeding?

 

You will appreciate that the aforementioned waiver allows the banks to continue their regime of unfair charges whilst allowing the consumer no benefit at all. It is manifest that a more equitable position for the FSA, the OFT and the FOS to adopt would be a simple suspension of cases and charges, pending the forthcoming test case.

 

2. Why has this obviously fair interim measure not been adopted?

 

It is my understanding that the banks party to the test case brought against them by the OFT can, since 27th July of this year:

 

Acknowledge, but not action, any new "complaints" regarding the fees structure for unpaid direct debits, cleared transactions at the bank’s discretion which then result in further fees applied, and the subsequent application of unauthorised overdraft fees which result from such action and which clearly contravene the OFT’s (April 2006 OFT Report 842) express opinion of such ‘double charging’ regimes as unfair.

 

3. Why are such ‘double charges’ allowed to continue?

 

Apply for a stay on all cases that are currently in the County Court system;

 

And continue to charge consumers, at their existing rates, fees for any "breaches of contract", fees which have consistently been found to be contrary to principles of fairness established in common law and explicitly stated in statutory instruments, most notably the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), Schedule 2 paragraph (e).

 

4. Why, to this date, has the FSA not, been able to make the high street banks comply with the UTCCRs, which after all are statutory instruments, which have been in force for eight years?

 

5. Why is consumer action on a widespread scale necessary (and in the case of bank charges almost unprecedented) before your offices and other regulatory authorities respond in the interests, fairness and protection of the consumer, as is your statutory duty?

 

The position, adopted by you, for the consumer is thus:

 

6. On making a new complaint, it will be held as pending, possibly indefinitely; why?

 

7. Having already submitted a Court claim, and found the funding for such, sometimes in cases of extreme financial hardship, before the official announcement of the test case, the claimant will now quite likely find that the case is put on hold, again possibly indefinitely; again why?

 

8. S/he will still be subject to penalty charges at the current level of charges to the bank, irrespective of the fact such charges are precisely the subject of the forthcoming test case. Once again how would you propose to justify this given your statutory obligations to the consumer?

 

You will be aware that this issue has come to the attention of the public and the media, sadly not as a result of actions (deeds not words) on behalf of regulatory authorities such as the FSA which you represent but instead because many hundreds of thousands of ordinary consumers have had the confidence to stand together and organize themselves in such a way that has forced the high street banks to repay many millions that should never have been deducted unlawfully from consumer accounts in the first place.

 

There is a further problem which I hope you will address and treat with the utmost importance. Charges unlawfully imposed can create a spiral of debt which can blight many families and individuals for years. Such charges often mean default notices are applied on an individual’s credit referencing agency records which should never have been made in the initial instance because they relate to unlawful charges. This may also impact upon the reference of those with whom they have a financial association. This is intolerable not least because credit therefore becomes more expensive (or impossible to obtain at all) to those who have had unlawful charges applied to their accounts.

 

I therefore have one final question.

 

9. Will the FSA give a categoric assurance that the issue of consumer defaults, as they apply to credit referencing agencies’ records, will be thoroughly reviewed with the aim of removing altogether such default notices applied as a result of the application of such unlawful charges?

 

I trust that you will consider my questions carefully, without treating it as just another complaint, and provide me with a comprehensive reply.

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter

 

Yours Sincerely

[poppynurse]

Fab letter, have sent it! Tried to submit a complaint via the FSA complaints page but it will not send - overwhelmed perhaps......anyone got an email addy for them?

[TECHSPEC]

This is what the FOS have to say about the waiver:-

 

"Thank you for your e-mail which has been received by the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

The waiver has been put in place by the Financial Services Authority and the legal action against the banks has been taken by the Office of Fair Trading. If you have any queries regarding the waiver or the action taken in the High Court I would recommend that you refer to the authorities taking the action and applying the waiver. The OFT has taken the action in an attempt to have the issue clarified as a point of law and to try and ensure that the matter is dealt with once and for all, rather than cases being considered ad-hoc.

 

As a result, we are unable to pass comment. We must have due consideration for the law and we must apply the rules of the FSA to our handling of complaints.

