Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

[Garlok]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Very much H71,

The raising of interest rates normally has very litle to do with inflation, in fact it stokes inflation for us mere mortals. You or may not remember the end of Thatcher/Major era when interest rates went through the roof very quickly on the premise of the European Exchange Rate mechanism.

I read a retrospective commentary on this a while back. The banks in their greed had lent huge sums to third world countries, most of which ended up in the hands of gunrunners and drug dealers as many said it would and which a primary school child could have told them they would never get repaid.

The monies raised by those horrendous interest rate hikes which in turn ruined thousands of peoples lives and businesses equated almost exactly to monies lost in those corrupt third world deals. I don't believe in coincidence

Have we learnt NOTHING?

regards
Garlok

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

There was a segment on the Politics Show (Leeds version)yesterday.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011f26t


38 mins to 48 mins.


This is first of many we hope,finally bringing to the publics attention the unethical, and in our opinion unfair, activities of banks.

[JohnT]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

When we talk about overdraft fee, the bank lends you additional amount to cover up the excess you made. But, according to the news that I've heard there is another issue that really needs a further investigation. The news also mentions that the Bank of America is currently involved in a huge class action suit concerning overdraft charges. The bank has arrived at a settlement that will cost it some money. Bank of America has agreed to a payout of $410 million to make the suit go away. Extreme overdraft policies are the subject of a huge class action, involving about one million people and more than two dozen banks, including Bank of America. Here is the proof: Bank of America settles overdraft fee lawsuit for $410 million, personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Just an update. The PHSO have received the complaint - see attached. I'm not holding out much hope.

The legal route is the only one left now. Working on that one.

That aside the lenders 2010 accounts have recently been published. These reaffirm what we already know in that the loss of £100m p/a in fees and commisssions has had no impact on their balance sheet. It's nice to know that we're keeping them afloat. They've also repaid 27% of their overdraft (their funding stream) in the last 2 years. This is 4 times more than they have done historically.

This issue is expected to be given some media exposure in the very near future as it links in nicely with the PPI aftermath in that customers are going to foot the bill via increased interest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=SXJYJUrabwk

I'll update after the event.

Just received a reply from the PHSO saying that I need to go to the ICO.

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

I thought I’d provide an update on this – as you can guess the roundabout continues.

The PHSO have formally responded as follows, following an enquiry by them to the ICO. As inferred above their decision was to refer to the ICO.

-----Original Message-----
From: ************@ombudsman.org.uk]
Sent: 15 August 201114:15
To:
Subject: FW: Commissioner's powers[Ref. ENQ0409391]

Dear Mr ********

Further to our recent discussions and my enquiries with the Information Commissioners Officer, I have received the below email from them.

As you can see the ICO have said they can consider if the Enterprise Act was correctly applied but seemingly aren’t able to direct information be disclosed under any other Act then the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts and Environmental Information Regulations.

As I previously explained to you, we have an internal review team here who will consider whether the decision taken on your complaint was sound. I attach a leaflet detailing how you can request a review and who to contact. I don’t have any personal power to overturn the decision made on your complaint; the most appropriate way for you to ask us to reconsider the decision would be through the review team.

If you feel that you would like a review of your complaint, I can refer your complaint to our review team o you can contact them directly. If you wish me to forward your complaint, I would be grateful if you could explain what it is about our decision that you are unhappy with or where you consider we have gone wrong. I will then forward your complaint and file to the review team who will be in contact with you.

Yours sincerely

From: casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk [mailto:casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 15 August 201112:27
To: PHSO
Subject: Commissioner's powers[Ref. ENQ0409391]

15th August 2011

Case Reference Number ENQ0409391

Dear ********

Thank you for your recent enquiry.

Before we were to consider any request for information made to a public authority we would need to receive a valid complaint. A complaint under the FOIA would need to show that a valid request for information within the terms of that Act had been made. If we were to determine that information had been wrongly refused under the FOIA, we would indicate that it should be provided.

