Jump to content


The MP's campaign-Responses


moneyhelp
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5867 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Had a very positive response from Patrick Hall MP Bedford last week.

 

Have attached file.

 

He would like to contact someone from the CAG if one of the MODs could PM me with relevant contact details

 

Chrissie

 

Now that's the kind of positive response we need; thank you Chrissie, thats fantastic work.

 

Hi ja-de, Just to say, that it would appear not many claimants are familiar with this site? The true numbers are a great deal more, luckily, over on the Cardiff directions hearing site 14th August 10.30am ( what I call the Cardiff Carve up, 600 of us!!) we all sent to Master of the rolls as well as MPs etc. look up 'smutley' also todays post from '234debt' tells us the court said they had received 600 applications for stays. BRILLIANT!!!

 

You're right olden, it is BRILLIANT. It's also a shame that there's only a "handful" of peeps who know about us on here.

I have had a look at your thread, & well done to you all for your solidarity, it's definitely what needs to be done as well as bombarding our MP's. We have to keep it going now, as this is only the tip of the iceberg, we need to spread the word & get more people involved in our campaign.

--------------------------------

If you approve of my Post, please tip my scales.

13/07/07 **WON** Halifax

Any advice or opinion I give, is what I have learnt from CAG, If in doubt, please consult a professional.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

received reply from Jack Straw's (Blackburn) office ....

 

they have written to the Secretary of State (BERR) and sent my letter, in particular asking why claims have been put on hold, the arrangement between the evil Trinity (FSA, FOS and Banks) and that those claims prior to 27 July should at least continue as customers have done a lot of work and may be out of pocket.

 

i used the same letter on here as many other members, and maybe added a few parts from myself.

 

will keep you updated when i get another response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contacted my MP Dr Richard Taylor Wyre Forest yesterday and had back the following response;

 

Sent on behalf of Dr Richard Taylor

 

Dear Mr xxxxxx

 

Thank you for your email about bank penalty charges. I can well understand your indignation that bank charge cases currently under investigation are to be suspended pending the outcome of the high court ruling sought by the OFT, the FSA, the FOS and a number of leading banking organisations. I have recently written on behalf of another constituent with views similar to yours to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Kitty Ussher MP, to request that the FSA and FOS should continue their ongoing investigations in order to avoid any further financial stress on consumers involved in these cases. I note your wish that I forward your correspondence to the Prime Minister but I think it is likely that a reply will be routed via the Economic Secretary to the Treasury who responds to financial services issues. Therefore in the first instance I have sent Kitty Ussher a copy of your email and I will let you know when I receive her reply.

 

With best wishes.

 

Yours sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, me again!!!

Ja-de asked me to scan my letter from the FSA and put it on here, but the damn thing needs an A level to work and after 3 hrs and 13 temper tantrums ive given up for now!!!

Will try again when i get a few hours spare but in the meantime sorry!!!

 

Bonnie :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a problem bonnie, there's no rush. But if you think that there's anything at all that I can help you with, please give me a shout.

--------------------------------

If you approve of my Post, please tip my scales.

13/07/07 **WON** Halifax

Any advice or opinion I give, is what I have learnt from CAG, If in doubt, please consult a professional.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ja-de

 

The FSA are up in session with their bosses - the Treasury

Select Committee on 20 sept.

 

I think you should definately

target the members (below)

 

You can also watch or listen

to live or recorded coverage

on the parliament site.

 

 

 

Mr Graham BradyAltrincham and Sale WestConservativeMr Colin BreedSouth East CornwallLiberal DemocratsJim Cousins MPNewcastle upon Tyne CentralLabourMr Philip DunneLudlowConservativeAngela Eagle MPWallaseyLabourMr Michael Fallon MP (Sub-committee Chairman)SevenoaksConservativeMs Sally Keeble MPNorthampton NorthLabourMr Andrew Love MPEdmontonLabourRt Hon John McFall MP (Chairman)West DunbartonshireLabourMr George Mudie MPLeeds EastLabourSiôn SimonBirmingham ErdingtonLabourJohn ThursoCaithness, Sutherland and Easter RossLiberal DemocratsMr Mark Todd MPSouth DerbyshireLabourPeter Viggers MPGosportConservative

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ja-de

 

The FSA are up in session with their bosses - the Treasury

Select Committee on 20 sept.

