FSA To Review Waiver

[un1boy]

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.

 

 

I actually think that the FSA saw the whole credit crunch thing happening and realsied that the banks would go under if they had to pay the charges back.....hence, issuing the waiver.

[alecmac18]

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

[Dougal16T]

Since when has two months from 27th July been 10th November????

 

I am disgusted by the whole financial rip-off that is taken by those who care for no-one but themselves......Justice - what Justice?

 

But we must keep the faith and we WILL suceed.

 

Best wishes to everyone.

Dougal 16T

[crfx250]

The FSA claimed that they needed a full 2 months data from the banks so

the review didn't start until well after then. I'm in the process of trying to

find out when it will be published.

 

I think it's unlikely the FSA saw the credit crunch coming. If they had they

would have acted earlier on Northern Wreck.

[Dougal16T]

That's interesting because the published information was very clear - 'OFT to review waiver in 2 months from 27th July 2007'* - no mention of requiring data which they already had!!

Still it seems we are/were being......misinformed....?!

*this was to ensure that the 'rules' were being followed.....what a shame they're not....still who cares?.....WE DO!

Situation normal then....!!

Best wishes to all....

Dougal (aka Howard!)

[Douglas52]

Is this any use?

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/About/Complaints/pdf/complaint_leaflet.pdf

[crfx250]

Fraid not. Their standard response is that you can't complain about them ''exercising their duties as a regulator''. It's FSA speak for ''naff off sunshine''.

[Douglas52]

So that leaves the politicians then?!

[stonedecroze]

So write to your MP.

follow the link in my sig.

[ja-de]

We Need YOUR Help

COMPLAIN TO YOUR MP ABOUT THE UNFAIR AND BIASED WAY THE FSA HAS HANDLED THE OFT CASE WHEN IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY ESTABLISHED TO SUPPORT CONSUMERS, NOT ISOLATE THEM

 

Just 5 Easy Steps!

1. Use the template letter here
   
2. Copy the text (amend if necessary but it will be fine as is for most people).
   
3. click the link to the thread shown at the bottom of the letter or click here
   
4. Follow the instructions on the thread to send to your MP (it will tell you who your MP is if you do not know.
   
5. Go here to tell us which MP you've written to.

RESPONSES FROM YOUR MP, PROGRESS REPORTS AND GENERAL CHAT ABOUT THE MP CAMPAIGN SHOULD BE

Posted Here, WHERE THE THREAD WILL BE ALLOWED TO RUN ITS COURSE AND NOT BE CUT DOWN FOR CLARIFICATION

 

Thank you!

[crfx250]

Having been on the phone all morning to the FSA regarding the date and outcome of the 2 month waiver review the situation appears to be thus:

 

The 2 month review is actually an ongoing review that began 2 months into the waiver.

 

They do not intend to publish, at any point, updates on the review ''unless a particular bank has its waiver withdrawn''.

 

Although they were less than forthcoming, they did tell me that up until this point ''no news is good news'' meaning that so far the review had not found any justification to withdraw or modify the waiver. I'm still working on getting more clarification but I have to say it dosn't look good.

[un1boy]

Having been on the phone all morning to the FSA regarding the date and outcome of the 2 month waiver review the situation appears to be thus:

 

The 2 month review is actually an ongoing review that began 2 months into the waiver.

 

They do not intend to publish, at any point, updates on the review ''unless a particular bank has its waiver withdrawn''.

 

Although they were less than forthcoming, they did tell me that up until this point ''no news is good news'' meaning that so far the review had not found any justification to withdraw or modify the waiver. I'm still working on getting more clarification but I have to say it dosn't look good.

 

What are their thoughts on them breachong:

 

148 Modification or waiver of rules

(4) The Authority may not give a direction unless it is satisfied that—

(a) compliance by the authorised person with the rules, or with the rules as unmodified, would be unduly burdensome or would not achieve the purpose for which the rules were made; and

(b) the direction would not result in undue risk to persons whose interests the rules are intended to protect.

[crfx250]

Well this is all very odd.