 

Details of the bank charges issue are available from our website and those of the FSA and OFT."

 

Well, thats cleared that up then.

[anyoldnamewilldo]

Hi, I'm probably being very dense here but I thought that Nick somethingorother v. Nat West was in the high court and would act as a test test. What happened to that? I've been out of the country for a couple of weeks and didnt realize what had happened until I got a standard letter from lloyds basically saying sucks bo to you you've got to wait. I know I'm cynical but I am doubtful that any amount of pressure we can bring to bear can compare to the pressure the banks are capable of. Democracy becomes a sticky business when money is involved, this could, however, bring something akin to a revolution if we can unite our resources and keep it in the public eye. Bearing in mind how strange the legal system can be in this country, can we collectively appeal if the banks win the first round?:?

[tifo]

we must apply the rules of the FSA to our handling of complaints.

 

Does it say in their mandate set by Parliament in 2001 when they were established that they are must bow to the FSA?

 

I wasn't aware they were under the jurisdiction of the FSA, only parliament?

[un1boy]

Does it say in their mandate set by Parliament in 2001 when they were established that they are must bow to the FSA?

 

I wasn't aware they were under the jurisdiction of the FSA, only parliament?

 

Funny how they must apply to this "rule" but all the others they don't....

[tifo]

Funny how they must apply to this "rule" but all the others they don't....

 

Methinks there is a valid complaint there to our MP's to ask if the 'independent' Ombudsman has to answer to the FSA.

 

The 'independent' probably means 'independent from the consumer' .... heads so much up the banks A** they can't see anything ....

[chrissieo]

I have received a second reply from MP Patrick Hall, without any further correspondence from myself, so he is obviously taking the matter seriously.

 

He basically is saying that it may take a couple months for him to get repsonse from FSA.

 

He agrees with me that the OFT's legal proceedings are welcome, but is concerned that no-one represented the "rights" of millions of customers when the FSA discussed the basis of the agreement with the banks in the light of Litigation and he will be persuing this with the FSA.

 

If anyone would like a to see a scan of the letter please PM me and I will forward. He also requested details of a contact at CAG that he could contact. Can one of the MODs please PM the relevant info.

 

Thanks

 

Chrissie

[alecmac18]

So what does everyone think that the FSA will do at the end of the month? There should be not doubt now that they have made a grave error in allowing claims to be put on hold until the outcome of the test case. Over the past 4 weeks they will have received more complaints than at any point in their history (whether or not they have logged them as complaint is another story) and more importantly they have suffered from a huge loss in consumer confidence. It is vital that consumers trust the regulator to do a good job. A regulator who effectively shuts down its own complaint handling procedures is obviously not an impartial regulator.

 

So what will they do?

 

Here are their choices (as far as I can tell)

 

1. Allow claims to proceed as before (and allow banks to keep charging at current rates)

2. Carry on with the current situation (e.g on hold)

3. Put a hold on all new charges (but continue to keep current claims on hold)

4. As 3. but with clearer provisions for special e.g hardship cases.

 

One thing is for sure. If they pick option 2 then they are going to have a bigger fight on their hands than they realise.

 

What do readers think?

 

One option that might sit well with the banks and consumers would be to immediately order all new charges to be no larger than £12 and allow claims to proceed (e.g remove the wavier) for anything in excess of this amount. This would allow banks to keep the revenue rolling in but at a reduced rate. It would also allow claims to continue (but at a reduced level of value as banks would then seek to pay the difference charged between the old and new rates).

 

Neither banks or consumers will be particularly happy with this decision but it might be one that everyone can live with.

 

Update: I have put some of these thoughts in an open letter to the FSA in the campaign section here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/113025-open-letter-fsa.html

 

I would be grateful for comments.

[indebtstudent]

IMO your letter is too sarcastic and insulting. I'm not saying it is wrong to feel this way but I believe they will fob you off even if you were polite so I would consider keeping it in.

 

I shall be seeing my MP about the charges, the waiver and related amtter (the disgusting behaviour of the banks DCAS etc - in short the whole industry).