 

I think you should definately

target the members (below)

 

You can also watch or listen

to live or recorded coverage

on the parliament site.

 

 

 

Mr Graham BradyAltrincham and Sale WestConservativeMr Colin BreedSouth East CornwallLiberal DemocratsJim Cousins MPNewcastle upon Tyne CentralLabourMr Philip DunneLudlowConservativeAngela Eagle MPWallaseyLabourMr Michael Fallon MP (Sub-committee Chairman)SevenoaksConservativeMs Sally Keeble MPNorthampton NorthLabourMr Andrew Love MPEdmontonLabourRt Hon John McFall MP (Chairman)West DunbartonshireLabourMr George Mudie MPLeeds EastLabourSiôn SimonBirmingham ErdingtonLabourJohn ThursoCaithness, Sutherland and Easter RossLiberal DemocratsMr Mark Todd MPSouth DerbyshireLabourPeter Viggers MPGosportConservative

 

Thanks for the info crfx250, I can organise contact for George Mudie MP for East Leeds, & I'm sure we can manage to find constituents for the other MP's you have listed.

If there is anyone reading this post, & their MP is in the above list, we would be very grateful if you lobby them by using the template letter Post 8 - MacBoy

--------------------------------

If you approve of my Post, please tip my scales.

13/07/07 **WON** Halifax

Any advice or opinion I give, is what I have learnt from CAG, If in doubt, please consult a professional.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ja-de I HAVE received a reply from my MP Jessica Morden she wrote to the FSA, and she enclosed their response. she also said the letter is fulsome in its explanations and needs no elabotatoin from her!! Pass the buck eh? I want to scan this FSA letter because I am replying to it. There are a lot of things to be questioned I don't quite know how to scan it any help on that ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Scan a Document

you place your document on top of the glass,

close the lid,

you should have a program with your scanner,

if so open that & follow the prompts.

You should then go to file (top left)

scroll down to "save as" give it a name.

Then close your program. If you are wanting to send it as an email attachment,

you should be able to "right click" on the unopened file,

scroll down to send to, there will then be a small arrow pointing to another list,

scroll to "email recipient" click on this & your email program should open up for a new email message, containing your document as an attachment.

I hope you can make sense of these instructions.

--------------------------------

If you approve of my Post, please tip my scales.

13/07/07 **WON** Halifax

Any advice or opinion I give, is what I have learnt from CAG, If in doubt, please consult a professional.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello ja-de I have finally cracked it , here is the letter As you will see I have edited it, and underlined a few points which I am going to reply about, what do you think?

 

Financial Services Authority

Dr. Thomas Huertas

Acting Managing Director, Wholesale & Institutional Markets

Director, Wholesale Firms Division and Banking Sector Leader

Direct line: 020 70662300

Local fax: 020 70662301

Email: [email protected]

 

 

Ms Jessica Morden MP Suite 5

1st Floor, Clarence House

Clarence Place

Newport

N197AA

 

28 August 2007

 

Case No 070821D

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Ms Morden

 

Thank you for your letter of 20 August, about unauthorised overdraft charges, on behalf of your constituent Valerie xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

I hope it will be helpful if I outline the background to our decision announced on 27 July to waive temporarily our rules requiring firms to handle customer complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges within particular deadlines.

 

For some time some customers of banks and building societies have been complaining about the charges levied in relation to unauthorised overdrafts. Some institutions have settled with their customers, without admitting liability, and a large number of further complaints are in the pipeline. However, the law in this area is not clear and the current situation provides

neither certainty nor consistency for consumers or current account providers.

