OFT let consumers down AGAIN on Overdraft Charges

[MIKE770]

Re: OFT let consumers down AGAIN on Overdraft Charges

The man at the BBC's Moneybox stated that " if you experience any problems with the banks and credit industry you should complain the the OFT and they will take up your complaint on your behalf! " so there!!. If the BBC says it then it must be right DER!!

Could be comedy of errors in the said statement, Theory O.K. in practice????????????

[patrickq1]

Re: OFT let consumers down AGAIN on Overdraft Charges

The FSA has backed earlier guidance issued by the OFT and confirmed that, in its view, ‘read and understood’ terms in consumer contracts are unfair. The FSA said that including a contractual term or a tick box on a website asking a consumer to confirm that they had read and understood the contract would be unfair and in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. Companies should not reject customer complaints because they had ticked a box saying that they had read and understood the contract. The FSA said:
“A declaration requiring consumers to agree that they have read and understood a contract is, in our view, unfair. This is because the statement may not be true and may not reflect what has actually happened. Consumers may not have either read or understood the contract and so are not in a position to declare that they have in fact done so. In this instance, the declaration is effectively meaningless and does not reflect the circumstances in which the particular consumer signs their contract.
The law requires consumers to be given an opportunity to examine all the terms in a contract.
A declaration of this nature could be used by a firm to claim that it gave customers an opportunity to read a contract when it did not actually do so. The firm could argue that because a consumer has signed to say that they have read and understood a contract, this means the firm has fulfilled its obligation to allow the consumer to examine all the terms. This may not in fact be true. Therefore the use of a declaration in this way is unfair.
It is preferable for ‘have read and understood declarations’ instead to give a clear warning to consumers that they should read and understand terms before signing them and that consumers should ask questions if they do not understand any terms”
The FSA thought that it was fair to ask consumers to make declarations relating to matters which were within their own knowledge, such as personal information including age, gender and address.
The OFT has already issued guidance which makes it clear that asking consumers to declare that they have read and understood an agreement is unfair.
“Declarations that the consumer has read and/or understood the agreement give rise to special concerns. The Regulations implement an EU Directive saying that terms must be clear and intelligible and that consumers must have a proper opportunity to read all of them (see Part IV). Including a declaration of this kind effectively requires consumers to say these conditions have been met, whether they have or not. This tends to defeat the purpose of the Directive, and as such is open to serious objection.
In practice consumers often do not read, and rarely understand fully, any but the shortest and simplest contracts. It might be better if they tried to do so, but that does not justify requiring them to say they have done so whether they have or not. The purpose of declarations of this kind is clearly to bind consumers to wording regardless of whether they have any real awareness of it. Such statements are thus open to the same objections as provisions binding consumers to terms they have not seen at all.
Much more likely to be acceptable is a clear and prominent warning that the consumer should read and understand the terms before signing them.”
Click here to read the FSA’s statement
Click here to read the OFT’s guidance
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Data protection: Commission requests UK to strengthen powers of national data protection authority, as required by EU law
The European Commission has requested the UK to strengthen the powers of its data protection authority so that it complies with the EU's Data Protection Directive. The Commission request takes the form of a reasoned opinion – the second stage under EU infringement procedures. In the UK, national data rules are curtailed in several ways, leaving the standard of protection lower than required under EU rules. The UK now has two months to inform the Commission of measures taken to ensure full compliance with the EU Data Protection Directive.
"Data protection authorities have the crucial and delicate task of protecting the fundamental right to privacy. EU rules require that the work of data protection authorities must not be unbalanced by the slightest hint of legal ambiguity. I will enforce this vigorously," said Vice-President Viviane Reding, Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. "I urge the UK to change its rules swiftly so that the data protection authority is able to perform its duties with absolute clarity about the rules. Having a watchdog with insufficient powers is like keeping your guard dog tied up in the basement."
The case concerns the implementation of the EU’s 1995 Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) both in UK law (the Data Protection Act of 199 and its application by UK courts. The Commission has worked with UK authorities to resolve a number of issues, but several remain, notably limitations of the Information Commissioner's Office's powers:

• it cannot monitor whether third countries' data protection is adequate. These assessments should come before international transfers of personal information;
• It can neither perform random checks on people using or processing personal data, nor enforce penalties following the checks.

Furthermore, courts in the UK can refuse the right to have personal data rectified or erased. The right to compensation for moral damage when personal information is used inappropriately is also restricted.
These powers and rights are protected under the EU Data Protection Directive and must also apply in the UK. As expressed in today’s reasoned opinion, the Commission wants the UK to remedy these and other shortcomings.
Next steps
For more information about the three-stage infringement process, see IP/10/798.
Background
For current statistics on infringements in general, see:
Application of EU law - Infringements of EU law
For more information
Justice and Home Affairs Newsroom:
Justice and Home Affairs - Newsroom
Homepage of Viviane Reding, Vice-President and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship:
Vice-President Viviane Reding - European Commission - Viviane Reding