FSA Back-track on reason for waiver

[rob-the-viking]

I've enjoyed reading this thread, because it has highlighted to me just what a bunch of blithering idiots the FSA are, (ok, it simply confirmed what I suspected!) but mainly because it would seem that they chose the wrong people to try to spin their tangled web of bullsh!t to!

 

crfx250, keep hassling the clown party that is the FSA!!!

 

 

 

r-t-v

[patrickq1]

all i can say to all this is it is a whitewash and some underhand dealing have gone on,i for one am sickened at the fact that these orginisations who are meant to protect the consumer are railroding us into submission and no doubt they have already picked their judge and jusry...how can we instigate a judicial enquiry into the three orginisations,i think we all have to write and petitionfor a judicial enquiry at the highest level ,the untruths and fabrications have already caused them serious problems so now they are ignoring everyone and i am concered their must be some way legally were we can instigate proceeding against the FSA for failure to be transparent then do the same against each and every other body who has been involved in this scandalous affair..a vote of no confidence..perhapsif we can get it to be raised in parliment question time ?

[patrickq1]

apoligies for the mispelling writing in temper dose not help

[crfx250]

all i can say to all this is it is a whitewash and some underhand dealing have gone on,i for one am sickened at the fact that these orginisations who are meant to protect the consumer are railroding us into submission and no doubt they have already picked their judge and jusry...how can we instigate a judicial enquiry into the three orginisations,i think we all have to write and petitionfor a judicial enquiry at the highest level ,the untruths and fabrications have already caused them serious problems so now they are ignoring everyone and i am concered their must be some way legally were we can instigate proceeding against the FSA for failure to be transparent then do the same against each and every other body who has been involved in this scandalous affair..a vote of no confidence..perhapsif we can get it to be raised in parliment question time ?

 

Watch this space

[patrickq1]

good for you cf ive enjoyed your threads

[crfx250]

Last week I asked the OFT's Kate Farrow to give me the reasons the FSA

gave them as to why it was neccesary to introduce the complaints handling waiver.

 

Having had several conversations with her this morning it emerges that the FSA, bizarrely, gave no reasons whatsoever to the OFT as to why a waiver was required.

 

This sits somewhat oddly with the FSA's repeated claim that the waiver

was introduced ''to help facilitate the OFT's test case''.

 

I asked the OFT to put this in writing but they now want me to go through the laborious process of submiting an official Freedom of Information Act request to ''release the information'' they have already disclosed to me verbally.

[patrickq1]

Page not found

morn crf dont know if you are aware of this being allowed to pass data to another country through phillips....phillips own the SEMA GROUP they are the ones who do the medical tests for the DWP so in effect anyone who has had a medical through the sima group now could have had their data transfered to another country,bearing in mind PHILLIPS are major shareholders within certain insurance groups??? well how on earth has this been allowed..this info will ultimately get to uk insurance co..

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

Press release

For immediate release

Date: 9 May 2007

Philips is authorised by the ICO to transfer personal information overseas

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has authorised Philips to transfer

employees’ and clients’ personal information outside the European Economic Area

using strict procedures known as binding corporate rules. This process enables

Philips to share information on its employees and clients within the multi-national

company. The authorisation applies to information that falls under the Information

Commissioner’s jurisdiction, namely data generally held in the UK.

[crfx250]

----- Original Message ----- From: crfx

To: Kate Farrow Office of Fair Trading

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:53 PM

Subject: FoIA Request

 

Kate

Following our conversation earlier I am making a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I wish to know what reasons the FSA gave to the OFT as to why the complaints handling waiver was introduced in conjunction with the

OFT's announcement of the test case on 27 July.

As you will recall in our telephone conversation today, you stated

that the FSA offered the OFT no reasons whatsoever as to why

it introduced the waiver and that none were sought by the OFT.

Please find below my request which is in 2 parts.

1) Please give me the reasons the FSA gave the OFT for the

need to introduce the complaints handling waiver on 27 July.

2) The FSA has repeatedly stated that ''we have granted

the waiver to help facilitate this test case''. Although I appreciate

the OFT was not responsible for the waiver and indeed not given

an explanation as to it's introduction, I would like the OFT's view

on how, in practical terms, the waiver would help to facilitate your

test case.

Many thanks

crfx

[patrickq1]

hope you have found the information in this letterhelpful. It is a

matter for you whether you still wish to challenge the FSA's decision by

way of Judicial Review. We fully reserve the FSA's position in relation

to any proceedings you may choose to bring. Should you decide to do

so, however, you should be aware that it is our policy to recover from a

claimant our costs of defending an action if unsuccessful legal

proceedings are brought against us.

just read the reply to your letter to the fsa and the above statement is a bloody downright scandal...i have also sent a letter to george galloway concerning our plight so perhaps he may visit the site and respond,,,but this threat of vigourasly defending and all cost against is monsterous and we really need to highlight the point you have made because i do not see a single answer to any of your quaestions their points do not go anywhere near satisfying the search for truth,their is definately something amiss somewhere ..cant put my finger on it but this answer should now go to question with all MPs their attitude stinks

[patrickq1]

absolutely scandalous letter cf my reply to kate farrow

absolutely scandalous i have now written to my MP and i am demanding an investigation into your department,your reply and threat of cost if a judicial enquiry is now open to questions you have verifiably made false statements on material matters you are being asked by more than 200,000 people and every one of them shall now be demanding a very serious enquiry into your departments conduct..it is like .you have not yet , not once told the banks to stop all unlawfull charges whilst the debts are in dispute...i beleive your department is full of ex finance directors and ex bank staff ex directors of banking departments .this being the case is also open to serious questions with regards to your loyalties is your thinking either lawful and truthfull or what ! this is open to question,

it is a scandal and threatening to say that all cost will be sought if a judicial enquiry is asked for,i for one shall be paying monies into a fighting fund for this reason alone,your department has already been found wanting and a case of mal administration will be instigated against you dept,i am so angry that you could not even be totally honest you have made Statements of interpretation of facts , what happened to TRANSPARENCEY with this case against the banks/finance,,this has also come from the PRIME MINISTER OFFICE ,even the THE RIGHT HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER BELEIVES THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR TRANSPARENCEY,you seem to have forgotten what this word means let alone it exists ,and as for your comment that you have been investigating the banks since may 2006 ,which banks was it a PIGGY BANK ,and why on earth have you not already hired a professional company to calculate the way bank charges are made,when considering a 18 year old university student came onto the consumer action group and worked out as best he could how the banks equate figures and you as a proffesional body have nt even done this and you are thinking of going to court..you are negligent in this also..your spin and ambigious remarks leave everyone to conclude that your department have and are negligent with the truth,your Directors and staff should all resign in the interest of JUSTICE .i am also writing to the UE COMMISSION and are going to demand that they make enquiries into your behaviour along with our suspicions with regards to your actions to date