FSA FoIA Request

[crfx250]

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.

[kennythecelt]

Good call and good work.

[Guest amethystdragon]

Thats an excellent request - Are you suggesting we all write and ask for it or do you feel that just one request is required ?

[Destinyofsouls]

great work cfrx- can we put it over to this thread as well?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108220-fsa-review-waiver-9.html

We all need to send this to put pressure on them.

[crfx250]

Thats an excellent request - Are you suggesting we all write and ask for it ?

 

 

No. I should have made that clear.

 

A request under the Freedom of Information Act can be refused if it is deemed to be ''part of a campaign''

[crfx250]

Blimey. What a refreshing change from the rabble at the OFT, who at this stage

would be listing all the possible exemptions your request could be subject to before

it's even considered.

The reference to the possibility of a charge being made for some of the information

no doubt refers to last 2 parts of the request, particularly the final question, which was always a bit of a punt to be honest.

But so far so good.

**********

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

[Destinyofsouls]

Bet it's not a 'normal' fee

[crfx250]

Well what do you know?

 

After sending off a complaint to the FSA at 7pm this evening informing

them that they are now in breach of the Freedom of Information Act

by not responding within the 20 working days, I'm just putting the cat

out - at 9.30 - and their response suddenly arrives.

 

Needless to say they wern't forthcoming on request 6 but seem to be

saying they might be after the 2 month waiver review.

 

Ill obviously check this with them on Monday but in the meantime

does anyone have a better idea of what they mean?

 

 

Our ref: FOI0737

 

 

Dear Mr crfx

 

I refer to your request for information which was received on 2 August 2007, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act"), for the following information:

"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 [sic] (either letter or e-mail) between the OFT and the FSA between January 2007 and

27 July 2007 in relation to bank charges."

Points 1) to 4) of your request are being taken forward as business as usual and not under the Act. The responses to these questions are as follows:

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

The FSA was involved in the discussions, but the OFT and the Banks made the decision to take a test case.
The Agreement (which included the introduction of the waiver) became effective once the FSA signed it on 26 July.
Below is a link to the Agreement which is displayed on the OFT's website
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/press_release_attachments/bankagreement.pdf

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

The FSA, by a decision taken by its Retail Regulatory Committee ("RRC") on 18 July, decided to make a waiver of the FSA complaints handling rules available to a number of banks and building societies that provide account services with overdraft facilities. The RRC decision to grant the waiver received FSA Board approval on 26 July.

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

The press release entitled 'FSA grants waiver on complaints handling' was agreed for publication on the 26 July.

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

Our press release was issued to the media on 26 July and was posted on our website on 27 July.
The decision to publish our press release on 26 July was made on 26 July, following approval by the FSA Board to grant the waiver.
 

Questions 5) and 6) of your request are being taken forward under the Act.

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

I can confirm that we do not hold the information you have requested.

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

With regard to the information we do hold, we are not able to disclose it to you because the following absolute exemptions apply:

• Section 21 (Information accessible to you by other means)
   
  To the extent that we do hold publicly available information, we are not required to release this under the Section 21 exemption as it is information accessible to you by other means. Some of the information is available on the FSA website:
  

Deloitte Cost of Regulation Report

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

The other publicly available information that we have you can obtain from:

BBC (Lloyds TSB court case re overdraft penalty charges)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6657025.stm

Birmingham Post

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/business/tm_method=full%26objectid=19254183%26siteid=50002-name_page.html

Financial Times

http://search.ft.com/iab?queryText=overdraft%20charges&y=6&aje=true&x=12&id=070710000645&location=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2FftArticle%3FqueryText%3Doverdraft+charges%26y%3D6%26aje%3Dtrue%26x%3D12%26id%3D070710000645&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2Fsearch%3FqueryText%3Doverdraft+charges

HM Courts Service

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1440.htm

Office of Fair Trading

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/106-07

The Financial Ombudsman Service

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/news/updates/bank-charges-26-07-07.html

• Section 44 (Prohibitions on disclosure)
   
  Section 44 provides that information is absolutely exempt if its disclosure (otherwise than under the Act) is prohibited by or under any enactment. Section 348 of FSMA restricts the FSA from disclosing "confidential information" it has received except in certain limited circumstances (not one of which apply here).
  