 

In these circumstances the OFT and some firms have decided to initiate a test case in the High Court to

resolve legal uncertainties on the level, fairness and lawfulness of these charges. In order to facilitate this process we have issued a waiver of our complaints-handling rules as they apply to complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges. As a result, for a certain period of time any bank or building society that applies for the waiver will not be required to handle such complaints within the time limits set out in our rules.

 

Moreover, as we explained in our recent 'Dear CEO' to relevant firms (which we published on 27 July), in our monitoring of this sector we have identified material shortcomings in some firms' handling of complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges, which is leading to inconsistent outcomes for complainants We believe it is not in the interests of all consumers for complaints to continue to be dealt with in the current inconsistent way. Once there is certainty in this area, firms will be able to deal with these complaints fairly and consistently. To protect consumers' interests while the test case proceeds, the waiver contains a number of conditions that firms must adhere to.

 

The Fi nancial Services Authority

25 The North Colonnade Canary Wharf London E14 5HS United Kingdom Telephone +44 (0)20 7066 1000 Fax +44 (0)20 7066 1099 Financial Services Authority

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and the county courts are expected to adopt a similar approach to complaints - that is to delay consideratoin of these complaints until thelegal issues relating to these charges are resolved. We will review the waiver.at the end of September to ensure, among other things, that firms are complying with its conditions. We can revoke the waiver at any time if we consider that it is no longer appropriate because, for example, the test case is not progressing or if a delay in the resolution of the test case is likely to cause undue risk to consumers.

In making the decision on the waiver, we have particularly considered consumers facing financial difficulty. High street banks and building societies subscribe to the Banking Code that covers how firms deal with cases of financial difficulty; the Financial Services Ombudsman ,also considers the Code when making his decisions. The waiver does not apply to complaints about the way that banks and building societies have dealt with financial difficulty. The waiver requires firms to identify such complaints and to progress them throughout the waiver period. If these complaints cannot be resolved, the Ombudsman will be able to consider them.

 

We acknowledge that our decision will lead to inconvenience and delay for some consumersparticularly those who were in the advanced stages of making a claim - in that their complaint may now not be resolved for some time. However, we are clear that the way in which complaints have been handled in the recent past - against a background of uncertainty about what the legal position is on these charges - is unsatisfactory and not in the broader public interest in the longer term. When the legal position on these charges has been clarified, firms will be required to deal with complaints within the normal timetable. In the meantime, we are requiring firms to acknowledge any further complaints they receive on this issue within five days, to keep records of such complaints, and to be prepared to deal with them once we lift the waiver.

Mrs xxxxx suggests that our action might interfere with consumers' human rights. In our view the waiver does not interfere with rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. Consumers may still lodge a complaint with firms or bring a claim to the court during the duration of the waiver, if they wish. Complainants will not be disadvantaged if they wish to wait until the test case is resolved before making a complaint - as we explained above, we imposed acondition in the waiver to preserve consumers' rights so as to prevent complaints becoming time-barred.

 

I hope that this is helpful. I enclose a copy of the press release we issued on 27 July giving further information on our decision and its implications for firms and their customers. If you would find it helpful to have a fuller briefing, we would be happy to arrange that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That response was garbage.

 

It's simply a re-hash of the same templated response that they've

been sending out to lowly consumers.

 

If I was the MP who received that I'd be seriously disatisfied with

the quality of their reasoning.

 

''we have identified material shortcomings in some firms' handling of complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges, which is leading to inconsistent outcomes for complainants ''

 

And just who is responsible for policing shortcomings in complaints handling? Do the FSA really need reminding that it's themselves? And

do they really think the best solution to this problem is to simply do

away with the handling of complaints altogether to achieve ''consistancy''?

