All this beggers belief.......but I now know the reason why. UK's FSA seeks better quality staff | Industry Summits | Past Summits | Finance07 | Reuters Says it all really......and not before time I say.

It wouldn't surprise me but if its true then we've all got bigger problems on their way than bank charges.

Oh Dear, Barclays shares now suspended............down 9% on the day 20% on the week........not looking good is it?

Housing association....unsure of type of tenancy....but they already gone to court for some sort of possession order......and the outstanding rent is about £2500...normal rent is £90 per week.

I came accross the worst case I have ever seen today involving bank charges. A client of mine had run up over £12k in charges over the last 6 years.....with the majority over the last two years. The charges were with the bank that charges the most and has the worst service (I'm sure you can guess). She is about to lose her home and is well behind with the rent and facing eviction. She is also the most deserving of a claim under the hardship rules.............yet the bank will not reach a decision and has basically told her that they are still considering her case (3 months after being told that eviction was imminent). I can't quite believe their attitute.....and I speak to banks every day aboout these cases. Needless to say we've sent her to the FOS..............Looking at her past bank statements all I can say is that her bank has been stealing from her......nothing more....nothing less. The treatment can only be described as shabbey (which actually rhymes with the bank name). Any ideas from CAG on how I can help her further.............have already written to try and hold off eviction but it won't hold forever.

What I think may be happening is that the FSA are trying to get rid of the effect of banking code regulations. From what I gather the 'banking code' will now kind of cease to exist and complaint regulations will now fall under the juristiction of the FSA. This means that the FSA is trying to take a very roundabout route to get rid of hardship claims. The trouble of this approach is that it may be legal - but it does not distract from the fact that hardship claims were a condition of waiver acceptance that the FSA specifically included. Short version: It basically looks like now they have been hit with loads of hardship claims the FSA are tyrying to close the loophole that they created. The problem is that they are doing this in the least transparent manner possible. And the bigger problems is that people who are actually suffering from financial hardship will get screwed...........nice one FSA.

You have to laugh at the title of this thread: 'what's unfair about bank charges'?. A thread title like that could only have come from a bank employee or PR stooge. A better question might be 'what IS fair about bank charges'? But I couldn't think of anything..........so reasons why they are unfair it is. Anyhow - here's my list: - The charges are high - very high - They hurt the poor and unfortunate the most - They are unclear and misleading - They are payments for a non existant service - They are illegal - They are immoral - They extract the most money from the people least able to pay - often when they are in financial difficulties. - They are charged in violation of nearly every FSA, Consumer Credit Act, and Banking Code regulation (not that this ever stopped the banks). But we all knew this....right?

Wow - so the FSA is going to drag the names of a few small mortgage and insurance brokers through the mud while leaving the banks that are robbing the public blind free to continue their nefarious business. Obviously small firms need to be investigated as well...............but why do the FSA ALWAYS give big firms a free pass..........by definition the bigger the firm.....the more danger it is to consumers. The FSA always goes after the small fry while the robber barons get away scot free - is it time to close the FSA? Its no longer fit for purpose. Just watching the PPI mess unfold: There is no way in the world that you can justify selling single premium PPI on a loan when the cost of the PPI is 4 times what a 'normal' PPi policy costs. And by paying upfront you also pay interest on the PPI as well. But the FSA will now take a 'good number of months' to investigate the market. The usual guff will be uttered like: 'We recognise that what we are finding will have serious implications and we must look at PPI in the context of all the evidence available' etc etc.......just hope they don't pull a fast one on the public like they did with bank charges....OFT: Are you listening? Stay away from this one....you've 'helped' claimants enough with your mess of a bank charge case. Go back to writing reports that no one reads.

Yeah - I know what you mean - I think someone 'engineered' the red arrows campaign just to knock bank charges off the top spot ---- but I'm always suspicious like that...........

oh - sorry - i think you are right - did you put your partners email in correctly?

You don't get an email - but you do get published on the website.

Good for you..............I try and submit one a week.....so angry am I with their dealings......

The FSA (Financial Services Authority) is currently in the process of making firms who operate in the industry operate under new regulations which are mean to 'treat customers fairly' - sounds good - right? Lets see if the FSA are treating bank charge claimaints fairly with their 'waiver' for banks that lets them stop paying claims. We have defined 6 consumer outcomes which explain what we want TCF to achieve for consumers. Outcome 1: Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture; - Is treating bank charge claimants fairly central to FSA corporate culture? Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly; - Does the FSA waiver help banks or claimants? Is this waiver designed to meet our needs? Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale; - Were we informed or consulted about this waiver? No didn't think so.. Outcome 4 - just waffle Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is both of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect; - Is the FSA performing to expectations? Well Yes actually - but mine were low anyway. Outcome 6: consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint. - Do we have barriers put in place as a result of the FSA waiver? Why Yes.......Yes we do.......as a result of the FSA no less. AHHHHHHHHH - If our own regulator can't treat us fairly what chance do we have.................

From Clive's speech: "It may also be observed that financial services firms are facing an uphill struggle because they operate in a context of consumer distrust." Live by the sword, die by the sword.........

MAKE NO MISTAKE: THE FSA IS THE BODY PREVENTING CLAIMS BEING PAID OUT. The FSA waiver has the effect of providing the banks with a moratorium on repayments, and allows them to continue charging. It is well known that until the agreement was concluded at the end of this year, banks were voluntarily refunding 100 per cent of such charges when faced with Court proceedings. In hiding behind the waiver, the banks will save an estimated £500m on claims they would have been paying out, this year alone." This is an absolute outrage. It is vital that we keep the pressure up on the FSA to remove this anit-consumer waiver. Please tell them what you think here: About the FSA : Complaints about the FSA : Contacting us : Complaints form They will likely respond with a load of guff and tell you that you can submit your complaint to the complaints commissioner if you are not happy. You are unlikely to be happy with their response - so here's what to do when you get it. Here are those details. In writing to: The office of the Complaints Commissioner 8th Floor, City Tower, 40 Basinghall Street London EC2V 5DE Telephone: 020 7562 5530 Facsimile: 020 7562 5549 E-mail: ComplaintsCommissioner@fscc.gov.uk Please take 5 minutes to complete the FSA complaint form. More than any other organisation they are the ones preventing claims being paid.

That was a good rant - I think you are dead right about the banks contributing to the demise of the Post Office. Can't believe that the Post Office cheif exec got millions in bonuses while the posties got stiffed on wages..........I mean.....you gotta look after the postmen......our bloddy economy wouldn't last more than a few weeks without it.

Apart from the massive direct profits that banks make form bank charges there is another, little known reason why the banks a desperate to hang on to this sort of charge for dear life. Generally when someone loses their job or income they will begin to bounce cheques, DD's and card payments. They will generally do this much more than the average person and can quite easily rack up a few grands worth of charges within a month or two. NOw obviously they are not going to be in a position to pay it back but this is of no real great importance to the bank. The banks are aware that you will soon do one of a number of things: Debt management, start an IVA go bankrupt or become a 'gone away'. The bank will at some point be called upon to renegociate the debt either within a debt managemnet plan, debt collection agency or whatever. Now here is the good bit......imagine that you owe the bank £1000. You then lose your job and manage to rack up £1000 of bank charges and penalty late fees over the next two months. Easily done (I see the effects every day) Suddenly your debt is £2000. If you then go to a debt management firm and the interest is frozen and you pay the money off over 5 years or so......the bank still does not lose.....because you have esentially paid all the interest up front in the form of bank charges. Even if the debt is sold off for say 15p in the pound....the bank will get £300.00 back instead of £150 if it had not charged the indebted customer a small fortune as they were sinking under the weight of their debt. Basically it is in the banks best interest to hammer indebted customers for everything they have got.....especially in the final days before they can no longer obtain credit. As we move into an economic downturn these are the main reasons why banks want to cling to these charges........funny thing is they cant say it out loud..........but its certainly why they are fighting. The bottom line: Bank penalty charges are the easiest and most efficient way to increase the total debt amount of a customer who is struggling financially. Whats that you say? Banks are meant to HELP when people get into financial difficulties.........hahahahahahahahahaha.