  Confidential information for these purposes is defined as information which relates to the business or other affairs of any person and was received by the FSA for the purposes of or in the discharge of its functions under FSMA which is not in the public domain.
  Disclosure of confidential information in breach of section 348 is a criminal offence.
  Consequently we are prohibited from disclosing to you any information that we have received which is not in the public domain.
  

In addition, I am writing to advise you that we consider that the information may also be exempt under the following qualified exemptions:

• Section 31 (Law enforcement)
  
• Section 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs)
  
• Section 42 (Legal professional privilege)
   
  

Section 31 of the Act will apply if the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2), among others, the public body holding the information might be harmed by its public disclosure.

Section 36 of the Act will apply where disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of our public affairs.

Section 42 of the Act will apply where the information is subject to legal professional privilege.

The above three exemptions are qualified exemptions and the FSA is required to weigh the public interest in maintaining the exemptions against the public interest in disclosing the information. By virtue of section 10(3) of the Act, where public authorities have to consider the balance of the public interest in relation to a request, they do not have to comply with the request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances. The FSA has not yet reached a decision on the balance of the public interest. Due to the need to consider, in all the circumstances of the case, where the balance of the public interest lies in relation to the information that you have requested, the FSA will not be able to respond to your request in full within 20 working days. In these circumstances, we should be in a position to respond to your request by 28 September 2007. If you do not receive my response or further information by then, please contact me and I will investigate the matter.

Yours sincerely

Shelley Spies (Mrs)

Information Access Team

 

 

*****************************************************************

If you have received this email in error please notify [email protected] immediately and delete the email from your computer. This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal relations or contractual relationships. This email has originated from:

The Financial Services Authority (FSA)

25 The North Colonnade,

Canary Wharf,

London

E14 5HS

United Kingdom

Registered as a Limited Company in England and Wales No.1920623.

Registered Office as above

Switchboard: 020 7066 1000

Web Site: Financial Services Authority

[un1boy]

What is the point of having things like the FoIA if there are always exemptions etc to it?

 

What do you suggest happens now mate?

[crfx250]

I don't know. I want them to clarify the exemptions against request 6.

 

On one hand they're saying there are 2 absolute exemptions and suggest

there might be 3 qualified exemptions yet to be determined and they'll

''respond'' by 28 September which as we know is the day after the waiver

review.

 

In normal circumstances I would ask for an internal review which if unsuccessful I would take to the information comissioner as I've done

with the OFT but the whole proceess will take 4 to 5 months.

[un1boy]

It's bloody stupid mate - 4 to 5 months?

 

This industry knows that none of its regulates will act and that it takes months to even investigate them.

 

You might as well ask for an internal review, you have nothing to lose!!

[crfx250]

Well to be fair the bulk of the delay would be taken up by the Information

Comissioner.

 

As with my OFT request the FSA have a statutory duty to hold an internal

review within a month. With the OFT request I sent it off to the IC who

took 4 weeks to even acknowledge receipt of it and then said that due to

the volume of complaints it would be ''several months'' before they even look at it.

 

I've been taking legal advice on the possibility of taking action to challenge the decision on the waiver and it looks like the only way forward

now.

[un1boy]

Well to be fair the bulk of the delay would be taken up by the Information

Comissioner.

 

As with my OFT request the FSA have a statutory duty to hold an internal

review within a month. With the OFT request I sent it off to the Information Commissioner who

took 4 weeks to even acknowledge receipt of it and then said that due to

the volume of complaints it would be ''several months'' before they even look at it.

 

I've been taking legal advice on the possibility of taking action to challenge the decision on the waiver and it looks like the only way forward

now.

 

I agree, I just take legal action now - the ICO are a complete waste of space and have told me that they can only give an opinion, and have no powers to act at all (which is a blatant lie!).....so I don't even have anything to do with them now....

[crfx250]

----- Original Message ----- From: crfx

To: Freedom of Information FSA

Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 6:19 PM

Subject: FOI0737

 

 

 

 

Dear Mrs Spies

 

Thank you for your e-mail of 31 August.

 

I would be grateful if you would clarify the status of question 6 in your response.

 

You quote absolute exemptions s21 and s44 apply and then go on to say s31, 36 and 42 (qualified exemptions) may apply pending consideration of the balance of public interest. Would I be correct in assuming that s21 and s44 apply to some of the information requested and s31, 36 and 42 may apply to the balance? And if this is the case, why have you specifically chosen 28 September - the day after the waiver review - to respond?

