BrunelFranklin Press Release

[EXC]

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,182811.shtml

[Amethyst]

Re: BrunelFranklin Press Release

BrunelFranklin.com has today written to the FSA
and FOS about the scandalous injustice that has been done to millions as a
consequence of recent actions taken by the FSA and FOS, following the
instigation of a Test Case relating to bank charges by the OFT.



In essence, the banks continue to charge with impunity, whilst the
consumer is deprived of all avenues of redress, in that:



a) The Waiver granted by the FSA permits banks not to process new or
existing claims; b) FOS will not review appeals;
c) The courts will stay proceedings against the banks



The letter from Brunel Franklin asks the FSA to immediately revoke the
Waiver in the consumer interest. It also outlines 12 further points that
seriously affect consumers' rights.



Anthony M Sultan, managing director of BrunelFranklin.com and
Conkers.co.uk , said:



"We are urging the Regulators to revoke the Waiver which is scheduled to
be reviewed two months after it was imposed on 27 July, ie: on or around the
end of September.



"The banks have mistreated customers outrageously in their charging
strategies, which have already been proven to be unlawful. No doubt the High
Court will find in favour of the consumer in the Test Case and the banks
charges will be pronounced unlawful once and for all. Many of the banks have
admitted to us directly that they believe the High Court will find against
them, and hence any action by the banks in the short-term is nothing more
than a stalling tactic, a stay of execution, an attempt to limit losses and
short-change the consumer out of the redress they are entitled to.



"We have also asked the FSA and FOS for an urgent response to 12 points
outlining specific and serious injustices affecting millions of consumers.



"In terms of the FSA and its role in this injustice, the Waiver is
manifestly unfair and consumer rights have effectively been frozen; the
Waiver should be withdrawn immediately. The Waiver granted to the banks by
the FSA is not fair and reasonable - in fact it goes against common justice;
how on the one hand can consumers lose any chance of redress, whilst the
banks can continue charging the exorbitant fees from which the FSA is
supposedly trying to protect the consumer?



"Banks should not be able to continue charging during the Waiver. What is
the FSA doing to prevent banks making unlawful charges in the interim?
Several banks are beginning to dress up these unlawful charges so they look
different, but they still have a similar net effect on the consumer. As
recently as this weekend, The Sunday Times highlighted this practice of
stealth charging by the banks. The FSA needs to rule on this and stop this
unfair practice by the banks, immediately."



Notes to Editors



The 12 points referred to in BrunelFranklin.com's letter was addressed to
Sir Callum McCarthy and Sir Christopher Kelly, and copied to all Members of
Parliament are:-



A1) Banks shouldn't be able to continue charging during the Waiver.
Banks should not be allowed to continue adding exorbitant charges whilst this
Waiver is in place. What is being done to prevent banks making unlawful
charges in the interim?



A2) Additional interest should be paid by the banks to the customers to
cover the delay in refund of unlawful bank charges over the period that the
Waiver is in operation.



A3) Clarification is needed on the six year claim period. I.e: the Waiver
period shouldn't 'roll' the six years claim window - the Waiver period should
be added to the six year claim period. Where claims are lodged but not
processed due to the Waiver, assurance is required that six years' worth of
bank charges up to the time of the lodging of the claim - and for a further
period, from the date of such lodgement to the time of resolution of the
claim - shall be due to all claimants.



A4) Consumers should be advised by the FSA/banks that it is in their
interests to submit claims immediately, rather than await the outcome of the
Test Case/lifting of the Waiver.



The whole area of redress is being abused by the banks. We have
summarised below 6 areas of abuse that we urgently request the regulator of
the banks (The FSA) and the consumers' arbiter (The OFT) to act upon, taking
such immediate steps as are required to stop the banks from continuing these
abuses.



B1) Acceptance forms should be standard and should not include onerous
and unfair clauses. Acceptance forms from banks to consumers must standard in
nature, and be fair and reasonable. These forms should not contain onerous
and unfair terms and conditions - such as excluding the client from making
any future claims. It is a fact that even though banks are offering payments
in respect of past unlawful charges, they continue, following such a payout,
to charge equally unlawful charges going forward (at the same rate!). The
wording on an acceptance form should not preclude the consumer from making
further claims as this goes against common justice. Only this week, a bank
has refused to make payment to a consumer, even though the consumer has
signed the bank's acceptance form - until the customer signs another
acceptance form with revised wording.



B2) No automatic rejections should be allowed; no "50% offers" or any
offers lower than the consumer is entitled to should be allowed. Every
consumer should be made a fair offer by the banks at the first time of
asking. Banks should undertake to review each case on its merits, and not
issue blanket rejections as a matter of policy (e.g. Halifax). We understand
that a very high proportion of customers receiving these blanket rejections
do not pursue the case further. This is clearly a ploy by the Halifax to
minimise compensation. Similarly, blanket policies such as only offering 50%
of the claim after the consumer has appealed against an initial rejection
should not be allowed. Fair redress based on agreed principles should be
offered to all consumers by all banks on an equal footing, on submission of a
valid claim.



B3) A standard method of redress calculation should be introduced across
the board so that all consumers get the same calculation method no matter
which bank is making the calculation.