 

''In making the decision on the waiver, we have particularly considered consumers facing financial difficulty'' This, they described in there

statement of 27 July as being ''protection'' for the consumer

 

But this is plainly not the case. All they did was to ask the banks to identify cases of financial hardship without even bothering to set out

the criteria for what constitutes hardship. When Which? challenged

them on this the FSA ''suggested'' that the banks should use the hardship

criteria in the banking code. Do the FSA seriously expect the average

claiment to know that they've got to go through vast swaithes of the banking code to find out if the can claim, when even the banks were

not told this?

 

If I were you Olden I'd ask your MP to request the application the BBA

made for the waiver. Mere mortals like us won't be privy to it but your

MP will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for that reply, I agree, more good amunition for my letter, I certainly will add your more eloquent way with words. also don't you think this waiver is giving the banks even more opportunity of changing their wording of these penalty charges, and reintroducing them in a different form.

 

this part I have never been able to get to grips with, because in my opinion this criteria has no place in this event, The claimants are ALL in the same position, OVERCHARGED for going over the limit, regardless of our different personal situations. This should not be a lottery, depending on who you are. Every single person is suffering hardship otherwise they would not be in the red.

 

the criteria for what constitutes hardship. When Which? challenged

them on this the FSA ''suggested'' that the banks should use the hardship

criteria in the banking code. Do the FSA seriously expect the average

claiment to know that they've got to go through vast swaithes of the banking code to find out if the can claim, when even the banks were

not told this?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received this reply to my emailed letter from Johathan Evans MEP (Wales)

 

Thank you very much for your e-mail regarding the test case of unauthorized banking charges.

 

The test case, which will determine if the bank charges are indeed unlawful. is due to begin by October at the very latest. It is hoped that the decision will clarify the level, fairness and lawfulness of these charges. The judgment of the court is likely to apply to all existing and future claims against these charges. The FSA hope that the test case will deliver a fair outcome for consumers because, once the test case has created a clear basis for resolving these complaints, firms will be able to deal with them in a fair and convenient way.

 

I am sure that proceeding on the basis of one test case in relation to these charges is ultimately to the benefit of bank customers, who until now have engaged in an expensive lottery in challenging these charges in the Courts. I share your concern, however, about the decision to allow banks to continue to impose charges until the case is concluded. I believe that there should have been a suspension of further charges pending the Court outcome, which would have the advantage of concentrating the parties' minds on ensuring that there is no avoidable delay in hearing and concluding the case.

 

Up until now some customers have been refunded while others have not. The FSA does not believe that this is in all of their customers benefits. In order for the test case to progress the FSA has granted some banks and building societies a waiver. This means that they do not have to comply with FSA regulations on time limits for dealing with complaints on this issue.

 

From 27th July the complaints have been `put on hold´. However there are a number of conditions which the banks and building societies must meet while the waiver is in place. Primarily your bank and or building society must keep you informed of any developments in the test case The FSA also expects firms to continue dealing with any cases of genuine financial hardship during the waiver period. I refer you to the Banking Code Standards Board's website (/www.bankingcode.org.uk/) fir further information.

 

As your complaint is still to be processed the banks and building societies are likely to continue with their policies of charging; however if the test case rules in favor of the consumer these charges will be repaid to you in full. Any customer who has already accepted a final settlement offer will not be able to benefit from the upcoming ruling.

 

Should you have any further queries on this or any other matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Evans MEP (Wales)

Chairman of the Delegation for Relations with the U.S.

 

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

From: Sent: 01 September 2007 01:54

To: EVANS Jonathan

Subject: Letter from your constituent Jenny xxxxxxxxxx

 

 

This message was also sent to: Jill Evans MEP, Eluned Morgan MEP,

Glenys Kinnock MEP

Link to post
Share on other sites

first of all what the hell does he mean "The test case, which will determine if the bank charges are indeed unlawful. is due to begin by October at the very latest. It is hoped that the decision will clarify the level, fairness and lawfulness of these charges." ?? yet it doesn't matter at all about the fairness and lawfullness which is now only operating on the side of the banks, non existant for the claimant, unfair stays which the MOR stated must not apply to those with latter stage of cases, penalties, (and they are penalties, however much the sneaky sly coniving banks are changing the word now) I have recieved a letter today referring to another £30 for going over 39.35, because our pensions came in just after a payment.

