Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

You missed one element of that amethyst. The bank may telephone a claimant to clarify their Income and Expenditure. NOT speaking to the bank is IMHO the wrong decision. The bank will ask about your circumstances and will clarify your income and expenditure form. Any verbal decision should be made in writing and make sure if you do speak to a bank worker that you get their name and note down the date and time.

[Amethyst]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

FSA acknowledged FOI request and is being actioned. I asked for quite detailed figures and also figures of complaints to FSA about firms breaching waiver so not sure how much of a comprehensive response I will get but will let you know.

[Sapphire]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

I think Ame what is confusing people into thinking they can claim on 'hardship' grounds is this bit

incurred over £500 in unauthorised overdraft charges in the previous 12 months, that is to be treated as indicative of financial difficulty).

people see the £500 in charges in the previous 12 months and havn't either read the whole thing fully or don't understand properly, and think yippeeee I qualify for hardship so away I'll go and make a claim.
If only it was that easy eh because I'd be claiming big time.

JMHO :kiss:

[Amethyst]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Actually I saw someone yesterday saying the bank had told them they were upping this limit arbitarily as they were getting too many claims. Divs.

£500 has never been a standalone indicator of hardship, but yes its not all that clear.

INDICATIVE is the main word....

2.
In making an assessment of financial difficulty the firm will take into account:
a.
evidence of changes in lifestyle, including loss of employment; disability; serious illness; imprisonment; relationship breakdown; death of a partner; starting a lower paid job; parental/carer leave; and starting full-time education;
b.
evidence of the following events:
i.
items repeatedly being returned unpaid due to lack of available funds;
ii.
failing to make loan repayments or other commitments;
iii.
discontinuation of regular credits;
iv.
notification of some form of insolvency or court proceedings;
v.
regular requests for increased borrowing or repeated rescheduling of debts;
vi.
making frequent cash withdrawals on a credit card at a non-promotional rate of interest; and
vii.
repeatedly exceeding a credit card or overdraft limit without agreement (and, in this regard, where a complainant has incurred over £500 in unauthorised overdraft charges in the previous 12 months, that is to be treated as indicative of financial difficulty).

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

I know Saph but the criteria guidance for hardship is much better than it was and regardless of the FSA's figures on the number of refunds offered that we obtained from them - which were prior to the new conditions and frankly unbelievable - the new criteria was responsible for a lot of people getting something.

Without wanting to blow my own trumpet I'd like to think we contributed to the stricter criteria when I called the FSA's bluff on their claim that the ''definition'' of hardship was defined in the Banking Code and I provided evidence from the Banking Code Standards Board themselves that it was merely 'guidance' and I made a big song & dance out of it.

Maybe that goes to show that relentless probing and questioning is a better route to getting results than issuing 'press releases' that nobody reads - least of all the FSA.

To use a Wild Billy anecdote ''It's not the answers you get but the questions you ask''.

[Tools]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Which is why we all understand your signature.

''I'm just a soul who's intentions are good. Oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood'

I am of no doubt that you were instrumental in a lot of actions by the OFT and FSA which is what you have been doing ever since I became aware of you OTR as CRFX250. Many people owe you quite a lot Nick, blow your trumpet as loud as you want, you deserve a whole brass section accompanying you.

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Now don't get soppy Tools.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

I'll second that Tools

[Tools]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

It wasn't meant to be soppy or ass kissy, I say what I mean and mean what I say. You have no financial motive to help as you do, you just do it, you also recognise and support the ones instrumental in making a difference. You deserve a lot of credit and respect for that.

[Sapphire]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

ALL I was trying to say hopefully without repeating myself, is that when people read the hardship criteria they see £500 charges in previous 12 months they think they qualify, but they don't realise that its just ONE of the requirements that are needed and NOT the only one needed if I am making myself clear.
I've actually had a call a few minutes ago from dear stepson asking the same thing and he was most miffed when I said sorry you don't match the criteria.

I hope I've cleared that up :kiss:

[Amethyst]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

I think a lot of people who have had the £500 charges know they arent in hardship but thought they'd try it. But yes I can understand completely why they do it.


As a side note - Natweststaffmember is on BBC Look East in about 20 minutes. Onces its on watch again will post up link.

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Thanks guys it's much appreciated.

Yes Saph it's nowhere near clear enough. The thing is even people comfortably off can drum up 500 sobs worth of charges simply due to not moving money around on time so they have to take further criteria into account and should have made that more apparent.

Here is the Order that gave rise to the appeal applications. The OFT's appears to relate to a paragraph in an Order of Justice Smith's in May.

Do we have that?

[Amethyst]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Doesn't seem to mention the appeal made by the OFT though appears from that Abbey appealled the same issue.

this bit

A3/2008/1396 Office of Fair Trading -v- Abbey National Bank Plc. Application of Claimant for permission to appeal and expedition with appeal to follow if granted.



Can we just call the OFt and ask them what aspect they were appealing? directly in PIL lol.

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Yes it's the 4th appellant's appeal which relates to Smffy's order - read it too quick - . I've put TB on the case and if he doesn't come up twith anything I'll ask the OFT.

[ROBSTER]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

[quote=sapphire;104982]ALL I was trying to say hopefully without repeating myself, is that when people read the hardship criteria they see £500 charges in previous 12 months they think they qualify, but they don't realise that its just ONE of the requirements that are needed and NOT the only one needed if I am making myself clear.
I've actually had a call a few minutes ago from dear stepson asking the same thing and he was most miffed when I said sorry you don't match the criteria.


So £500 on its own is likely to get you no where?

I differ in my comprehension of this matter.

In Making an assessment of financial difficulty the Bank will take into account:......

(Vii)........over £500 of charges over 12 month period that is to be treated as indicative of financial difficulty.

So it is financial difficulty

Clever wording such as "will take into account" and "indicative of" leave the whole thing wide open to interpretation and that is why some Banks will accept it and others will wriggle out of it using such language as "this is our interpretation of the FSA guidance (yep guidance not ruling) in this matter".