 

As I am sure you are aware, section 36 can only be invoked if it holds in the view of a ''reasonable person'', which the DCA's guidance indicates is usually a minister. As the FSA is a non-ministerial department I assume you will seek the view of the Chairman or the Chief Executive. Will you?

 

With regard to the 3 qualified exemptions that may be invoked dependent on a decision on the balance of public interest issue, I am aware that dozens of Members of Parliament have now written to the FSA and OFT on behalf

of their constituents questioning the reasons for and the fairness of the waiver. I would suggest that the information I seek is overwhelmingly in the public interest and it would be very difficult for the FSA to argue otherwise.

 

I look forward to your prompt response.

 

Your sincerely

 

crfx

[crfx250]

After repeated reminders by e-mail and telephone messages - all of which were ignored - and culminating in a less than cordial phone conversation with the FSA's staggeringly pompus Information Access Dept - I got a response:

 

 

 

 

Direct line: 020 7066 9832

Local fax: 020 7066 1051

Email: Freedom of Information [email protected]

 

Mr crfx

 

 

Via e-mail

 

 

13 September 2007

 

 

Our Ref: FOI0737

 

 

Dear crfx

 

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

 

I refer to your recent e-mails regarding your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act").

 

I note your comments in the e-mail of 31 August 2007 which was addressed to the Independent Complaints Scheme. However, your e-mail of 3 September 2007 to the Information Access Team was a reply to our e-mail of 31 August 2007, sent at 12.24pm and again at 16.22 as you requested in your call to our office. The e-mail explained the current position with regard to your Freedom of Information Act request, which we are required to do under the Act if we are unable to supply a final response within the statutory deadline.

 

Turning to the questions in your e-mail of 3 September. I confirm that the absolute exemptions sections 21 and 44 apply to some of the information requested. The qualified exemptions sections 31, 36 and 42 may apply to the balance of the information.

 

When considering the public interest test the Information Commissioner has issued guidance to public authorities on the length of time that should be taken to consider the public interest test. This should be no more than a further 20 working days from the date of the extension letter, hence the 28 September being the date that the FSA should be in a position to respond to your request by.

 

Please see the following link for the process that the FSA follows when considering the section 36 exemption

 

Qualified persons statement.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Roisin Traynor

Information Access Team

Financial Services Authority

[alecmac18]

Time for a judicial review CRFX250?

[un1boy]

After repeated reminders by e-mail and telephone messages - all of which were ignored - and culminating in a less than cordial phone conversation with the FSA's staggeringly pompus Information Access Dept - I got a response:

 

 

 

 

 

Direct line: 020 7066 9832

Local fax: 020 7066 1051

Email: Freedom of Information [email protected]

 

Mr crfx

 

 

Via e-mail

 

 

13 September 2007

 

 

Our Ref: FOI0737

 

 

Dear crfx

 

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

 

I refer to your recent e-mails regarding your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act").

 

I note your comments in the e-mail of 31 August 2007 which was addressed to the Independent Complaints Scheme. However, your e-mail of 3 September 2007 to the Information Access Team was a reply to our e-mail of 31 August 2007, sent at 12.24pm and again at 16.22 as you requested in your call to our office. The e-mail explained the current position with regard to your Freedom of Information Act request, which we are required to do under the Act if we are unable to supply a final response within the statutory deadline.

 

Turning to the questions in your e-mail of 3 September. I confirm that the absolute exemptions sections 21 and 44 apply to some of the information requested. The qualified exemptions sections 31, 36 and 42 may apply to the balance of the information.

 

When considering the public interest test the Information Commissioner has issued guidance to public authorities on the length of time that should be taken to consider the public interest test. This should be no more than a further 20 working days from the date of the extension letter, hence the 28 September being the date that the FSA should be in a position to respond to your request by.

 

Please see the following link for the process that the FSA follows when considering the section 36 exemption

 

Qualified persons statement.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Roisin Traynor

Information Access Team

Financial Services Authority

 

 

What have the ICO got to do with it? I thought they regulated the act, like they are meant to with the DPA - but I have 2 responses to 2 differnet complaints in which they tell me they have no powers to act and can only advise whether they believe a breach has occured.

[crfx250]

After already extending the time they need to respond to my FoIA request

they waited until the very last day to now tell me they want more time

to consider it.