[patrickq1]

i think the appropriate course of action is to write to your MP to let them know of your feeling towards the disapointment towards the FSA and this almost breach of trust ,also their colusion with the banks without any input from the public who have brought about this need for as what we would like to see and that being firstly TRANSPARANCEY CLARITY AND FAIRNESS, i would nt dream of putting my name to anything other than no charges whatsoever,and if charges are decided then they should be costed nothing more nothing less furthermore the existing charges they have already made be quashed and cleared alltogether so we can start on a fresh and legal footing and also the use of the DATA PROTECTION ACT must be as it was written and the basis for which it was written DATA PROTECTIO no more little waivers on any contracts any Waivers of our right should be a free and volantry contract ,which should come a week of the main body of any future contracts,this way any information that comes out from banks and finance etc should therefore be accountable in LAW and through the courts juristriction....

[toneighty170]

I have filled in the FSA complaint form. It was not too diplomatic:oops: , on the lines of "it seems to me you are in the pockets of the banks..."

 

After I filed the complaint, I thought I would come on here to get others to use the online form....

 

I was only two months late :shock:8-)

[TECHSPEC]

This is my initial reply from FSA, re unfair waiver:-

 

Thank you for your email of 23 August 2007.

 

The role of the FSA Complaints Scheme is only to consider complaints about the actions of the FSA. However, your email has been forwarded to the FSA Consumer Contact Centre (e-mail: http://www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk/contactus.aspx, Tel: 0845 606 1234 or +44 20 7066 1000 from outside of the UK, Website: www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk) for their consideration and to arrange a reply to you.

 

 

All very well, but my complaint WAS about the FSA, so they are playing games, just like the banks have been doing.

[toneighty170]

I have filled in the FSA complaint form. It was not too diplomatic:oops: , on the lines of "it seems to me you are in the pockets of the banks..."

 

Just found out that I was right

 

"The FSA is accountable to Treasury Ministers, and through them to Parliament. It is operationally independent of Government and is funded entirely by the firms it regulates.":grin:

 

I wonder why they gave the banks a waiver:rolleyes:

[alecmac18]

CFRX250 will find out in his Judicial Review - haha

[alecmac18]

Just in:

 

The FSA spends 5% of its budget on consultants:

 

including one called REPUTATION INC?????

 

FSA spent £13m on consultants - 6 September 2007

 

 

T

[un1boy]

Has the waiver been reviewed?

[j.barton1]

Has the waiver been reviewed?

Still ongoing, I've heard it could take a couple of months for the review.

[TECHSPEC]

Unbeleivable!

 

Barclays accepted a claim of hardship, and promised to sort it within 8 weeks.

 

The FOS have written back telling them they don't have to honour the hardship rule, and have until February.

 

I am livid!!

[alecmac18]

How do you mean. Did you submit the complaint to Barclays or the FOS?

[TECHSPEC]

Originally complained to Barclays, who said they would deal with it after the test case.

 

I therefore referred it to the FOS.

 

In the meantime, i receieved an apology from Barclays, and a promise to deal with it within 8 weeks, under the hardship rule.

 

Yesterday, the FOS wrote to them asking them to file it until after the test case.

[alecmac18]

That is utter bollocks. FOS should be dealing with hardship cases - or at least supply you with a reason why they have decided to wait until after the test case. E.G: They have reviewed your case and decided that it did not involve financial hardship etc....It sounds like they have just imposed a blanket policy. I would ask them to justify their reasoning. If it was me I would do this by first calling them and then writing to them. They should at least be able to do that much (supply you with a vaild reason and have actually looked into your case).

 

On the occasions that I have spoken to them they have changed their minds every five minutes. The sad truth is that if you keep hitting them over the head with a stick and asking for your complaint to be escalated - they will eventually do it.

 

I really hate FOS - they do literally as little work as possible. It seems that deep down they really hate helping the consumer.

[alecmac18]

If that fails make an official complaint to FOS and the Banking Code Standards Board. If there is one thing they like less than dealing with complaints - its getting a complaint against them to deal with.

[alecmac18]

You can also appeal any FOS decision - You should definately do this.