Jump to content



The MP's campaign-Responses


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4740 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi olden, well done, it's great news. I'm sorry I haven't been online much for the past few days, but I've been a bit busy; but as soon as I've finished what I have to do, I'll be back online a lot more.

I have just finished reading your response, it's very impressive; fingers & everything else crossed, something very good will come of it. I suppose it's a case of: Watch this space.

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

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

I think that the Gremlins have definitely got something to do with this mix-up with our posts.

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

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 olden, well done, it's great news. I'm sorry I haven't been online much for the past few days, but I've been a bit busy; but as soon as I've finished what I have to do, I'll be back online a lot more.

I have just finished reading your response, it's very impressive; fingers & everything else crossed, something very good will come of it. I suppose it's a case of: Watch this space.

 

Yes thanks I was surprised when Jessica Morden phoned me like that, maybe there is some hope if they get enough support.

Also I hope this is of some help to CRFX when he gets back after that disappointment!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the Gremlins have definitely got something to do with this mix-up with our posts. The post before this one of mine should be post no 760 & this one 761 lol

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

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
I think that the Gremlins have definitely got something to do with this mix-up with our posts. The post before this one of mine should be post no 760 & this one 761 lol

 

they are all over the place, not only that but over on novice my posts have turned into tez's somewhere along the way hope it is only the web and not the same interference as the attack on MSE ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

HELLO is ja-de on here now, I have just had a phone call from JESSICA MORDEN MP !! I am still in shock:eek: She is championing our cause, she said that she and others are getting together, cross party support !because they think it is unfair! and she is emailing me the details she has from some company Do you want it posted here or not when I get it?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Olden

Fantasic news. I'll see if I can raise Ja-de by other means (she doesn't appear to be online right now) and speak to her about it. But in the meantime, definitely post it here - this is exactly why we created this thread!

 

Well done.

Mac

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites
HELLO is ja-de on here now, I have just had a phone call from JESSICA MORDEN MP !! I am still in shock:eek: She is championing our cause, she said that she and others are getting together, cross party support !because they think it is unfair! and she is emailing me the details she has from some company Do you want it posted here or not when I get it?

 

Cant wait to see the details Val, perhaps we will be able to forward them on to all the other MP's that we have written to !!:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
by the way Ja-de have you heard of posts by Pill Boy ?

 

No, Who is he & where?

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

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
Olden

Fantasic news. I'll see if I can raise Ja-de by other means (she doesn't appear to be online right now) and speak to her about it. But in the meantime, definitely post it here - this is exactly why we created this thread!

 

Well done.

Mac

 

For information. Good to speak to you and I will be in touch.

 

________________________________

 

From: Jon Gardner [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 6:25 PM

To: MORDEN, Jessica

Subject: BANK CHARGES NEWS UPDATE FOR MPs

 

 

 

>

29 October 2007

 

 

 

Dear Member of Parliament

 

 

BA > NK CHARGES WAIVER UNFAIR, & TEST CASE A WASTE OF TIME

 

Firstly I would like to thank the many MPs who acknowledged and responded to my last letter about the unfair Waiver on Bank Charges compensation cases, and to those of you who have taken the time to make detailed representations to the FSA and FOS.

 

We are receiving cross party support for this issue, and as no other organisation seems to be lobbying on behalf of the consumer, I am writing to keep you posted on developments.

 

The original FSA review period on the Waiver passed at the end of September. There has been no mention of this since - either in the media or on the FSA's website. We have since discovered that hidden away in paragraph 43 of the FSA memorandum 'Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock's Liquidity Crisis' (addressed to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007), that it will be reviewed at the end of this month. The initial two month review period has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on".

 

As it appears that some decision or 'non-decision' is likely from the FSA at the end of this month, it is vital that your constituents are represented. Without urgent pressure from MPs, we feel that this subject will be brushed under the carpet leaving millions of consumers short-changed and in limbo for three years or more.

 

The Waiver is in our opinion completely skewed in favour of the Banks and it should be withdrawn immediately in the interests of consumer fairness.

 

Furthermore, the Test Case which most people think will bring about a decision on unlawful bank charges is unlikely to do so, and we feel it is a complete waste of time. It is highly unlikely that any decision will be reached under the current legal framework for up to three years, or more. Please find attached our detailed press release on this issue of the Test Case , which is going on full circulation to the national media.

