We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Can FSA TCF guidelines be used?
UKLASS
Posts: 4 Newbie
At the risk of suffering comments from contributors that may think the basis for my ponderings questionable. I wondered if there are any legal eagles out there that know if the Treating Customers Fairly rules can shame the banks into refunding, not just the unfortunate few but, everyone's charges. The FSA's TCF rules date back to July 2006. It seems to me that if a bank can make concessions to people who are suffering financial hardship, other more borderline or solvent victims are being discriminated against. Hardly fair! I suspect that the problems that ensued stemming from the disproportionate charges banks and other financial institutions were inflicting on their customers went some way to the FSA jumping on the financial industry with these TCF rules. Prior to this , communications about changes in charges were scant and confusing and before the high court ruling, the way they were dealing with claims was inconstistant and made difficult for customers as they were often, and still are, being thrown a bum steer by companies with the initial "rejection of Claim letter" I am sure that the banks have failed on at least 3 of the 6 Outcomes that sum up the framework for TCF adherence when dealing with most customers claims.
Outome 1 states "Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
Outcome 3 states"Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale.
AND Outcome 6 states" Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.
FSA can impose huge fines and ultimately close the doors of companies who refuse to implement the rules of TCF from the top down.
Does anyone know if this is a credible argument to present to Banks/Financial Ombudsmen/Court......... or is it a non-starter!
Outome 1 states "Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
Outcome 3 states"Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale.
AND Outcome 6 states" Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.
FSA can impose huge fines and ultimately close the doors of companies who refuse to implement the rules of TCF from the top down.
Does anyone know if this is a credible argument to present to Banks/Financial Ombudsmen/Court......... or is it a non-starter!
0
Comments
-
You might be interested in this - read the posts from the bottom up http://notproven.blogspot.com/0
-
Outome 1 states "Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
That is fair enough but it doesnt mean they need to act like charities either.Outcome 3 states"Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale.
They will argue that they do supply it. Problem is that most dont read what they supply.AND Outcome 6 states" Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.
And what evidence exists to say they are doing this? If I wanted to change my bank tomorrow, I could without any barriers existing. Its a certainly a hassle but the barriers are not there.
TCF is a complete and utter waste of energy. Its a paper exercise that has cost millions, if not billions of pounds to effectively get firms to document where they do anyway or put in place pointless procedures that benefit no-one but create an additional cost the the consumer has to pay for. The FSA itself seems to have gone very quiet on TCF and you see very little action taken on it.
TCF is not law. It is an FSA guideline. Its left open to interpretation (as far too many FSA "guidelines" are).It seems to me that if a bank can make concessions to people who are suffering financial hardship, other more borderline or solvent victims are being discriminated against. Hardly fair!
I dont see it. They will say that they will consider refunding justified charges to the most vulnerable. That is good TCF. (on paper).I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
And what evidence exists to say they are doing this? If I wanted to change my bank tomorrow, I could without any barriers existing. Its a certainly a hassle but the barriers are not there.
With respect you couldn't change your bank tomorrow and this is the principle reason given as to why people are reluctant to switch in study after study - the fear of not knowing how long it takes and the lack of control during the process.
And the same applies to ISAS. If that is not a classic example of unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint, then what is?
I do argree with you that TCF has been all but abandoned by the FSA. It was never going to work as 'fairness' and 'banks' are mutually exclusive.0 -
The banks probably think they are acting fairly....Outome 1 states "Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
If you don't agree, your only option would be to prove so in court as only a court can ultimately decide if terms are fair or not.
The OFT gave up after losing at the Supreme Court when trying to ask if bank charges could even be assessed as being fair (let alone getting to the argument of whether or not they are fair)
They probably do. Whether consumers read such information is another matter.Outcome 3 states"Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale.
I'm sure if there is any gobbledygook involved, the Plain English Campaign will help you, but in my experience, terms from most banks have been revised in recent times in an attempt to remove any difficult to understand terminology.
To unreasonable barriers exist to submitting a claim or making a complaint? :huh:AND Outcome 6 states" Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.
Probably the latter...Does anyone know if this is a credible argument to present to Banks/Financial Ombudsmen/Court......... or is it a non-starter!
But I await your responses to the above with interest.
"Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards