COBS or BCOBS?

[muminneed]

Does BCOBS now extend to loans? Or is COBS and FSA?

 

In one article it says that BCOBS has taken down COBS so if it has whats the guiding principles for taking action?

 

Thanks

[citizenB]

COBS is credit cards and BCOBS is banks (which would cover loans).

 

FSA is no longer, the FCA - Financial Conduct Authority took over on April 1st. They would appear to be more user friendly.

 

If you would like to let us know more about your situation we could possibly advise your options more accurately.

[rebel11]

Hi muminneed

 

BCOBS stands for Banking Conduct Sourcebook, http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/BCOBS

 

BCOBS specifically states that you can take legal action against your bank, if they have treated you 'unfairly'.

 

COBS doesn't specifically state that you can take legal action, but there are legal principals that can be used for other financial products, such as Credit Cards if your credit card company has treated you 'unfairly'.

 

COBS http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/COBS

 

The FCA has taken over from the FSA. Run your cursor over COBS for examples for both.

[Lucyis]

So I don't need to establish a duty of care anymore? Could I post a complaint letter on here when I've finished it to get some advice? Would bobs cover a loan that's secured on my house but isn't a normal residential mortgage? And what covered loans pre blobs coming in was that cobs?

[BankFodder]

Hi muminneed

 

BCOBS stands for Banking Conduct Sourcebook, http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/BCOBS

 

BCOBS specifically states that you can take legal action against your bank, if they have treated you 'unfairly'.

 

COBS doesn't specifically state that you can take legal action, but there are legal principals that can be used for other financial products, such as Credit Cards if your credit card company has treated you 'unfairly'.

 

COBS http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/COBS

 

The FCA has taken over from the FSA. Run your cursor over COBS for examples for both.

 

Slight correction here - COBS does allow direct action to be taken in the Civil courts by a customer who has been treated unfairly or who is the victim of unfair or misleading communications or where the firm has not acted in that customer's best interests.

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/COBS/Sch/5 - gives a guidance as to what parts of COBS include a right of direct action

 

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/COBS/2/1 - - specifies the relevant binding rules.

 

It is for this reason that the FOS is very often not a lot of use. The FOS attempt to produce a result which is fair to both sides. However, COBS - and the others require that a firm which is faced with a dilemma must choose the solution which serves its client's best interests. The FOS has limited its own jurisdiction and therefore in many respects its remit is at odds with the rules in COBS or BCOBS.

You may notice that there is very little about the FCA rules on the FOS website. Very few decisions of the FOS even refer to them.

 

Just to add that COBS and BCOBS - and also ICOBS for insurance companies place huge power into the hands of consumers and yet these powers are almost never used.

 

The only exception is the action brought by our CAGGER Madpriest about a year ago against Abbey. They eventually agreed an out of court settlement of about £4000 - plus they raked up quite a lot of costs trying to prevent the action.

In the end they also had a default judgment against them and a visit from the Sheriffs.

 

If people were prepared to start using COBS and BCOBS in the County court, I expect that they could force a substantial behavioural change in the banks within a year or two.

 

It is a shame that they don't seem to have the bottle for it.

[rebel11]

Stand corrected, poorly worded, the distinction I was trying to make:-

 

'If you sue your bank for breaking the law under BCOBS, you are suing them for Breach of Statutory Duty.

If you sue your bank for breaking the law in respect of unfairness in a credit card or loan contract, you are suing them for breach of contract.'

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?827-Examples-of-unfair-treament

[silverfox1961]

In my opinion, whilst all of the COBS are very useful, understanding them is not. While not having read them all, the ones I have looked at keep making reference to different sections so you have to go back and look and by the time you get the info you need, something else occurs and you have to go to another section to get clarity.

 

While legal minds would be able to understand the rules, the average layman will get confused.

[rebel11]

Funnily enough, I quoted COBS to the FOS yesterday:-)

 

In my opinion, whilst all of the COBS are very useful, understanding them is not. While not having read them all, the ones I have looked at keep making reference to different sections so you have to go back and look and by the time you get the info you need, something else occurs and you have to go to another section to get clarity.

 

While legal minds would be able to understand the rules, the average layman will get confused.

[Lucyis]

Thanks everyone, I've been reading them for a week now. I'll post up and you can tell me if I got it all wrong x

[Klandestine]

In my opinion, whilst all of the COBS are very useful, understanding them is not. While not having read them all, the ones I have looked at keep making reference to different sections so you have to go back and look and by the time you get the info you need, something else occurs and you have to go to another section to get clarity.

 

While legal minds would be able to understand the rules, the average layman will get confused.

 

I would say that understanding the COBS is useful. It doesn't make sense to just blindly go around making accusations that COBS requirements have been breached if you do not understand them.

 

If you don't understand them or can't make sense of them then you should seek professional legal advice (or at least advice from somebody who can make sense of them).