Different banks follow different policies regarding repayment of bank
charges. They have one thing in common - pay out as little as possible. Up to
the time of the Waiver, Barclays for example would pay out around 75% of the
charges in response to a complaint. Halifax, on the other hand would issue a
blanket rejection. After further negotiation they would make a small
(relative to the charges levied) 'goodwill gesture'. Further appeals would
result in this increasing, the final percentage payout being determined by
the individual Halifax case handler - the resultant redress figure being down
to the skills and persistence of the two opposing negotiators. In mid July,
Halifax reduced their final offers to 50%. Lloyds are currently offering
goodwill gestures of around GBP750 on cases involving charges of around
GBP3,500.



B4) No 'Gestures of Goodwill'.



All offers from the banks should be made in accordance with a standard
method of financial redress and should be presented as such - there should be
no hiding behind 'gesture of goodwill payments' as a method of circumventing
a standard method of calculating financial redress. 'Gestures of goodwill'
and /or any other misleading terminology used by banks are deliberate ploys
to minimise losses and short-change customers.



B5) Any direct, unilateral payments by banks should be interim payments,
and not subject to withdrawal at a later date. Any direct payments
unilaterally made into a client's bank account should only be considered as
an interim payment and the banks should not be allowed to withdraw this
amount at a later date. Halifax has recently written to clients saying that
"not responding following receipt of a unilateral payment" will be "deemed as
an acceptance" by the customer.



Some weeks later, the same Halifax customers receive further
communication stating that if they have not responded following the
unilateral payment, they will consider the offer to have been "rejected".
Halifax changing its stance is both unfair and unethical, and only serves to
add confusion and bamboozle the customer. This practice goes against the
bank's duty of care and consumer fairness, and should be stopped forthwith.



B6) No Reprisals



Banks should not be permitted to close bank accounts or threaten to close
them or remove overdrafts due to a consumer reclaiming excessive bank
overdraft charges. We therefore urge you to consider the foregoing points as
a matter of urgency and take whatever steps possible to protect consumers
from this great injustice.



C1) FOS should give a clear, unambiguous policy on hardship cases - one
that it will actually enforce rather than just talk about.



On a daily basis, customers tell us of the financial hardship they face.
The Waiver granted to the banks is exacerbating these genuine hardship cases.
Whenever hardship is raised, claims to the banks are dismissed and the
ombudsman is no more receptive. It should be remembered that the Banking Code
talks specifically about financial hardship (i)see excerpt below from the
Banking Code below). In one very recent case, the Ombudsman was asked to
expedite a genuine hardship claim and it was refused point blank. The client
went bankrupt shortly thereafter. We have exchanged a number of emails with
FOS helpdesk about definition of hardship, their response is always in vague
terms, and therefore we are unable to pin them down when they reject hardship
cases. What constitutes hardship? If most reasonable people would accept it
is a hardship case, surely FOS should arrive at a similar decision?



C2) FOS should give binding advice to consumers on its helpline, rather
than the current smokescreen approach which offers consumers no real advice
or guidance of any value. FOS's technical 'helpdesk' provides little or no
direct answers for consumers. This is a direct, recent quote from a FOS
helpdesk representative: "Any guidance given by FOS on this helpdesk line is
informal. FOS cannot be bound by it if the case is referred here. Any advice
should not be quoted."



Why will FOS not give a definitive answer to consumer questions posed of
their technical helpdesk? If FOS won't give such definitive responses, who
will?






(i)The Banking Code sets out in paragraph 14.1 that customers will be
considered to be in financial difficulty when "income is insufficient to
cover reasonable living expenses and meet financial commitments as they
become due. This may result in a change of lifestyle - often accompanied by a
fall in disposable income and/or increased expenditure - such as:




-loss of employment
-disability
-serious illness
-imprisonment
-relationship breakdown
-death of a partner
-starting a lower paid job
-parental/carer leave
-starting full time education"





Paragraph 14.2 of the Banking Code requires subscribers to the Code to
"try and assist customers in financial difficulties".



NB: The FSA newsletter of 27 July 2007 takes this issue a step further,
stating that "Banks and building societies will have to conduct a filtering
process to ensure that cases of genuine hardship are still dealt with during
the Waiver period. Cases of hardship would still be entitled to be referred
to, and dealt by the FOS."



It is therefore clear that if a customer can show that their financial
circumstances are such that their income exceeds their reasonable living
expenses, the matter may still be referred to the FOS if the bank fails to
adequately deal with the matter.




BrunelFranklin.com

[Amethyst]

Re: BrunelFranklin Press Release

Don't agree with it all but some good questions. More a publicity stunt. IMO. Conkers and BrunelFranklin are sites which CHARGE consumers a fee to help them reclaim charges. Thus self interest comes into this quite a lot.

I do agree with this question. The rest ..... hmmmm,

C1) FOS should give a clear, unambiguous policy on hardship cases - one
that it will actually enforce rather than just talk about.



On a daily basis, customers tell us of the financial hardship they face.
The Waiver granted to the banks is exacerbating these genuine hardship cases.
Whenever hardship is raised, claims to the banks are dismissed and the
ombudsman is no more receptive. It should be remembered that the Banking Code
talks specifically about financial hardship (i)see excerpt below from the
Banking Code below). In one very recent case, the Ombudsman was asked to
expedite a genuine hardship claim and it was refused point blank. The client
went bankrupt shortly thereafter. We have exchanged a number of emails with
FOS helpdesk about definition of hardship, their response is always in vague
terms, and therefore we are unable to pin them down when they reject hardship
cases. What constitutes hardship? If most reasonable people would accept it
is a hardship case, surely FOS should arrive at a similar decision?