 

I would be pleased to meet with you in London or Manchester to discuss this serious issue affecting thousands of your constituents.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me direct on 0161 926 2579 or e-mail me on [email protected]

 

You can write to me at

 

Brunel Franklin & Company Limited

7th Floor, Station House

Stamford New Road

Altrincham

Cheshire

WA14 1EP

 

Yours sincerely

 

Anthony M Sultan

Managing Director, BrunelFranklin.com

Executive Committee Member - Claims Standards Council

 

-------

 

Issued on behalf of BrunelFranklin.com "BANK CHARGES TEST CASE A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME"

 

Millions of consumers could be fobbed off for three years or more

 

BrunelFranklin.com, one of the largest regulated claims management companies in the UK, has serious concerns that consumers are again being badly short-changed and misled by the financial services sector. BrunelFranklin.com is of the firm view that the recent OFT Agreement leading to a Waiver on Bank Charges cases and a Stay on related Court proceedings is totally against the consumer interest. In reality, it could be more than three years until consumers know where they stand.

 

BrunelFranklin believes that just like the Governor of the Bank of England was recently called to account by the Treasury Select Committee, the Public Administration Committee should be appointed to review the conduct of both the OFT, the FSA and FOS in this matter. These views are echoed by other leading players in the claims sector, including specialist solicitors Miller Gardner Solicitors.

 

BrunelFranklin.com believes that the public do not understand the very limited nature of the Bank Charges Test Case because it only seeks to deal with certain preliminary issues, and is not structured so as to deal with the issue of whether excessive Bank Charges are lawful or not. The net result is that it could be years before there is clarity on where people stand with their bank charges.

 

Anthony M Sultan, managing director of BrunelFranklin.com, said: "The Test Case has been brought by the OFT in its capacity as Regulator, and supported by The FSA. The OFT is concerned primarily with the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which deals with the question of fairness. The Test Case seeks to determine whether the Regulations apply to bank charges or not. The OFT believes that the Regulations apply, and the Banks believe they are exempt from the Regulations. Therefore, in itself, the question of whether or not the Regulations apply does nothing to resolve matters one way or another, whatever the outcome of the Test Case.

 

"Although well intentioned, the OFT Agreement has the effect of providing the Banks with a moratorium on repayments, and allows them to continue charging. It is well known that until the Agreement was concluded at the end of this year, Banks were voluntarily refunding 100% of such charges when faced with Court proceedings. In hiding behind the Waiver, the banks will save an estimated £500m on claims they would have been paying out, this year alone.

 

"It is difficult not to draw an inference that the Banks must feel their position is in serious jeopardy, and they are stringing the public along for as long as they can.

 

"We have written to the FSA and FOS in the strongest possible terms, outlining we feel the Waiver is so one sided in favour of the Banks and should be withdrawn immediately. Furthermore, we are involved with ongoing briefings with a number of MPs across all parties who agree with our

stance."

 

Rodney Gardner, director of Miller Gardner Solicitors, says: "Whilst the OFT proceedings allow the OFT to seek an injunction and to consider the position on penalty charges at common law, it does appear that the law of unintended consequences has given the Banks an unexpected windfall in freezing complaints; this has resulted in Court actions being Stayed, and Banks being allowed to continue making excessive - and in some cases increased - charges in the interim. The Banks are cock a hoop at the negotiated deal that can only be bad news for consumers."

 

Whilst in the very long run the OFT Agreement may eventually claim to champion the consumers' corner, in the short-medium term of 1-3 years it has done exactly the opposite.

 

Anthony M Sultan concludes: "Hundreds of thousands of Bank Charges claims have been submitted over the past 12 months. It was open to any Bank, at any stage, to allow Courts to adjudicate on the common law position regarding penalties not least, as well as the Regulations. Had this taken place, appeals to the High Court could have been dealt with by now and the law clarified. The OFT, FSA and FOS between them have done nothing to accelerate the process, indeed they have in fact exacerbated the situation; one can only assume that this is because they are protecting the Banks that fund their existence."

ENDS

 

Notes to editors

The legal arguments

If the Regulations (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) do not apply, it does not mean that such charges are lawful - because the common law position that has been adopted on behalf of bank customers in Court claims to date, is that the Banks, irrespective of the Regulations, cannot charge the customer more than the actual cost incurred by the Bank as a

result of the default by the customer; i.e, going overdrawn without authority. In practice, the cost to the Bank is minimal, yet, typically £35 or more is debited to customers' accounts.