"The answer then goes on to reveal that ''..it would not be appropriate for us to ask banks to make changes to their charging structure at the moment'' Read as FSA speak for: We cant have a consumer campaign that results in massive payouts because frankly the very fabric of the free world banking system is in jepordy and we're got much bigger problems on our plate. Of course they cant say this out loud...........I hope this is not the case but you never know. And if it is.............that is exactly this sort of drivle I would use.

My point is that traditionally we place money in banks to look after it. I think that the biggest risk to peoples cash now comes from the banks stealing it as opposed to a mugger stealing it. Losing £150 per month to bank charges (which is quite common fro a lot of people) is no different to getting m ugged once a year for £1500 or so. Question is: What is now the bigger risk to your cash. The mugger or the bank?

I have spoke to a number of people over the past few days who have a large outstanding claim for unfair penalty charges against their bank. Some of these people also owe the same bank money (through personal loan, overdraft or credit card). I have now spoken to more than a few people who have decided to stop paying back debt held with their bank pending the outcome of the OFT test case. The rationale being that each amount cancels the other out. Different people I have spoken to have gone about it in different ways. I spoke to a chap the other day who's bank had taken him to court regarding an outstanding debt that was about equal to his bank charge claim. The man issued a counterclaim against the bank and now both debts are on hold pending the outcome of the OFT test case. Others have simply stopped making loan repayments and written to the bank saying why. Not that I'm recommending that anyone here does this......but it shows some of the unforseen consequences that are hitting banks as a result of deciding to fight their customers on these charges.

I just noticeed that the joint Martin Lewis and Consumer Action Group petition on the Downing Street website has had the Government response removed. The last time I looked a 'boiler plate' response had been added that mimiced the dross being pumped out by the FSA and OFT. Now its gone.........hmmmmmmmm. Think they are starting to listen? Link here: Open petitions P.S If you haven't signed..........now is the time.

Ha Ha, Fractional Reserve Banking is pricisely the reason we will.

Somewhere deep in the bowels of the FSA lair in Canary Wharf there sits a few high level FSA bods who are charged with looking after systemic risk. This is the kind of risk that upsets the system (like Northen Rock). The fear in the markets and the hightened level of risk that has now appeared is probably one of the reasons why the FSA is keeping the waiver in place. They know that the banks make billions from bank penalty charges and if they were cut off from this scheme their share prices would likely drop dragging down the FT100 - a cynical mind would say that they will keep this up until bonuses have been paid out to the City in Jan. But they may be forgetting that the system is built on trust. Every day that the bank charge saga continues is another day that trust for the UK banking sector drops another notch among the public. A bank used to be a place that kept your money safe. Now it steals from you. This observer wonders how much longer the public will accept these terms. Trust is a very valuable thing that is built up over time. It can, however, be destroyed in a heartbeat. Northern Rock tells us what happens in these situations. This is the point that the regulators are seriously missing. In a climate where liquidity is key - should we not be keeping the providers of that liquidity happy? Just a thought.

My message to Barclays customers following this stance would be to immediately close your account and move elsewhere. A bank which rejects regulations on the sheer scale that Barclays does can no longer be trusted to look after your money.

If you currently have a claim against your bank for bank charges and you are upset with the wait there are still a few things you can do. We currently have a bonkers situation where banks are allowed to take charges from your account that may well turn out to be illegal. Q: Should you let them keep doing this? A: NO Closing the account and moving elsewhere is probably the best thing that you can do currently to avoid charges. It costs banks £100's to acquire a new customer. Moving punishes your bank more than you may realise. If you're getting charged then you're bank does not respect your custom. Go somewhere that does. Open a new account elsewhere - anywhere. Once the new account is open transfer all your income over to it and then call each DD that you want to continue with and get them moved. Dont let the bank do this for you - they always bugger it up. Think before setting up new direct debits - you may be better off by paying over the counter - of over the phone with a debit card - at least then you can choose the date to pay your bills.