Maladministration

dendrite

Here's a challenge after being bounced around the FSA, FOS and OFT I cannot get a straight answer to

"All over your web-sites the word maladministration is used, can you please tell me or give me a reference on one of your web-sites to what the word actually means"

3 helplines of our so called financial administrators cannot answer the question can you?

To prove a bank maladministrates (breaks the rules) surely it has to be defined?

:mad:

I have been to the bible of words

Pronunciation:/ˌmalədˌmɪnɪˈstreɪʃn/
noun




[mass noun] formal

• inefficient or dishonest admininstration;

This would mean every bank is constantly maladministrating and should lose most if not all complaint cases

I am fighting a case against one of the biggest high st bank's and currently have a case with FOS which they have taken a year to deal with !

And still it might have to go to the Ombudsman.

It is no wonder they lost the bank charges case they do not even understand basic English

leclerc

dendrite wrote: »

Here's a challenge after being bounced around the FSA, FOS and OFT I cannot get a straight answer to

"All over your web-sites the word maladministration is used, can you please tell me or give me a reference on one of your web-sites to what the word actually means"

3 helplines of our so called financial administrators cannot answer the question can you?

To prove a bank maladministrates (breaks the rules) surely it has to be defined?

:mad:

I have been to the bible of words

Pronunciation:/ˌmalədˌmɪnɪˈstreɪʃn/
noun




[mass noun] formal

• inefficient or dishonest admininstration;

This would mean every bank is constantly maladministrating and should lose most if not all complaint cases

I am fighting a case against one of the biggest high st bank's and currently have a case with FOS which they have taken a year to deal with !

And still it might have to go to the Ombudsman.

It is no wonder they lost the bank charges case they do not even understand basic English

Try this link with regards to a definition of Maladministration

http://www.bioa.org.uk/young-people/maladministration.htm

dunstonh

It's more likely they can throw that comment back at the account holders. After all the reason you incur bank charges is inefficient or dishonest administration.

zppp

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Try detaching yourself from your own emotions and you will find that there is nothing remotely ''dishonest'' about using the services banks willingly provide and for which you are morally, legally and contractually entitled to.

Try detaching yourself from your own emotions and you will find that there is nothing remotely ''dishonest'' about the banks offering services where the conditions of such services are contractually entered in to by the customer.

Alpine_Star

zppp wrote: »

Try detaching yourself from your own emotions and you will find that there is nothing remotely ''dishonest'' about the banks offering services where the conditions of such services are contractually entered in to by the customer.

I didn't say that did I? I'd genuinely be interested to know where you think I did - but somehow I don't think you'll be able to you say.

But as you ask, here's a recent fitting example of ''dishonest administration'' on the part of a bank, or as the judge in the case puts it ''commingling''. And although it happened in the US, the same principles apply http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/business/11wells.html?_r=4&sudsredirect=true

And before you ask, UK banks use loosely the same comminglng methods ie they ignore standard sequential accounting practices in favour of deciding themselves in which order to deal with payments - as described by the QC for Lloyds in the first instance case:


MR MILLIGAN:
The bank does not make any promise as to the order of processing, and, therefore, there is no term to express in plain or any other language.

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: What does that mean? That is if you receive them on the same day?

MR MILLIGAN: Yes.

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: One would expect the bank in a sense to process what was presented on Monday before what was presented on Tuesday.

MR MILLIGAN: Yes, this is the case of several items cropping up for process on the same day, and indeed it is illustrated by one of the examples your Lordship gave yesterday of ten cheques for !10 being presented on the same day as well as one cheque for !100 and there being a credit balance of only !100 on the account.

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: So when you say that no promise as to order of processing is made, you mean no promise of order of processing items presented on the same day.

MR MILLIGAN: Yes, yes. And that is actually spelt out in the bottom of the first page.

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: Yes, I see. Thank you.

MR MILLIGAN: So far as item 11, the first part, is
concerned....

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: Forgive me -- your financial circumstances commitment doesn't bear upon that, you say?

MR MILLIGAN: No, not on that. What in fact happens, although this is irrelevant to determining whether or not the term is fair or unfair or in plain and intelligible language, is that the bank forms a judgment about whether, for example, the cheque for !100 appears to be in favour of the mortgagee, and thus it is more important to pay than !10 to the bookie and !10 to the pub or whatever it is.

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: That is not financial circumstances.

MR MILLIGAN: No.

