Tweet
Re: Regulatory failing ? / Bank Charges - interesting blog
Mike
Find attached.
Mike
Find attached.
Loading...
-
-
Re: Regulatory failing ? / Bank Charges - interesting blog
Firstly EXC, my thanks in writing for your contribution.
I know you have seen my activity on MSE - I am not duplicating any of that here because thanks to Amethyst the link is available for those who want to follow the blog.
I know only too well the depth of knowledge that exists here - and many of you may be wondering if I am on the right track at all - I hope to prove that I am - but right or wrong I want the blog to follow a pattern - like that of a trial, where all the evidence is laid out before I tie together the evidence that I believe directly shows why the FSA are the route to take.
The next set of posts will still be off at somewhat of a tangent from that - but once they are out of the way - I will offer the evidence that for me ties in the FSA directly - and at long last I will be answering the questions you asked in the post below.
Thanks again!
Originally posted by EXC View PostComment
-
Re: Regulatory failing ? / Bank Charges - interesting blog
That evidence is totally invaluable - and I thank you for it - it features in the latest post on the blog.Originally posted by EXC View PostComment
-
Re: Regulatory failing ? / Bank Charges - interesting blog
As I commented above, I am not adding extracts from the blog here as it can be accessed from the link above.
However, extracts are being added on the MSE site - but - I have also added a note to my posts on MSE which I think should also be added here.
They do not form part of the blog - nor until I finalise the next set of the posts and evidence on the blog, do I want to take these comments further in detail at this stage - they will be in the conclusion to the blog - but I think they may help those here to understand better where I am heading.
Post on MSE today:
I have three more posts similar to those above to add to the blog.
They are repetitive in nature. I will not post extracts (as above) on here for that reason - but I will post the links to the last three items once they are added to the blog so that those interested can see the details for themselves.
For those reading these items. I should explain that since the blog was started last year, and before the Supreme Court decision, its existence and details have been made known to the FSA, the OFT, the Treasury Select Committee and others - including MSE Guy and Mike Dailly.
Contact with those bodies has continued as the blog has developed, and this week I issued a further series of e-mails to those bodies and this week added the FOS to the list.
Why the FOS, and only now?
In each of the above examples, and the ones I have yet to add to the blog, I am building a "body of evidence", which demonstrate the powers and effectiveness of the FSA, based not solely on the "Rules" which they enforce, but also on the "Principles" that they require to be followed by each party that they authorise.
Why is that important? Those that have a detailed knowledge of the recent Court ruling on the BBA case against the FSA over PPI - will know that s 150 of the Financial Services and Markets Act was central to the eventual ruling.
More importantly - in those legal arguments a hugely important distinction was drawn by the judge in that eventual ruling over the application of s 150 as it applied to the FSA and to the FOS. There is a difference - a crucial one - that separates the FSA and the FOS over issues of fairness and reasonableness - and that is where the blog is heading.
That distinction has a vital role to play in this whole matter of the fairness or otherwise of bank charges - and the "body of evidence" I am building in the blog will, I hope, play its part in having that distinction and its importance recognised.
Once I have completed the next set of posts - still painstakingly listing that evidence - I will then move onto an analysis of that Court ruling on PPI - and show its application to the question of bank charges.
I will post extracts here when they are posted on the blog.Comment
-
Re: Regulatory failing ? / Bank Charges - interesting blog
I hope this post is acceptable?
I am moving closer to the end of the blog and will (I hope) start to deliver hard evidence against which members on here can form their own judgements over this issue of whether bank charges are fair or otherwise - and whether as this Thread is headed - whether there is hard evidence of serious regulatory failure.
To draw attention to my heading in both of those directions, I append below the latest post on the blog - and whilst there is already a link to the blog - I hope for the above reasons it is acceptable for me to post an extract this once? I am grateful if it is!
***********************
Please meet the Co-Ordinating Committee - Part 2
Ok - let's take a look at those first "Minutes" of the recently established Co-ordinating Committee - a committee which includes senior individuals drawn from the FSA, the OFT, and the FOS.