 

They are now in breach of the act and I will be making that very clear to them in the next few days.

 

 

 

Dear Mr crfx

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

I write further to my e-mail of 31 August 2007.

The FSA is still not in a position to reply to your ''right to know request'', as a decision has yet to be reached on the balance of public interest in respect of the information you seek. It is therefore neccesary to extend the date for responding to you. I hope to be in a position to respond to you by 19 October 2007, though should I be in a position to contact you sooner I will do.

Yours sincerely

Roisin Traynor

Information Access Team

Financial Services Authority

[alecmac18]

To: Mr CRFX

 

From:

 

Financial Services Authority

Canary Wharf

London

 

Subject: Freedom of Information: Right to know request

 

Dear Mr CRFX,

 

Having considered your application we have concluded that the information you seek falls under the following exemptions for disclosure.

 

- Information provided in confidence

 

- Legal professional privilege

 

I hope this brings the matter for a satisfactory conclusion.

 

Good bye and have a nice day.

 

Yours,

 

The FSA

 

 

P.S. Did you honestly think the Freedon of Information Act was meant to be applied to the City? We are our own self-governing enclave. ho ho ho.

[crfx250]

----- Original Message -----

From: crfx

To: Freedom of Information FSA

Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 12:11 PM

Subject: Re: Freedom of Information - Right to Know

 

 

Dear Ms Roisin

Thank you for your e-mail of 28 September.

It is totally unacceptable that you have again failed to respond to my request and now require a further lengthy period of time in which you ''hope to be in a position to respond''.

I cannot accept that you need nearly three months to simply run an item of my request past one of the FSA's numerous board members. Let's take a little look your performance so far shall we?

7 Aug: ''Your request was received on 2 August 2007 and will be processed in accordance with the Act'' (by 31 Aug)

31 Aug: ''the FSA will not be able to respond to your request in full within 20 working days. In these circumstances, we should be in a position to respond to your request by 28 September''

28 Sept: ''The FSA is still not in a position to be able to reply...I hope to be in a position to respond to you by 19 October''

For an outfit that proudly calls itself ''The Information Access Team'', it's hardly a ringing endorsement is it?

I have now made a complaint to the Information Commissioner and the Complaints Commissioner as you are in clear breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I demand that you release the information I request immediately and without further prevarication.

crfx

[patrickq1]

Treasury Committee: Meetings

 

Those wishing to attend meetings should check the venue by contacting the House of Commons Public Information Office on 020 7219 4272 on the day before the hearing.

Treasury Committee meetings

 

Financial stability and transparency

Tuesday 9 October 2007

9.45 am

Sir Callum McCarthy, Chairman, FSA; and Mr Hector Sants, Chief Executive, FSA

[patrickq1]

The Chairman of the Committee is Mr John McFall MP

AND HE CANNOT WAIT TO QUESTION THIS LOT FROM THE FSA,I ALSO THINK SOME OF YOUR LETTER CF AND REPORTS SENT TO HIS E MAIL WILL BE WHAT HE IS LOOKING FOR

[crfx250]

Yes the session was originaly scheduled as a regular one which would have looked at all of the FSA's work over the last year but sadly the

agenda has changed to the Northern Rock fiasco so I doubt if stuff

like the waiver will get discussed.

 

Still, I'll be tuning in to watch it as it will be covered on the 'parliament live' website.

[patrickq1]

i know cant wait,any way i have come up with this dont know if it helps anything with regard to contracts and cunsumers but it may have possibilites as part of a defense ..in particular given written permissions...

EXCLUSION CLAUSES

Acontract may contain express terms under which one or both of the parties excludes or limits liability for breach of contract or negligence..(As in the case of the poor woman who commited suicide)The use of DCAs in this case....Although such express terms are permissble,both the Courts and Parliment have been reluctant to allow exclusion clauses where they have imposed on a weaker party...(by being refused or starved of the right to negotiate any terms concerning ,or with regards a default or a penalty or any other dispute i may have)..such as an ordinary consumer,by a stronger party,such as a person or corporation or in business to suply goods or services,the judges have protected consumers of goods or services against the effect of exclusion clauses in two main ways ie by deciding that the exclusion clause never became part of the contract and by CONSTRUING OR INTERPRETING the contract in such a way as to prevent the APLICATION OF THE CLAUSE

[patrickq1]

UK Parliament - Video and Audio - Player