 

In stark contast to what the FSA said yesterday, the chief exec of the Banking Code Standards Board, Rob Skinner, who had a major hand in the waiver review, is of the firm opinion that the FSA will publish the outcome of the review regardless of the outcome.

 

The FSA Waivers dept are now directing enquiries about the status of the review to thier press office (?)

[alecmac18]

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.

[crfx250]

It now seems clear that the 2 month waiver review is just what it said on the tin and not open-ended. It also seems pretty clear they will announce the conlusion of the review regardless of the outcome.

Dear crfx

I am replying to your recent emails and telephone contact with a number of areas/individuals within the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and hope that the following will clarify a number of issues.

You have asked for an indication of a date when the waiver review is due for publication. I believe that this query has, in fact, been dealt with in your telephone conversation with Jonathon Bromberger of the FSA waivers team on 13 November. To confirm that conversation, Mr Bromberger advised that the 2 month waiver review was drawing to a close. However, he could not pre-empt this exercise prior to any public announcements nor speculate when those announcements might be.

Part of your email of 9 November requests "copy of the FSA's letter of 26 July to The Master of Roles recommending that claims be stayed". This aspect of your enquiry has been passed to the Information Access Team (IAT) to deal with as a Right to Know request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

I appreciate that you have a number of outstanding matters with the FSA; these being a complaint with our Company Secretariat Office and also (now) two requests under FOIA with the IAT, and those areas will communicate directly with you. As I understand it, you have also requested to meet personally with a number of individuals (for example Simon Begley of our Consumer Sector and Communications) to discuss the waiver. However, because of the level of interest in the general issue of bank charges, and the FSA's waiver, I can confirm what David Kenmir's personal assistant told you recently, that such a meeting is not currently possible.

Having previously dealt with the FSA Consumer Helpline (0845 606 1234) you are, I believe, aware that its role is to deal with general consumer telephone enquiries. You have also dealt with the Consumer Contact Centre (CCC) which acts as point of contact for general written enquiries from consumers and other persons who are not firms regulated by the FSA.

As the interface between correspondents and the wider FSA it is the role of the CCC to receive enquiries, liaise as necessary internally and respond. I am aware that your enquiries are specific rather than general but we are happy to liaise with our colleagues in order to reply. Therefore, going forward, and to maintain a clear line of communication, we ask that all further enquiries be directed in writing to consumerhelp@fsa.gov.uk .

Yours sincerely

K Cully (Miss)

Operations Supervisor

Regulatory Services Business Unit

Financial Services Authority

[Mister Twister]

Keep at them CRFX!

 

I was informed by the FSA some time ago it would be early November for the review to be published and it would be uploaded to their website here

 

Communication documents

 

Just to let you know I was in court last week against a barrister hired by Abbey who applied to have judgment set aside. The judge coached the fumbling barrister who had prepared the wrong information for the hearing and eventually set the judgment aside. The judge already knew what she wanted to do with the case before I even entered the court room.

 

I am pretty down at the moment - I feel there is no justice.

 

Reading your threads helps though!

[patrickq1]

why people put their trust in the FSA who are after all the AGENTS FOR BANKS hence the reason for their proposed new banking code,please dont forget it is the FSA who are trying to stall legal rights and it is the FSA who object to us getting information to help us,read the DURANT CASE...DURANT V FSA , the FSA are in bed with the Banks and why we the people are accepting this waiver that is contrary to goodwill the FSA AND BANKS are using this waiver as a guise ..if the fsa were completely objective they would have stopped all banks charges both ways,when you inform the FSA they are in a position to help the banks not you their legal advice goes direct to the banks before it arrives at your door,the FSA should be disbanded and a true and proper goverment backed organisation should take control,how on earth can the FSA act independantly against their paymasters

Misunderstanding ‘personal information’: Durant v Financial Services Authority - [2004] PLPR 13

Facts

The case concerned requests made by Durant for access to information held by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which is the single regulator for the financial services sector in the UK. The information concerned a dispute between Durant and Barclays Bank, which had resulted in litigation in which Durant had been unsuccessful. Durant subsequently lodged a complaint with the FSA, which was dismissed. Following the dismissal of the complaint, Durant requested disclosure of information concerning the matter that was held by the FSA both electronically and in manual files. The FSA released the information it held in computerised form, some of which was redacted (had identifying information deleted) so as not to disclose the names of others. The FSA, however, refused Durant’s request for access to information held on manual files.