If we were to receive a valid complaint that information had been refused because of a prohibition in the Enterprise Act, we would have to consider if that prohibition had been correctly applied.

Apart from under the FOIA, the Data Protection Act and the Environmental Information Regulations, we have no authority to consider or determine rights of access to information. We therefore have no authority to direct an authority to provide information under other legislation.

Yours sincerely
Information Commissioner’s Office


So, a complete cop out.

In my mind I have asked the PHSO whether the OFT have correctly applied the s241a legislation. In other words: -

· Is the OFT’s contention that disclosure is not in the public interest correct / reasonable, when set against the stringent restrictions placed upon s241a disclosure?

· Is the OFT’s contention that the legitimate business interests of FirstPlus would be harmed by disclosure correct / reasonable, using the s241a restrictions?

· Is the OFT’s contention that I have failed to prove that the requested information is necessary in order for me to seek consumer redress correct / reasonable, again under s241a?

This is what the PHSO referral was about, i.e. maladministration, and unless I’m missing something this is for the PHSO to decide upon.

It remains unclear to me exactly what the ICO can and cannot consider here. The inference from the ICO (see above) appears to be that the ICO will consider whether the OFT have applied the Enterprise Act prohibitions correctly but it is unclear how that works with s241a, which is a discretionary power. It is similarly unclear how this then links in with the FoIA.

I have done what the PHSO has advised and referred to the ICO however I have also requested a review of the PHSO’s decision.

[SpringerSpaniel]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Your MP could ask a question in the House of Commons about this ?

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

I have tried to get him more proactively involved but to be honest he’s like a nodding dog. I tried to push him following a useless reply from Mark Hoban the Treasury Minister, after I raised the issue of regulatory failings. The reason for raising this issue with the Minister was to highlight the failings of the regulatory system. Mr Hoban readily accepted that the current system was flawed but offered no suggestion of what customers can do to seek redress for the systematic abuse.

I asked my MP was it too much to expect an actual opinion and/or a reassurance that this issue will be taken forward with the organisations concerned? He sided with Mark Hoban and refused to take it further.

On a general note I have attempted, without success, to simplify this issue. My most recent discussions with the OFT has attempted to focus on the basics. I have asked for an explanation as to why it is deemed FAIR that I am now paying more. Maybe if the OFT can at least attempt to do this we can move on – the problem is it is not FAIR, but the current regulatory process is not capable of dealing with it.

I have suggested that the FSA’ Consumer Redress Scheme powers (see section 404 of the FSMA) could be a solution. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/section/404


However as it stands: -

·The OFT do not have these powers,

·The FSA refuse to consider as second charge loans are not within their remit, although they accept that they could do so if directed to by Treasury (under section 404g of the FSMA), however they refuse to ask Treasury on my behalf.

·Treasury say they cannot get involved in individual disputes. This is currently under review.

This is another example, as with section 241a of the EA, of a process being supposedly available to enable consumers to seek redress that is failing due to inadequacy of those charged with administering. The current regime is not fit for purpose.

As I told my MP - Yes I appreciate that a review of the regulatory process is pending, but that doesn’t help me, nor the 50,000 other customers of FirstPlus.

[SpringerSpaniel]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Copy the correspondence with your MP to Vince Cable

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

I think you could also ask the Court to make a "Full Disclosure" order in the Public Interests ......in that just because their legitimate business interests could be harmed the Court will need to determine who's interests are paramount .....the public in general or........ First Plus's

Worth getting a proper legal opinion on this I think.

Sparkie.

I'm not a lawyer just my opinion

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Thanks for the suggestion Sparkie although money is a barrier to that. Been trying to get one of our group to use legal aid but not had any success yet.

[SpringerSpaniel]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

You could use the BA service, one of your group members joins the BA amnd you can get a Carrick Read opinion for £50ish.

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

No doubt a daft question, but "BA Service"????

Thanks in advance.

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Bump

Springer, can you advise???

Thanks

[SpringerSpaniel]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

BA = Bankruptcy Association

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

The BA weren't interested i'm afraid. Trying LawWorks.