 

On the other hand, if the OFT obtains a positive ruling that the Regulations apply, it does not mean that the charges are unfair, as there would have to be a further hearing in such

circumstances, for the Courts to consider whether fairness does or does not apply. This is likely

to take a further period on top of the 12 months that has already been agreed as the initial term of the Waiver in the OFT Agreement. It should be noted that the initial review that the FSA promised after two months seems to have been totally ignored or forgotten by the FSA; the FSA has remained silent on this and not even bothered to comment on their website. The only reference that can be found to this is buried away in paragraph 43 of the memorandum 'Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock's Liquidity Crisis' from the FSA to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007. The 2 month review has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on".

 

 

Hardship cases

Whilst the Agreement reuires banks to entertain hardship cases Rodney Gardner of Miller Gardner

Solicitors has confirmed that in practice Banks merely take advantage of the Stay and ignore matters.

One Miller Gardner client is currently owed more than £17,000 in bank charges deemed penalties, and notwithstanding the repossession of his house, the presentation of a Bankruptcy petition and legal proceedings being in train against him, the Bank refuses to negotiate or agree the case can go forward. These are apparently not sufficient grounds for a hardship case: "At the very least, I would have expected the Bank to pay out," says Rodney Gardner, "but instead it is seeking a Stay from the Courts, which I view as an utter disgrace".

 

Press contact

BeyondPR

www.beyondpr.co.uk

Mobile: 07930 697773

Issued on behalf of BrunelFranklin.com

"BANK CHARGES TEST CASE A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME"

Millions ofconsumers could be fobbed off for three years or more

 

BrunelFranklin.com, one of the largest regulated claims management companies in the UK, has serious concerns that consumers are again being badly short-changed and misled by the financial services sector. BrunelFranklin.com is of the firm view that the recent OFT Agreement leading to a Waiver on Bank Charges cases and a Stay on related Court proceedings is totally against the consumer interest. In reality, it could be more than three years until consumers know where they stand.

 

BrunelFranklin believes that just like the Governor of the Bank of England was recently called to account by the Treasury Select Committee, the Public Administration Committee should be appointed to review the conduct of both the OFT, the FSA and FOS in this matter. These views are echoed by other leading players in the claims sector, including specialist solicitors Miller Gardner Solicitors.

 

BrunelFranklin.com believes that the public do not understand the very limited nature of the Bank Charges Test Case because it only seeks to deal with certain preliminary issues, and is not structured so as to deal with the issue of whether excessive Bank Charges are lawful or not. The net result is that it could be years before there is clarity on where people stand with their bank charges.

 

Anthony M Sultan, managing director of BrunelFranklin.com, said: "The Test Case has been brought by the OFT in its capacity as Regulator, and supported by The FSA. The OFT is concerned primarily with the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which deals with the question of fairness. The Test Case seeks to determine whether the Regulations apply to bank charges or not. The OFT believes that the Regulations apply, and the Banks believe they are exempt from the Regulations. Therefore, in itself, the question of whether or not the Regulations apply does nothing to resolve matters one way or another, whatever the outcome of the Test Case.

 

"Although well intentioned, the OFT Agreement has the effect of providing the Banks with a moratorium on repayments, and allows them to continue charging. It is well known that until the Agreement was concluded at the end of this year, Banks were voluntarily refunding 100% of such charges when faced with Court proceedings. In hiding behind the Waiver, the banks will save an estimated £500m on claims they would have been paying out, this year alone.

"It is difficult not to draw an inference that the Banks must feel their position is in serious jeopardy, and

they are stringing the public along for as long as they can.

 

"We have written to the FSA and FOS in the strongest possible terms, outlining we feel the Waiver is so one sided in favour of the Banks and should be withdrawn immediately. Furthermore, we are involved with ongoing briefings with a number of MPs across all parties who agree with our stance." …/cont

Rodney Gardner, director of Miller Gardner Solicitors, says: "Whilst the OFT proceedings allow the OFT to seek an injunction and to consider the position on penalty charges at common law, it does appear that the law of unintended consequences has given the Banks an unexpected windfall in freezing complaints; this has resulted in Court actions being Stayed, and Banks being allowed to continue making excessive - and in some cases increased – charges in the interim. The Banks are cock a hoop at the negotiated deal that can only be bad news for consumers."

 

Whilst in the very long run the OFT Agreement may eventually claim to champion the consumers’ corner, in the short-medium term of 1-3 years it has done exactly the opposite.

