http://www.govanlc.com/sisted.pdf I knew there was a reason why I shouldn't have moved down to England!

Duncan, I would expect answers very similar to the ones that you have suggested. They are not, however, answers to the questions posed and the FSA will not be allowed off the hook quite as easily as that by me or many of the other people posing similar questions. This is all about attririon and building pressure.

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (strikeout as modified by The Regulatory Reform Order 2007) I have also asked for information and clarification from the FSA, the headlines of which are: What interests of the consumer are served by the waiver both while it is in place and in the future How does the waiver ensure that complaints can be dealt with in a fair and consistent way going forward How does the waiver facilitate the test case And, in the light of the quote from the FSMA 2000 above: How does the issue of the waiver comply with section 158 paragraph 4 of the FMSA. How do the stated reasons as published comply with this and the following

Johnny, Tanz, In a sense, you're both right but I can understand why there is confusion. The statute of limitations is exactly as Tanz describes. The confusion has arisen because the banks have interpreted the law as limiting back-claims to 6 years and people, in many cases, have asked for exactly that in court. Also, in FOS reclaim cases, the 'offers of goodwill' from the banks have always been for six years of charges. So, you have six years forward from the date you realise that these charges are unlawful to claim, but you can go back as far as your relationship with the organisation has existed to arrive at the amount to be reclaimed.

Thanks for that Kog - a good laugh. I'm just waiting for the mailbox full replies to start from his e-mail address.

Complaint made.

Clive Briault's e-mail address is clive.briault@fsa.gov.uk but he is out of the office until 20th August. His assistant Sara Spence will deal with anything urgent, but I would expect there to be a filter for anything to do with the waiver though! I have a DD number if anyone wants it.

Hi Goodies, You might find what you're looking for here.

Hi Guys, Look here to find out what is happening on a court-by-court basis. The situation is pretty confused.

I know, it's a frustrating business. I'm sure that the FSA are getting the message, whether they will listen or not I don't know. The more pressure they get from us and from those MPs that bother to follow up with them the better. Keep up the good work.

My interpretation of the alleged 6 year limitation (which I don't accept applies in the case of bank charges) is that the first charge that can be reclaimed is is the one that is six years before the commencement of legal action to reclaim. Is this right?

Hi all, I've just re-read the petition on the charter. Can anyone explain to me what the petition means when it asks the PM to follow the charter?

Great stuff Einyuk, let's hope that the FSA is receiving many letters in this vein. I fully support the campaign to contact MPs and have done so myself.

Absolutely right Kog. Well said.

Quite right.

Crfx, The campaign to write to MPs is about bringing pressure to bear on the relevant bodies. My point has always been to put pressure on these people, the debate is about how to do it.

Thanks Kenny, everyone does need to contribute. I'm sure that the issue is being considered in some quarters.

Kenny, You are right about the potential power of CAG and that the internal debate is both stimulating and to be encouraged. It is also true that the charter has generated a lot of internal heat. What I'm not sure about is what your view is on turning our guns on the OFT and FSA and/or what the best way is to do this - see my previous post. Cheers.

Had a bit of a rant about all this here if anyone's interested.

Apologies in advance, I'm going to vent some spleen! What absolute [EDIT] chaos, as the What banks are granting stays? thread shows. Stays being automatically granted, stays being granted (or not) on a case-by case basis, business as usual, stays being granted in error against credit card claims etc. etc. etc. All this guff from the OFT about launching the test case in order to clarify things and benefit the consumer. And these guys are supposed to be regulating the trading environment!! What morons, they launch a test case without a thought in their pretty little heads about the chaos that would inevitably ensue in the legal system. Too [EDIT] concerned about not upsetting the banks so that they would come to court quietly. Neither the lower courts nor the FSA are in any way legally obliged to do anything in response to the launch of this test case. They could just as easily have continued as normal until a final judgement was reached. My inevitable conclusion is that the OFT and FSA have colluded (and I use the word advisedly and with forethought) with the banks against the consumer. This in direct violation of both of their remits. I know that all of this needs toning down, but we should try to expand on these arguments and hopefully use them as the common ground on which we can all fight. Let's turn all of our guns on these two institutions now. We can continue to hit the banks in the courts, where possible, and we know that they are [EDIT], but it is the OFT and FSA that are to blame for the current madness and for hurting the consumer even more than they were being hurt before. Sorry about the rant, burt any ideas anyone?

Hi destiny, None of the various petitions on this subject are doing well, surprise surprise. but this one has the most signatories.

In the initial announcement of their waiver the FSA committed the ultimate Freudian slip by saying "We have granted the waiver to help facilitate this test case". Having thought about this, the statement is actually true, although not in the way that the FSA would like us to believe. The test case came about in the way that it did following quiet negotiations between the FSA, the OFT and the banks. Part of these negotiations were about the conditions under which the banks would 'go quietly'. One of those conditions will have been the waiver. Thus the waiver did facilitate the test case. The problem for the FSA is that people realise that this is inconsistent with the way that they were set up to operate. Hence the spurious 'interests of the consumer' reasoning if that is what they are now going to use. The problem for them in this case is that these are only words that would not stand up to any scrutiny or reasoned argument.

Hi Patrick, Keep up the good work.

Yep, Capitulator, the dice are loaded in every conceivable way.

That's great un1boy. Don't let him/her wriggle!