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: That is closer to Lloyds personal circumstances.

MR MILLIGAN: Yes, but that is in fact what the bank does, but it doesn't have an obligation to do it in that way.

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: It, so to speak, takes them in a random order and then, when it runs out of money, it then considers financial circumstances.

MR MILLIGAN: No, it looks at all of the items to be cleared on a single banking day, because the clearance occurs at the end of the banking day, and then forms a judgment, and this is an individual who is forming a judgment with the aid of computerised algorithms, as to whether or not it is more important for the customer, absent specific instructions from the customer, to pay the item in favour of the landlord or the mortgagee as opposed to what appear to be less significant items. But the bank doesn't have an obligation to do that, and therefore there is nothing to express.

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: And the reference in your documents to "financial circumstances" doesn't bear upon that?

MR MILLIGAN: I would suggest not, no. The financial circumstances goes to the question of giving credit, i.e. that is the stage beyond. Suppose that the bank has decided, taking your example, to pay the cheque of !100 because it is in favour of the mortgagee, thus leaving the ten cheques for !10 potentially unpaid. Then the financial circumstances come into play in assessing whether or not an unauthorised overdraft should be granted and, if so, whether it is going to cover just one of those !10 cheques or all of them or something in between.

zppp

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I didn't say that did I? I'd genuinely be interested to know where you think I did - but somehow I don't think you'll be able to you say.

I didn't state that's what you said, just reworded what you said to prove dunstonh's point, that it could be argued both ways.

Alpine_Star

zppp wrote: »

I didn't state that's what you said, just reworded what you said to prove dunstonh's point, that it could be argued both ways.

You're imagining things. His point wasn't that it could be argued both ways. And neither does it prove his point.

noh

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I didn't say that did I? I'd genuinely be interested to know where you think I did - but somehow I don't think you'll be able to you say.

But as you ask, here's a recent fitting example of ''dishonest administration'' on the part of a bank, or as the judge in the case puts it ''commingling''. And although it happened in the US, the same principles apply http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/business/11wells.html?_r=4&sudsredirect=true

And before you ask, UK banks use loosely the same comminglng methods ie they ignore standard sequential accounting practices in favour of deciding themselves in which order to deal with payments - as described by the QC for Lloyds in the first instance case:


MR MILLIGAN:
The bank does not make any promise as to the order of processing, and, therefore, there is no term to express in plain or any other language.

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: What does that mean? That is if you receive them on the same day?

............................................................................................

what is described by the Lloyds QC is not "commingling" nor does it appear to be dishonest.
A definiton of commingling, in the financial sense, can be found here:-
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commingling

Alpine_Star

noh wrote: »

what is described by the Lloyds QC is not "commingling" nor does it appear to be dishonest.
A definiton of commingling, in the financial sense, can be found here:-
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commingling

What counts is that the judge in the Wells Fargo case found the practice to be dishonest. Given the choice I would place a higher value on the considered view of a court than that of (with respect) an anonymous soul on an internet forum.

To fully appreciate how 'commingling' applies in this context, read paragraphs 6 to 9 of the judgment http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20100811-wells.pdf

noh

Alpine_Star wrote: »

What counts is that the judge in the Wells Fargo case found the practice to be dishonest. Given the choice I would place a higher value on the considered view of a court than that of (with respect) an anonymous soul on an internet forum.

To fully appreciate how 'commingling' applies in this context, read paragraphs 6 to 9 of the judgment http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20100811-wells.pdf

The Judge in the Wells Fargo case heard evidence in that case only and made a judgement on the evidence he heard. That was an American court.
He used the word commingling in the literal sense meaning "mixed together"

The judge hearing Lloyds evidence in the UK case did not even allude to the practice being dishonest.
You, also an anoymous soul on an internet forum, pronounced the two cases to be analogous and therefore the practices of UK banks to be dishonest.
I prefer to use the evidence as published which, in the case of the UK banks, shows no dishonesty.

Alpine_Star

noh wrote: »

I prefer to use the evidence as published which, in the case of the UK banks, shows no dishonesty.

What evidence? If you're referring to the test case judgment it only considered a narrow point of law and not the order of payments or the general question of dishonesty.

Let's not forget that the initial accusation of ''dishonest administration'' was made by dunstonh (and implicitly supported by Zapp) towards bank charge payers. But in the absence of any published evidence I can only assume that you too disagree