 

Anthony M Sultan concludes: "Hundreds of thousands of Bank Charges claims have been submitted over the past 12 months. It was open to any Bank, at any stage, to allow Courts to adjudicate on the common law position regarding penalties not least, as well as the Regulations. Had this taken place, appeals to the High Court could have been dealt with by now and the law clarified. The OFT, FSA and FOS between them have done nothing to accelerate the process, indeed they have in fact exacerbated the situation; one can only assume that this is because they are protecting the Banks that fund their existence."

ENDS

 

Notes to editors

 

The legal arguments

 

If the Regulations (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) do not apply, it does

not mean that such charges are lawful - because the common law position that has been adopted

on behalf of bank customers in Court claims to date, is that the Banks, irrespective of the

Regulations, cannot charge the customer more than the actual cost incurred by the Bank as a

result of the default by the customer; i.e, going overdrawn without authority. In practice, the cost

to the Bank is minimal, yet, typically £35 or more is debited to customers’ accounts.

 

On the other hand, if the OFT obtains a positive ruling that the Regulations apply, it does not

mean that the charges are unfair, as there would have to be a further hearing in such

circumstances, for the Courts to consider whether fairness does or does not apply. This is likely

to take a further period on top of the 12 months that has already been agreed as the initial term of

the Waiver in the OFT Agreement. It should be noted that the initial review that the FSA promised after two months seems to have been totally ignored or forgotten by the FSA; the FSA has remained silent on this and not even bothered to comment on their website. The only reference that can be found to this is buried away in paragraph 43 of the memorandum ‘Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock’s Liquidity Crisis’ from the FSA to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007. The 2 month review has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on".

 

Hardship cases

Whilst the Agreement requires banks to entertain hardship cases Rodney Gardner of Miller Gardner

Solicitors has confirmed that in practice Banks merely take advantage of the Stay and ignore matters.

One Miller Gardner client is currently owed more than £17,000 in bank charges deemed penalties, and notwithstanding the repossession of his house, the presentation of a Bankruptcy petition and legal proceedings being in train against him, the Bank refuses to negotiate or agree the case can go forward. These are apparently not sufficient grounds for a hardship case: "At the very least, I would have expected the Bank to pay out," says Rodney Gardner, "but instead it is seeking a Stay from the Courts, which I view as an utter disgrace".

…/cont

Press contact

Jon Gardner

BeyondPR

Beyond - PR & Communications

Mobile: 07930 697773

 

 

Dear Member of Parliament

 

 

 

 

 

BANK CHARGES WAIVER UNFAIR, & TEST CASE A WASTE OF TIME

 

Firstly I would like to thank the many MPs who acknowledged and responded to my last letter about the unfair Waiver on Bank Charges compensation cases, and to those of you who have taken the time to make detailed representations to the FSA and FOS.

 

We are receiving cross party support for this issue, and as no other organisation seems to be lobbying on behalf of the consumer, I am writing to keep you posted on developments.

The original FSA review period on the Waiver passed at the end of September. There has been no mention of this since – either in the media or on the FSA’s website. We have since discovered that hidden away in paragraph 43 of the FSA memorandum ‘Recent Turbulence in Global Financial Markets and Northern Rock’s Liquidity Crisis’ (addressed to the Treasury Committee, dated 5 October 2007), that it will be reviewed at the end of this month. The initial two month review period has effectively come and gone without comment. When questioned directly, the FSA have said "there is nothing to comment on".

 

As it appears that some decision or ‘non-decision’ is likely from the FSA at the end of this month, it is vital that your constituents are represented. Without urgent pressure from MPs, we feel that this subject will be brushed under the carpet leaving millions of consumers short-changed and in limbo for three years or more.

 

The Waiver is in our opinion completely skewed in favour of the Banks and it should be withdrawn immediately in the interests of consumer fairness.

 

Furthermore, the Test Case which most people think will bring about a decision on unlawful bank charges is unlikely to do so, and we feel it is a complete waste of time. It is highly unlikely that any decision will be reached under the current legal framework for up to three years, or more. Please find attached our detailed press release on this issue of the Test Case , which is going on full circulation to the national media.

 

I would be pleased to meet with you in London or Manchester to discuss this serious issue affecting thousands of your constituents.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me direct on 0161 926 2579 or e-mail me on [email protected]

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Anthony M Sultan

Managing Director, BrunelFranklin.com

Executive Committee Member – Claims Standards Council

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
they are all over the place, not only that but over on novice my posts have turned into tez's somewhere along the way hope it is only the web and not the same interference as the attack on MSE ?

 

What attack was that ??

