Astonishing OFT revelations

Nathan_Spleen

The Office of Fair Trading who last year limited credit card default charges
to £12 - a figure many believe to be too high - have indicated that they
consider Egg's £16 charges to be ''fair''.

''Egg reduced its charge to £16 after the OFT action in April 06. As you will see from the OFT press release issued on 5 April 06 where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. Exceptional business factors which may affect the level of a fair charge may include policies to prevent casual defaults as operated by issuers such as Egg.''


''The press release goes on to say where there are exceptional business factors, so that the presumption that a default charge over £12 is unfair is not applicable, this does not necessarily mean that the current level of the default charge is consistent with the OFT's interpretation of the requirements of unfair contract terms legislation. But for example, where a card issuer has a policy of requiring customers to pay minimum monthly repayments by direct debits, such as that operated by Egg, and offers credit cards only to customers that satisfy a relatively high scoring requirement it may be able to set a fair default fee at a level above the threshold.''</O:p<O:p
<O:p
The failure of the OFT to enforce it's rulings - for which they have a statutory duty - has</O:p
<O:pprompted 2 high profile campaigners to threaten legal action.</O:p
<O:p
<O:p In a seperate development, a request for information made under the Freedom of Information Act has exposed serious failings in the OFT's investigation into credit card default charges in 2006. The watchdog has conceded that it has'nt a clue how many complaints for credit card default charges it has recieved either before or after it's investigation. The same also applies to it's consumer complaints arm Consumer Direct, This is in stark contrast to it's primary function: ''information and intelligence collected by Consumer Direct is then used to inform and focus the resources and work of the OFT '' But the OFT has admitted that it dos'nt even catorgorise complaints by type.</O:p
<O:p
<O:pThis leads to serious questions as whether the OFT is 'fit for purpose' if does not know what current consumer issues are, what action to take and if that action is effective. It also casts doubt on their ability to conduct the current bank charges inquiry with any degree of efficiency.</O:p
<O:p
<O:p
</O:p

fairenoughclough

Some Civil Servants are a complete waste of time and money.

Nathan_Spleen

You're not wrong there, as this recent artical in Private Eye highlights:

Why does 73 year old Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, head of the National Audit Office since 1998, carry on working
long after other top public officials have called it a day?

Information unearthed by Private Eye using the Freedom of Information Act suggests it might be because the job has long enabled Sir John, whose
task is to ensure taxpayers' money isn't wasted, to live the high life at the expense of, er, the taxpayer.

Although the NAO (motto ''helping the nation spend wisely'') might be thought a largely domestic operation, in the three years up to this March, Sir
John managed 43 seperate foreign trips, on 22 of which he was accompanied by his wife Ardita.

Amoung Sir John & Lady Bourn's crucial engagements were a four-day trip to Mauritious for a ''peer review'' of the island's audit office and, in one six
-week period, in 2005, successive trips to India, Morocco and Canada to discuss training projects and a ''global working group''. All told, in the last
three years the total travel bill for Sir John's private office tops £336.000 of which £76.000 went on Lady Bourn's fares.

The NAO insists that ''Lady Bourn attends where neccesary to meet the expectations of the host in line with established practice in the diplomatic service and her presence is greatly appreciated''. Except that Sir John is the country's top beancounter, not a diplomat. And what little is known of the trips on which Lady Bourn has travelled suggests it isn't all work, work, work either.

In Febuary 2005 the Bourns stayed a couple of days extra in Aukland, New Zealand, once the Commonwealth Auditors' Conference had finished. Their
trip to a two-day ''working group on privatisation'' in Brazil that September was extended by three days. But most pleasant of all was a sojourn to the
Bahamas six months ago to attend the Carribean Organisation of State Audit Offices Congress. The conference ran from 16th to 19th October, but the
couple did'nt travel until the 18th. After a tough day's work on the 19th they took a well eaned break under the carribean sun (a balmy 80 degrees C
in October) before flying home five days later. Sir John also made 12 single-night trips for all but one of which, oddly, Lady Bourn's wifely presence
was not required.

The NAO said it could'nt name the hotels the Bourns stayed in - but they are known to do things in style. When the NAO audited the International
Atomic Energy Authority for nine years until 2003 on his regular visits to it's Vienna HQ Sir John always insisted on staying in a suite at the city's finest hotel, the Sacher, costing several thousands of pounds a night. The same goes for flying. Until it was grounded four years ago, Sir John made trips to the US on Concorde, eschewing a much cheaper Jumbo ''in order to manage competing demands in the UK and US'' according to the NAO.

Some taxpayers, and maybe even the Public Accounts Commission that oversees the NAO, might ponder the value of Sir John's globe-trotting.
Did he really need to attend the Carribean Auditors' get-together (with his wife) rather than stay at home and work on Britain's public finances? Or was he enticed by a few days' subsidised holiday after a single days business? And wern't many of the meetings quite technical and more suited to one
of the NAO's numerous directors or specialists?

Commenting on suspect dealings elsewhere, Sir John quoted Lord Nolan on standards: ''Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms
of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other marerial benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.'' It was
presumably such high principles that a year ago persuaded the Prime Minister to appoint Sir John as his ''independant advisor on ministerial interests''
in the wake of David Blunkett inappropriately first-class rail tickets for his then squeeze, Kimberly Fortier.

Six months later Sir John and Lady Bourn were sunning themselves in the Bahamas at public expense - first-class all the way, of course.

natweststaffmember

I am sure a judge last year deemed Egg could fairly charge 8 quid i think may have been lower but this has no precedent as it was in small claims court.