If you have just finished reading the last post on this blog, you will know I am looking for a reference, any reference at all to the issue of bank charges. That's all, just a reference, even a passing comment, anything!
Well, let's see, here are the - "The Minutes"
You will first find the list of attendees at that first meeting of the committee held on the 25th of February 2011. All hold senior positions in each of those three organisations, as was intended when the committee was established.
These are the headings you will find - Credit brokerage: Adequate explanations and assessment of creditworthiness and affordability : Credit and store cards : Debt freeze/debt waiver products : Peer to peer lending : Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) and other exchange traded products : Self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs) : Housing and mortgage market related risks : Payday loans : Cases to the ombudsman service : Retail Conduct Risk Outlook (RCRO) : Feedback statement to DP 10/1 : Reporting and monitoring of risks.
Now did you spot the heading on "Bank Charges"? Nope, neither did I. Did you use the link, and read every word, look at every paragraph - and not just take my word for it?
Maybe you looked under AOB?
A.O.B
There was no other business to discuss.
Nope, not there either.
I don't know how much you may know about the regulatory world, the world inhabited by the likes of the FSA, the OFT and the FOS, but suffice to say it is a world in transition. It has happened before, Gordon Brown once took the regulatory world apart (as it was) and reconstructed it - that was where the FSA first was born, under Gordon Brown.
The current Coalition Government are in the throes of taking it apart, and reconstructing it all over again. There will be nobody who has any interest in the world of regulation who is unaware of the changes that are underway - and that is true (at least one sincerely hopes it is true) of all those who attended that meeting.
It is they and their colleagues who are responsible now - today, responsible through a transition period over the next few years, and responsible thereafter for ensuring that what Parliament and the current Coalition Government say should happen - happens!
An important task - a very important task indeed.
So it raises this very interesting question - do they know what plans are in place under the current Coalition Government over this issue of bank charges? Nope, I am going to deliberately repeat what should be a ridiculous question - do they know?
Let's look at something from the Coalition agreement - the one formed by the current Coalition Government.
Here is where to source the complete document.
I just want to use one extract from it, this one:
We will introduce stronger consumer protections including measures to end unfair bank and financial transaction charges.
Yes, you might well shout "Eureka!" - the Government recognise something that links the word "unfair" with the two words "bank charges".
Yes it is good to find someone, in fact anyone, beyond those affected by the issue who does recognise there is in fact an issue.
But let's leave the politicians out of it for now - that is for later, let's just stick for now with those "Minutes", and the complete absence of any reference to bank charges. I wasn't really looking for words such as "fair" or "unfair", that might have been a hope too far.
I was just looking for the merest reference of any kind whatsoever to "bank charges". Just two words. More would have been good, but that was all I really wanted to read - that the issue was on the committee's agenda.
Stop for a moment - try this:
Imagine you were one of those attending that meeting, imagine you hold a senior position in either the FSA, the OFT, or the FOS.
Now would you think it likely that you would be aware of the three Court cases involving that issue over bank charges - or would that have slipped your notice, passed you by entirely, you just did not know about the specifics of the ruling the Supreme Court pronounced?
If that were the case should you be at the meeting, indeed should you be in the job at all?
Would you think it likely that you would be aware or unaware of the Coalition Government's proposals to address "unfair" "bank" "transactions" - or would you be blissfully unaware that they were even thinking about it.
Again, if was not something that you had any knowledge of whatsoever, should you be at the meeting, indeed should you be in the job at all?
If this was the very first meeting of a newly established co-ordinating committee, inclusive of senior figures from the FSA, the OFT, and the FOS do you think, maybe, just maybe, "bank charges" might just get a mention somewhere - even just a passing comment under AOB?
But there is nothing, nada, zilch.
Beyond perhaps wondering what on earth is going on - maybe the more important question is - why is there no mention of the issue over bank charges.
Why, given the responsibilities of those involved,
Why given the publicity that has raged around the issue of bank charges for years,
Why given a clear statement that the very issue of "unfair" bank charges is on the Coalition Government's agenda
Why do you think the issue over bank charges is nowhere to be seen on the Co-ordinating committee's agenda?
What possible explanation could there be?
The next post will address those questions.Comment
Comment