What constitutes genuine hardship? we are all in that state thats why we are reclaiming.

 

and engaged in an expensive lottery, and who's fault is that, there should be no distinction in my opinion, neither should the decisioin be based on how well you present your case, providing you have supplied all the essential evidence, that should be enough. This is just siding with the banks again.

" firms will be able to deal with them in a fair and convenient way"

FOR WHO? they've already had that opportunity why haven't they come clean Why has NO JUDGE ever forced them to hand in the breakdown of their cost of charges.

 

SORRY THIS WAS REPLY TO SMUTLEY POST 57

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonnie & Olden - Can you both ask your MP's for a copy of the letter that

they sent off to the FSA.

 

The letters must have asked at least slightly different questions and had

a somewhat different emphasis. For the FSA to send them back the same cut & paste job demonstrates contempt for Members of Parliament and

I'd be very keen to give this to the Treasury Select Committee. They would not be Impressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hold on a second, was bonnie's MP the same as Oldens? Anyone?

Hi crfx250 and bonnie, as you say my MP is Jessica Morden, this letter was FSA response to her asking Dr Thomas Heurtas of FSA, her letter was simply as follows:

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter I have received from the Financial Services Authority in response to representations I made to them on your behalf about the way overcharging complaints are to be handled.

 

The letter is fulsome in its explanations and needs no elaboration from me. Can I please ask you to consider the letter and let me know whether you wish me to make further representationis on your behalf?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello ja-de I have finally cracked it , here is the letter As you will see I have edited it, and underlined a few points which I am going to reply about, what do you think?

 

Financial Services Authority

Dr. Thomas Huertas

Acting Managing Director, Wholesale & Institutional Markets

Director, Wholesale Firms Division and Banking Sector Leader

Direct line: 020 70662300

Local fax: 020 70662301

Email: [email protected]

 

 

Ms Jessica Morden MP Suite 5

1st Floor, Clarence House

Clarence Place

Newport

N197AA

 

28 August 2007

 

Case No 070821D

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Ms Morden

 

Thank you for your letter of 20 August, about unauthorised overdraft charges, on behalf of your constituent Valerie xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

I hope it will be helpful if I outline the background to our decision announced on 27 July to waive temporarily our rules requiring firms to handle customer complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges within particular deadlines.

 

For some time some customers of banks and building societies have been complaining about the charges levied in relation to unauthorised overdrafts. Some institutions have settled with their customers, without admitting liability, and a large number of further complaints are in the pipeline. However, the law in this area is not clear and the current situation provides

neither certainty nor consistency for consumers or current account providers.

 

In these circumstances the OFT and some firms have decided to initiate a test case in the High Court to

resolve legal uncertainties on the level, fairness and lawfulness of these charges. In order to facilitate this process we have issued a waiver of our complaints-handling rules as they apply to complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges. As a result, for a certain period of time any bank or building society that applies for the waiver will not be required to handle such complaints within the time limits set out in our rules.

 

Moreover, as we explained in our recent 'Dear CEO' to relevant firms (which we published on 27 July), in our monitoring of this sector we have identified material shortcomings in some firms' handling of complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges, which is leading to inconsistent outcomes for complainants We believe it is not in the interests of all consumers for complaints to continue to be dealt with in the current inconsistent way. Once there is certainty in this area, firms will be able to deal with these complaints fairly and consistently. To protect consumers' interests while the test case proceeds, the waiver contains a number of conditions that firms must adhere to.

