Open Letter To David Cameron - 25 AUG REPONSE NOW IN

Widelats

MakeitgoRIGHT wrote: »

I think this is a great way to force the banks into the game of getting more money into the system. The govenment has been doing it with our taxes, and the bank of England is also printing lots of extra notes that we will have to make good at some point, and after we have shelled out so much to these banks to stop them going bust I think they should repay what has been stolen, at least. Maybe with interest too, all of which would help get more cash into the economy.

A good letter to Cameron, too.

it will be with interest, plus all the profits the banks made with our money¬

Just read they wont make no decision now till December 2010 - if i am not dead already i look forward to it.

natweststaffmember

thejack1953 wrote: »

Just because someone has a different view than you and hasn't got the time to write a comment on every article doesn't make them a "one trick pony" (whatever that is). Surely a person is entitled to comment on an article which catches their eye and on what they feel strongly about? My point was there are excesses on both issues but people seem to be attacking all bank charges and all PPI sales. Surely the issue is the excesses of charges and misselling not the fact of charging and selling themselves? Protection for customers is to be applauded, misselling excessive, inappropriate or unafordable products is not. I assume you left the Bank on a matter of principle

I didn't leave the bank but I was dismissed because I breached my contract and passed information onto a bank charges campaigner.
To clarify, you were on a long list of one post posters which kinda was getting tedious so I'm glad you aren;t a one trick pony .
All bank charges aren't wrong but they can be seen as unfair and all misselling is not wrong but when the processes in place on PPI are not followed then you can attack the system. In fact, 90% of the cost of PPI went to the bank so the policy itself was a rip off. However targets were based on sales of PPI which lead to blatant misselling which if found out was blamed on individual sellers rather than the pressure being placed on those from on high.
Apologies if I was mistaken.

natweststaffmember

Tozer wrote: »

But what is he supposed to do? By then the HoL would have ruled so isn't it all a bit academic anyway?

It will not be the end of the OFT test case though which I think many people do not seem to realise. I do agree that whilst his comments are nice to read the policies themselves are similar to the government white paper which is likely to have to be dealt with by? The next government that comes in

natweststaffmember

Widelats wrote: »

it will be with interest, plus all the profits the banks made with our money¬

Just read they wont make no decision now till December 2010 - if i am not dead already i look forward to it.

I think you are talking about restitutionary costs and yet it isn't certain at all that this is the case either so I am not sure jumping the gun is really necessary yet.

natweststaffmember

MakeitgoRIGHT wrote: »

I think this is a great way to force the banks into the game of getting more money into the system. The govenment has been doing it with our taxes, and the bank of England is also printing lots of extra notes that we will have to make good at some point, and after we have shelled out so much to these banks to stop them going bust I think they should repay what has been stolen, at least. Maybe with interest too, all of which would help get more cash into the economy.

A good letter to Cameron, too.

I don't think the economic argument washes to be honest. In July 2007 we were not in a recession when the case was announced, and some of us who are hopeful believe that the worst is over(well I do so that must mean one person). The government has given banks money but with strings attached which will reap the benefits for them when the economy improves and share prices start rising further again. Remember not everyone who pays their taxes will have incurred charges.

Tozer

natweststaffmember wrote: »

It will not be the end of the OFT test case though which I think many people do not seem to realise. I do agree that whilst his comments are nice to read the policies themselves are similar to the government white paper which is likely to have to be dealt with by? The next government that comes in

True but I cannot imagine the OFT is going to hang around on the issue of fairness after all of this time

natweststaffmember

Tozer wrote: »

True but I cannot imagine the OFT is going to hang around on the issue of fairness after all of this time

If the banks' do not accept voluntary compliance then we will. I suspect we are going there already since the banks that are part of phase two are going to be 3, Nationwide, HSBC and yorkshire bank, I think.

The question really is whether the OFT win part 1 to assess the terms for fairness or not.

catnamedog

Why does anyone think that the "party in opposition" is any more interested in doing anything for the people of the UK than the lot that are in power?
We have seen this corrupt and ineffective political system doing what it does best - taking care of itself - for all 63 years of my life, and many, many before, I'm certain.
That banks are screwing us is no different to what the Westminster Club and their grey-suited owners do to us on a daily basis. I had hoped that we would see real change - a revolution - when the fiddles and total dishonesty were found out, coupled with Browns giving all our money and gold assets away. Sadly they have a tighter control over our country than I thought, and the monster continues to live.
We need to scrap the lot and replace the whole pile of detritus with a fair system capable of taking care of the citizens of the UK first. Not themselves, not foreigners, and not their own vested interests.

ErikReger

Thank you for writing that letter to David Cameron. I was thinking of writing him a letter along the same lines myself.

David Cameron is doing exactly what Tony Blair did before he was elected in 1997. Basically saying nothing concrete about banking regulation, but trying to come across as an honest bloke who can be trusted to act in our interests. When Tony Blair said before his election that if elected he "would fight vested interests" and made vague promises about regulating the banks I believed him. The Labour party has dragged its heels disgracefully over this issue. We are relying on the outcome of an academic debate in the House of Lords on the meaning of a Law. Being married to a solicitor, having seen the unacceptable face of the Establishment at work in a High Court case once before and knowing how bankers can twist language to fit their case (I have a large collection od letters from Lloyds TSB) I am close to despair as Lloyds TSB hold on to more than ten thousand pounds of my money :eek:

thejack1953

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I didn't leave the bank but I was dismissed because I breached my contract and passed information onto a bank charges campaigner.
To clarify, you were on a long list of one post posters which kinda was getting tedious so I'm glad you aren;t a one trick pony .
All bank charges aren't wrong but they can be seen as unfair and all misselling is not wrong but when the processes in place on PPI are not followed then you can attack the system. In fact, 90% of the cost of PPI went to the bank so the policy itself was a rip off. However targets were based on sales of PPI which lead to blatant misselling which if found out was blamed on individual sellers rather than the pressure being placed on those from on high.
Apologies if I was mistaken.

I am new to this forum hence the "one post". Anyway surely everyone has a right comment and no one has a monopoly of comment here....do they?