Bank Charges OFT Test Case Discussion

Nathan_Spleen

Hector Sants
Chief Executive
Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade,
Canary Wharf,
London
E14 5HS

CC Clive Briualt Managing Director FSA

By letter & e-mail

1 September 2007



Dear Mr Sants

It is with some regret that the Financial Services Authority have been unwilling to provide me with the answer to the simple and straight-forward question as to why it introduced the complaints handling waiver announced on 27 July.

Having attempted unsuccessfully to obtain an answer - by telephone, e-mail, letter and most recently with a request under the Freedom of Information Act - a question that can not in any way be considered unreasonable - it appears the only course of action left open to me is through the courts as I have reached the conclusion that the FSA will not disclose the information as a matter of policy.

The repeated templated reasons I have been given for the waiver include the suggestion that it has been put in place ''in the interests of all consumers''. This is just nonsense. It is also plainly dishonest. And as the waiver was requested by the banks themselves, is the FSA seriously saying that this was a joint initiative with the banking industry to uphold the interests of the consumer? The FSA's decision to waive the rights of account holders to dispute these charges while the banks can continue to levy them while the OFT are challenging their very legitimacy in court is lamentable.

In his statement on the 27 July Clive Briault says that complaints ''continue to be dealt with in the current inconsistent way'', an uncharacteristically
honest assesment, albeit unwittingly, of the FSA's catastrophic failure to enforce it's complaint handling rules on not just a few individual firms but the entire retail banking industry.

Mr Briault wrote to the CEO's of all banks that offer current accounts with a letter entitled ''Handling complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges'' that included a recommendation that ''the senior management of all firms that operate current accounts need to review their firms' complaint handling procedures to ensure they comply with our standards, which include handling complaints fairly''.

The letter would have been a welcome break from the eerie silence of the FSA on the entire issue of overdraft charges were it not for the fact that it was published on the very day - and in fact several hours after - the FSA had already granted the waiver that legally absolved the responsibility of all banks from processing these complaints for an undetermined period - a graphic illustration of the FSA's breathe-taking contempt for the consumer who's interests it is charged with protecting.

Proposed Judicial Review Proceedings

I am now considering taking formal action against the FSA by way of Judicial Review. The decision by the FSA that I may seek to challenge would be the decision taken by the FSA to introduce the waiver as set out in the statement of 27 July 2007 and it's legitimacy.

A full “letter before claim”, as suggested by the Judicial Review pre-action protocol, will be sent to the FSA on 28 September 2007, which will set out all the relevant issues and name all other interested parties.

I give you notice of this proposed Judicial Review action in order to inform the FSA that the reason for the decision to introduce the waiver is not an issue that can be avoided, nor one that can be put far down the administrative list.

If the FSA can provide me with information that satisfies me that such a waiver is both necessary to facilitate the OFT's test case and is genuinely in the interests of consumers, or, that the waiver is revoked by the due date of the proposed review on 27 September, then it may be that judicial review proceedings may not be required.

Yours sincerely

Nathan Spleen

Menucha

Hi - List of charges were applied for from Halifax on 7 June giving them 40 days to send same. A letter was then received by me dated 7th July stating they would send the list of charges within 40 days from receipt of 7 June letter. To date nothing has been received.
I assume their letter to me was simple delaying tactics due to the iimpending test case. Had they replied within the 40 days my case would probably have been sorted by now.
Can I insist that they still send me the list of charges?

Stokey125

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Hector Sants
Chief Executive
Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade,
Canary Wharf,
London
E14 5HS

CC Clive Briualt Managing Director FSA

By letter & e-mail

1 September 2007



Dear Mr Sants

It is with some regret that the Financial Services Authority have been unwilling to provide me with the answer to the simple and straight-forward question as to why it introduced the complaints handling waiver announced on 27 July.

Having attempted unsuccessfully to obtain an answer - by telephone, e-mail, letter and most recently with a request under the Freedom of Information Act - a question that can not in any way be considered unreasonable - it appears the only course of action left open to me is through the courts as I have reached the conclusion that the FSA will not disclose the information as a matter of policy.

The repeated templated reasons I have been given for the waiver include the suggestion that it has been put in place ''in the interests of all consumers''. This is just nonsense. It is also plainly dishonest. And as the waiver was requested by the banks themselves, is the FSA seriously saying that this was a joint initiative with the banking industry to uphold the interests of the consumer? The FSA's decision to waive the rights of account holders to dispute these charges while the banks can continue to levy them while the OFT are challenging their very legitimacy in court is lamentable.

In his statement on the 27 July Clive Briault says that complaints ''continue to be dealt with in the current inconsistent way'', an uncharacteristically
honest assesment, albeit unwittingly, of the FSA's catastrophic failure to enforce it's complaint handling rules on not just a few individual firms but the entire retail banking industry.

Mr Briault wrote to the CEO's of all banks that offer current accounts with a letter entitled ''Handling complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges'' that included a recommendation that ''the senior management of all firms that operate current accounts need to review their firms' complaint handling procedures to ensure they comply with our standards, which include handling complaints fairly''.