 

The Financial Services Authority

25 The North Colonnade Canary Wharf London E14 5HS United Kingdom Telephone +44 (0)20 7066 1000 Fax +44 (0)20 7066 1099 Financial Services Authority

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and the county courts are expected to adopt a similar approach to complaints - that is to delay consideratoin of these complaints until the legal issues relating to these charges are resolved. (1)We will review the waiver.at the end of September to ensure, among other things, that firms are complying with its conditions. We can revoke the waiver at any time if we consider that it is no longer appropriate because, for example, the test case is not progressing or if a delay in the resolution of the test case is likely to cause undue risk to consumers.

In making the decision on the waiver, (2)we have particularly considered consumers facing financial difficulty. High street banks and building societies subscribe to the Banking Code that covers how firms deal with cases of financial difficulty; the Financial Services Ombudsman ,also considers the Code when making his decisions. The waiver does not apply to complaints about the way that banks and building societies have dealt with financial difficulty. The waiver requires firms to identify such complaints and to progress them throughout the waiver period. If these complaints cannot be resolved, the Ombudsman will be able to consider them.

 

(3)We acknowledge that our decision will lead to inconvenience and delay for some consumers particularly those who were in the advanced stages of making a claim - in that their complaint may now not be resolved for some time. However, we are clear that the way in which complaints have been handled in the recent past - against a background of uncertainty about what the legal position is on these charges - is unsatisfactory and not in the broader public interest in the longer term. When the legal position on these charges has been clarified, firms will be required to deal with complaints within the normal timetable. In the meantime, we are requiring firms to acknowledge any further complaints they receive on this issue within five days, to keep records of such complaints, and to be prepared to deal with them once we lift the waiver.

Mrs xxxxx suggests that our action might interfere with consumers' human rights. In our view the waiver does not interfere with rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. Consumers may still lodge a complaint with firms or bring a claim to the court during the duration of the waiver, if they wish. Complainants will not be disadvantaged if they wish to wait until the test case is resolved before making a complaint - as we explained above, (4)we imposed a condition in the waiver to preserve consumers' rights so as to prevent complaints becoming time-barred.

 

I hope that this is helpful. I enclose a copy of the press release we issued on 27 July giving further information on our decision and its implications for firms and their customers. If you would find it helpful to have a fuller briefing, we would be happy to arrange that.

 

Hi olden,

Reading through this, it seems to me that this is one of those "fob off" letters, it's as if it's OK for Banks & Building Societies to carry on slapping these penalty charges on us, but consumers have to wait for their money to be paid back, which could very well be next year, so the banks are laughing at us right now.

(1) It's all very well, this Dr Thomas Huertas, saying that the waiver will be reviewed at the end of September, & revoke it if there is likely to be a cause of undue risk to consumers. There is, because too many people are probably about to lose everything they have worked hard to achieve, in all their working lives.

(2) I wouldn't be at all surprised if nearly all the banks & Building Societies have flouted this, because if the banks hadn't have "overcharged" by 100%, then we wouldn't be facing financial difficulty, or even ruin, then we wouldn't be here at all.

(3) Those who are in the advanced stages of their claim, have probably had to borrow to pay for their court costs.

(4) I wonder how many banks, & building societies will try to get out of this.

--------------------------------

If you approve of my Post, please tip my scales.

13/07/07 **WON** Halifax

Any advice or opinion I give, is what I have learnt from CAG, If in doubt, please consult a professional.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonnie & Olden - Can you both ask your MP's for a copy of the letter that

they sent off to the FSA.

 

The letters must have asked at least slightly different questions and had

a somewhat different emphasis. For the FSA to send them back the same cut & paste job demonstrates contempt for Members of Parliament and

I'd be very keen to give this to the Treasury Select Committee. They would not be Impressed.

 

 

YES OK I will do that , I am trying to get my letter sorted, It is getting longer by the minute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...