MSE News: Mortgage blow as building society hikes SVR

VIGILANT22

Nobody has ever claimed it was publicised.....it may come as a surprise to you however the regulator and lenders do have a close relationship.......

JPS29

No surprise to me at all. Why are your posts of a condascending nature? Im not a 14 year old being rebelious, Im a user of this forum discusing my consumer rights.

Just as I dont know what "may" have been said behind closed doors neither do you or anyone else on here, suffice to say the FSA "may" have said something along the lines of... we can see why you're doing this but it won't stick if it comes against legal action" etc.

Therefore to say that things may/could/would have been agreed is pure guesswork.

VIGILANT22

Some people on here may have a better understanding/knowledge than others what happens within inside FS....You don't know who anyone is posting on a forum...

new_home_owner_3

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

Some people on here may have a better understanding/knowledge than others what happens within inside FS....You don't know who anyone is posting on a forum...

:mad::mad::mad::mad: is anyone listening???:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:idxot!!!!!!!

new_home_owner_3

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

It has been posted repeatedly....do you really think in this current climate...Skipton would have just bulldozed ahead without any consultation with the FSA....As a matter of course lenders (chief ex's) are always in meetings at Canary Wharf...so do you really think this wouldn't have been discussed!

You need to calm down you keep on going from one post to another having a go at forum members, dont let it get to you, take a chill pill, you seem to have got yourself in a right dither, take some deep breaths and go and get some fresh air.:mad:

Otherwise your going to end up causing a right kaffuffle.:D

VIGILANT22

whether you post under new home owner, confused 31 or the other user names ...you are easily identifiable by yr lack of knowledge, spelling etc.....as for people who thank you!!!........says it all really......

new_home_owner_3

You come on here every day posting all day and a lot of the night, you need to get a grip, i think you have a problem, i would seek medical help, ive seen these signs before and your heading for a breakdown.:mad:

I just hope you dont take it out on the people closest to you, if how bitter and nasty you are to people on here, it must be a nightmare living with you, i just hope for them, this is just you hiding behind your keyboard.

new_home_owner_3

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

whether you post under new home owner, confused 31 or the other user names ...you are easily identifiable by yr lack of knowledge, spelling etc.....as for people who thank you!!!........says it all really......

And who was you before January 2010? or have you just come on here and posted on average of 25 post's a day. loser.:T:T:T

VIGILANT22

new_home_owner

nothing detracts from the fact you're a LIAR

MarkyMarkD

Put your toys back in the pram, children, please.

Sarah (and thanks, Sarah, for at least appreciating my comments to some extent) and others haven't exactly acknowledged the obvious (to those of us who know how the FSA works) conclusion that Skipton must, 100% without a shadow of doubt, have had approval from the FSA to make their rate increase (subject to the fact that the FSA actually never "approves" anything, it simply advises that it does not object to things), but the point made above (before the children began squabbling) is a very valid one ... the FSA do not determine the law and cannot bind the courts.

I would suggest that the FSA can, and do, lean on the FOS and that the FOS will not go against FSA opinion without an incredibly good reason. FOS claim to follow the legal interpretation, but FSA must have legal opinion supporting their "non-objection" to Skipton's position, and FOS will almost certainly follow that.

But a legal action through the courts is a different matter, as the judiciary follow their own lead.

But anyone relying on the courts should look back at the bank charges case, and note that even with the OFT supporting the charge against the banks, the banks won.