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

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

Thanks Olden

 

Have also managed to get hold of Ja-de and tell her about your news. Now let's see what happens with this!

  • Haha 1
  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Jenny I was wondering about that, I should think it was, when it says they are recieving cross party support . At last maybe something will come of this if they are prepared to go the distance, against the government, etc. at last we have a voice? if they can get to the FSA and scrap the waiver !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I finally got my response from Keith Hill MP. He promised he'd write to Kitty Usher at HM Treasury and he was as good as his word. However, as it appears the Treasury (and ergo the Government), supports the waiver unconditionally; all he's actually done is pass a copy of the HMG/FSA love-letter back to me.

 

So we're still no further down the road and I've just effectively spent what must be quite a bit of taxpayers' money. :rolleyes:

 

Anyway here it is for reference:

 

Keith_Hill_01.jpg

 

 

Keith_Hill_02.jpg

 

 

Keith_Hill_03.jpg

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the avoidance of any doubt, my comments above sound negative because I am frustrated that the Government doesn't appear to share our concerns about the inequities of the FSA waiver; not about our campaign to raise awareness about it among our political representatives.

 

If anything, the contents of this response (and the bulk of yours too) represent even greater reasons why we should all stick to the campaign and keep writing in to our MPs in order to shake them out of their complacency!

 

Mac ;)

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just responded to Keith Hill with the following:

 

Dear Mr. Hill,

 

I hope this finds you well. Thank you for your response, dated 03 October 2007 to my letter regarding the FSA waiver on bank charges complaints. I appreciate the fact that you took the time and trouble to write to Kitty Usher at HMT on my behalf; and to forward her subsequent reply.

 

However, Kitty's letter seems to consist of a standard response, outlining the background to and reasons for the FSA waiver and test case; the details of which (as my original letter to yourself will clearly show), I am fully apprised.

 

Whilst I am not against the idea of the waiver and test case in principle (indeed I think the test case in particular is a worthy initiative), I have some serious questions and concerns around the way it is being conducted, namely:

 

1. Why are the banks being allowed to continue levying presently unlawful (and in some cases crippling) bank charges on consumers, whilst consumers are not allowed their day in court until the test case is heard? This is surely iniquitous. Shouldn't the benefits of any respite from legal process apply to both sides of the dispute? There are arguably Human Rights Act implications here too, as litigants are potentially being denied access to timely litigation.

 

2. Why was this waiver agreed with no representation from consumer interest groups? It appears that the deal was agreed with only the Regulator and the Defendants involved. Again, highly iniquitous if true.

 

3. Kitty mentions that checks are being carried out on the banks' handling of complaints. They should be continuing to do this in the context of complaints being made in the waiver period, as myself and others are seeing and hearing evidence of disingenuous manipulation of the details around the test case and waiver in banks' communications to their customers about it - with particular regard to recorded messages, written responses and what customers are told by contact centre staff. In some instances, the impression is being given that these cases could go on for years and therefore there is little point in complaining.

 

Sir, the chief beneficiaries here are most assuredly the banks; who stand to save millions in interest, cash outflow, possible significant attrition of complainant numbers and who will continue to enjoy the fruits of their unlawful overcharging for months, or possibly years to come, before an outcome is arrived at.

 

I would appreciate it if you could put these points back to HMT and the FSA as soon as practicable; and establish what the results were of the review that was scheduled for September and whether or not these will be made public.

 

Yours sincerely

Mr. M. Boy

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a fantastic letter, this is what everyone thinks, but its like batting your head against a brick wall, don't you think the true reason behind all this is a conspiracy inolving the government, they are all refusing to budge due to the revenue of billions they stand to lose if they agreed those conditions . Are these MPs part of the 'Cross Party Support Group ' ??

val

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Val

 

Let's see what it brings. Frankly I'm surprised my MP has actually come this far with this! I've never had him down as being particularly proactive :rolleyes:

 

I definitely think that the government is complicit. It has the fingerprints of Broon (IMHO of course) all over it.

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think that it may be worth attaching the Uswitch report this Mac?

It gives a good breakdown of how much profit that the banks are making from unlawful charges

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

THE ‘BIG FREEZE’ LEAVES ONE MILLION BANK CUSTOMERS OUT IN THE COLD

 

Heres the link to it. it is in pdf. format

 

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks stone - great idea! I may send that on separately (my letter's already gone) or use it as ammo when I get the next glib reply. ;)

 

I've read this before; it is a superb report. :D

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...