[midge61]

hi

Nice to se you back patrick hope all is well.

[jansus]

I dont think people are putting their faith in the FSA. Surely thats the whole point of what CRFX is trying to do?

 

Bring the facts to the surface by trying to get answers ( which are not forthcoming) to keep the subject of the waiver at the top of the agenda.

 

jan

[crfx250]

Original Message -----

From: crfx

To: CCC Consumer Enquiries Financial Services Authority

Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 8:19 PM

Subject: Re: Contact with the FSA

 

 

Dear Miss Cully

 

 

Thank you for your e-mail

 

 

Firstly I need to make a correction to your account of my telephone conversation with Mr Brombreger.

 

 

Mr Bromberger was less than forthcoming with the information you claim he provided me and in fact he referred me to Andrea Kinnear of the FSA press office whom, he said, would be able to update me on the status of the 2 month waiver review. But over the course of the next 3 days, Ms Kinnear refused to answer any of my e-mails or numerous phone calls even though she was in her office on every occasion.

 

 

My original enquiry did indeed begin at the CCC and then the FSA consumer helpline and on both occasions I was advised that the 2 month waiver review was in fact an on-going review and that no announcement would be made in consideration of the review except in the event of the waiver being withdrawn from a bank.

 

But in a subsequent conversation with Robert Skinner, Chief Executive of the Banking Code Standards Board, Mr Skinner describe this advice as ''nonsense''.

 

 

This is by no means the first time I have been given completely inaccurate information by both the CCC and the consumer helpline and this is precisely the subject of my complaint referred to in your e-mail. Both these departments are wholly inadequate as a source of information as on every occasion I have used them the information provided is either wildly inaccurate or simply untrue. The staff are ill-informed, inept and can often

barely string a sentence together.

 

 

Therefore any future enquires I make to FSA will be made directly to the relevant department, by a method of my choosing and as I see fit.

 

 

Regards

 

 

crfx

[jansus]

Nice One:D

 

I see lloyds TSB have had their wrists slapped for changing charges during waiver. (this is money report) bet that really hurt:rolleyes:

 

Jan

[alecmac18]

I bet it didn't hurt Lloyds too much.....but it has completely undermined the FSA waiver. Anything that makes it increasingly difficult for the FSA to justify its stance on the waiver is all good with me.......go Lloyds......you couldn't make it up.....the FSA gives Lloyds 'get out of jail free card' and Lloyds ignore it and do their own thing........and running all that advertising about how they were LOWERING their charges (heres the site they created: Need to know about banking .......... ..they will get one more chance from the FSA but they will now be on thin ice.......the FSA moves slow but when it gets angry it will let fly...........if Lloyds had any plans to reject hardship claims they may want to think again.

[alecmac18]

A bit more on that site that Loloyds created after the bank charge storm:

 

Need to know about banking

 

from the site:

 

"If you think you are just about to slip into the red, call your bank account as they should be able to offer you advice on the best way to deal with the situation."

 

and what happens when you call Lloyds...................

 

 

"I'm sorry Mr Customer but our charges are legal and fair and are a fee for a valuable service we provide you with........I'm afraid there is nothing we can do..........what's that......you have no money left?.......Have you considered going without food for a while?......Thats the best advice I can give you I'm afraid..............my computer tells me that Lloyds would rather keep the money........Goodbye and have a nice day."

[midge61]

Lloyds once told me not to buy my 2yr old daughter any new clothes or shoes as she could manage with her old ones and paying them was more important!

 

This was a good 10 yrs ago but shows that nothing's changed!

[adamc6671]

Hi All

 

Is it not time that a serious challenge was mounted to the waiver? Would CAG, in association with other similar sites, be prepared to mount a legal challenge to it? I'm not a 'legal eagle' myself, but does the FSA actually have the legal right to stop Consumer's complaints to the banks from being dealt with in a timely manner? Worth a 'look at' surely.

 

All the best - Adam.