The letter would have been a welcome break from the eerie silence of the FSA on the entire issue of overdraft charges were it not for the fact that it was published on the very day - and in fact several hours after - the FSA had already granted the waiver that legally absolved the responsibility of all banks from processing these complaints for an undetermined period - a graphic illustration of the FSA's breathe-taking contempt for the consumer who's interests it is charged with protecting.

Proposed Judicial Review Proceedings

I am now considering taking formal action against the FSA by way of Judicial Review. The decision by the FSA that I may seek to challenge would be the decision taken by the FSA to introduce the waiver as set out in the statement of 27 July 2007 and it's legitimacy.

A full “letter before claim”, as suggested by the Judicial Review pre-action protocol, will be sent to the FSA on 28 September 2007, which will set out all the relevant issues and name all other interested parties.

I give you notice of this proposed Judicial Review action in order to inform the FSA that the reason for the decision to introduce the waiver is not an issue that can be avoided, nor one that can be put far down the administrative list.

If the FSA can provide me with information that satisfies me that such a waiver is both necessary to facilitate the OFT's test case and is genuinely in the interests of consumers, or, that the waiver is revoked by the due date of the proposed review on 27 September, then it may be that judicial review proceedings may not be required.

Yours sincerely

Nathan Spleen

I would only comment that unless the lists have imporved at the administrative court in the last six months you are unlikely to get a hearing of any judicial review until late next year unless you can get the court to agree to give this matter urgent consideration.

esmerellda

Menucha wrote: »

Hi - List of charges were applied for from Halifax on 7 June giving them 40 days to send same. A letter was then received by me dated 7th July stating they would send the list of charges within 40 days from receipt of 7 June letter. To date nothing has been received.
I assume their letter to me was simple delaying tactics due to the iimpending test case. Had they replied within the 40 days my case would probably have been sorted by now.
Can I insist that they still send me the list of charges?

Yes of course - obtaining your information under the Data Protection Act has nothing to do with the OFT test case so tell them to get lost and send you what you are entitled to within the 40 days limit and you will report them to the FOS......then consider making a claim against them to retreive this infomation through the courts.

DPA non compliance

esmerellda

Dede wrote: »

HOW DO YOU GET A STAYED CLAIM HEARD ! any advice my boyfriend has 5 pubs , well 4 now had to let one go after the smoking ban !!. He is claiming back a total of £10,000 in charges and all the claims through the court have been stayed. Have read on this site (l think) that someone still had their claim heard or had the order set aside. He is now looking at to lose another business and this money could help save it. Anyone any advice on how its done , l think the arguement that 9 jobs could be saved is valid please help !

You enter an application to vary the order which stayed the claim - this usually needs to be done within 7 or 14 days of receipt of the order so please act quickly.

A letter detailing the circumstances and an N244 application should be submitted. The claim is on a Business Account ???? These are not covered in the test case and the claim should not have been stayed if it is a business account.

Your BF has agood case to have these stays over turned.

lindilou39

My case was stayed from 23rd of August 07 - 6th Sept 07 so that I and the defendants could come to some agreement/settlement, should no agreement/settlement be met then the defendants have until the 20th sept 07 to provide to the Court a breakdown of their true cost.
My Q. is...Do I write to Scam telling them am willing to accept the charges plus costs and forfeit the right to Interest, or should I write to the court telling them of non-compliance to the Order set out by Judge Murdoch??

Lin

Stokey125

lindilou39 wrote: »

My case was stayed from 23rd of August 07 - 6th Sept 07 so that I and the defendants could come to some agreement/settlement, should no agreement/settlement be met then the defendants have until the 20th sept 07 to provide to the Court a breakdown of their true cost.
My Q. is...Do I write to Scam telling them am willing to accept the charges plus costs and forfeit the right to Interest, or should I write to the court telling them of non-compliance to the Order set out by Judge Murdoch??

Lin

As it is only the 3 September 2007 you should write to SC&M reminding them of the terms of the order and put your offer to them and tell them that they have until the 6 to respond.

lindilou39

Stokey125 wrote: »

As it is only the 3 September 2007 you should write to SC&M reminding them of the terms of the offer and put your offer to them and tell them that they have until the 6 to respond.

Thats what I was thinking....thanks for your response.

melanie73

UPDATE

Have spoken to the Ombudsman and they are not taking on any new cases pending the test case. I then spoken to my County Court who tell me that my case will be automaticaly stayed if I submit an N1 now - cannot really afford to have £120 just sitting in their account for months on end. Would it be best to start again after the test case has been heard?

Stokey125

melanie73 wrote: »

UPDATE

Have spoken to the Ombudsman and they are not taking on any new cases pending the test case. I then spoken to my County Court who tell me that my case will be automaticaly stayed if I submit an N1 now - cannot really afford to have £120 just sitting in their account for months on end. Would it be best to start again after the test case has been heard?

Whether you should start after the test case depends on how old the charges are if they are nearly 6 years old then you should issue to avoid the limitation act point being taken but if they are not that old and you can do then it may be an idea to wait.