FSA meets with Banks to discuss Hardship conditions - 2nd July

[Amethyst]

The FSA is focusing on the treatment of hardship cases in considering the extension of the waiver and has proposed that hardship is defined as incurring more than £500 of charges per year. The Banks do not agree with this definition and are putting forward alternative proposals to more 'accurately reflect' hardship.

The PCA Market study report is expected in July 2008.

[stevokenevo]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

I cant wait to hear the banks version of a 'hardship case'

Sounds like good/positive news and a step in the direction.

But it is just that, one small step............

[EXC]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

If the £500 proposal is implemented, the devil will be in the detail. As Celestine pointed out to me, what's to stop people running up more charges to qualify?

[stevokenevo]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

well, i reckon if you have less than £500 in charges/annum, you are not really going to be a real hardship case (just my honest opinion), or desperate enough to run up extra charges to beat the waiver and claim back the initial charges?

If that was the case, whatever level they set would be subject to the same scenario.

I do agree though, it wont be as straight forward as a £500 cap, there will be additional criteria to be met.

[Tools]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

I agree Stevo,

An annual take of £500 charges to someone living on benefits will affect them much more than someone earning £50k per year for example.

I think the FSA have put this amount forward as a starting point for negotiation. It is good news to see the usually silent FSA taking steps to tackle a problem Beagles and all the other forums / consumer groups have been trying to find the definition of for a long time. Their constant referral to the Banking Code of Conduct has never given a workable definition as to what constitutes hardship. Finally we can see the FSA taking steps to be able to set a clearer definition. There will definitely be criteria and conditions attached to any figure but hopefully this will at least mean that many can now apply to have their stays lifted etc and ensure the banks comply with the conditions of the original waiver.

Keep up the pressure Nick, it seems to be having some impact on the FSA, I`m very sure that your persistence has been in some way however large or small a contributing factor in their actions.

[stevokenevo]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

Keep up the pressure Nick, it seems to be having some impact on the FSA, I`m very sure that your persistence has been in some way however large or small a contributing factor in their actions.

loving your work Nick :okay:

[EXC]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

You can rest assured that nothing gives me greater pleasure than throwing punches at the FSA over this issue. They are nothing more than bottom-feeding fish.

Good points Stevo - and not bad for a troll!

[Amethyst]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

As Tools said

It is good news to see the usually silent FSA taking steps to tackle a problem Beagles and all the other forums / consumer groups have been trying to find the definition of for a long time.

I think the FSA may have suffered a little from what the OFT suffered from. The work they do is often silent in the background and because of this people think nothing is happening. Hopefully this will give people a little more confidence that they ARE actually trying to work on a solution and respond to campigners concerns.

[EXC]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

I agree Ame but it is a shame that they appear to be acting in reaction to criticism rather than off their own bats but at least they are listening at last.

[ed.]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

It's a start.

It depends on the conditions of what happens when the £500 is proven. Can the FOS immediately progress the claim, will there be a recommendation to the Court by the FSA to lift it (don't see that working or happening).

Might be cycnical (well I am) but I don't see this having any effect to be honest, not at this stage. court's are shut down and adamant they will stay that way - and if it means people can then go via FOS (even if filed in Court) unless the proceedure is quick, one month turnaround then people will be waiting on the FOS who will probably take longer than the TC will to resolve.

If this was said last July it would have been useful and could've helped people out.

With my cynical head off, if they do make it a quick decision response, then this could help out an awful lot of people.

[EXC]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

From: EXC
Sent: 27 June 2008 15:30
To: Kate Farrow
Subject: FSA hardship definition



Hi Kate

I understand that the FSA are considering defining 'hardsip' as someone who incurrs more than £500 in charges a year, as a condition to the waiver.

I don't know if the OFT have any input in to these proposals and it almost sounds to good to be true but if it is, the campaign would consider such a move as a very positive step. The lack of a definition of hardship has been a major issue for us.

Cheers

Nick


----- Original Message -----
From: Kate Farrow
To: EXC
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:55 PM
Subject: RE: FSA hardship definition

Hi Nick

OFT does not have an input into the waiver. If you wish, I can pass your comments on to FSA?

Kate

----- Original Message -----
From: EXC
To: Kate Farrow
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: FSA hardship definition

Kate

Yes please!

As ever, many thanks.

Nick

[scoobydoo]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

However I have seen a couple of cases in the past where a lttle pressure from the FOS on the banks - just a phone call in one particular case, did result in the charges being paid back. So even if it means going through the FOS the guidelines may push them into action again. At the moment the lack of clarity just gives the banks and possibly the FOS a get out clause.

I do agree though that it is hard to see exactly how they are going to define this and I would imagine the final definition will still be down to each financial institution - but if there was a clearer general outline at least people could use it to obtain help - and if they dont get it they can question why if they do fit the guidlines.

well done exc

[skintkim]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

Hi I have read this thread and I decided to ring Barclays about my claim. It is a hardship claim and I asked them what criteria did I have to meet to claim hardship and I was told I will receive a form to fill in in approx 5 days and they took my telephone details, so keep fingers crossed. Also the lady I spoke to said she thought it should be over soon! Lets hope so

[EXC]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

If it's any help, the 'definition' the FSA were referring to for banks to go by is actually very wooly and is basically if your income dosesn't exeed your outgoings. Although are pressing them they conceded that what they discribed as a 'definition' was in fact just 'guidance. But I di have it in writing from the FSA that it IS a definition that the banks should go by. If you want it let me know as you can waive it at your bank.

This is the definition from the Banking Code Guidance for Subscribers:

'' 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"

[skintkim]

Re: FSA proposals on definition of Hardship rejected by Banks

I definitley fall in the hardship category as I was only working part time then and my wages were between £5,000 and £8,000 during those years and my charges were over £13,500 in those six years.I am just getting desperate waiting so I think its gotta be worth a try !