• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

    Reply from the FSA (yep I was right)

    Dear Amethyst
    The second figure (972,565) includes complaints received prior to 27 July 2007 and which were subsequently put on hold.
    I hope this clears up the confusion, and apologies for not providing an initial explanation for the difference.
    Yours sincerely
    S. Spies (Mrs)
    Information Access Team



    #staysafestayhome

    Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

      Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
      Reply from the FSA (yep I was right)

      Good, glad they confirmed the headline figure too.

      Odd that they are so courteous and responsive to you - I'm lucky to get a grunt out of them - but then again...

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

        I found an executive summary of a study entitled 'Overdraft Complaints Research' that deals with how banks were dealing with hardship claimants under the waiver. It was conducted by a market research company, GFK NOP, and appears to be the results of an online consumer poll.

        It seems that the data covered hardship claims from the introduction of the waiver in July 07 and the research was published in June 08.

        I'm trying to obtain the full survey.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

          Excellent find EXC - will see if those figures tally up with the FSAs
          #staysafestayhome

          Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

          Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

            I've been trying to figure out the % of claimants who got some kind of a refund from this but my calculator has died.

            A quarter (24% of the smaller follow-up sample) had been told that a final decision could not be made until the end of the FSA waiver period. Of the rest:
              1. 44% had received some or all of the charges refunded
              2. 12% had their complaint rejected
              3. 9% had received no decision nor told their complaint was on hold.

            Interesting that they concluded that the definition of hardship was an issue.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

              The research was commissioned by the financial services consumer panel who released this in November 08:-

              21 Nov Consumer Panel reaction to FSA's waiver on handling of complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges
              The Consumer Panel today called on the FSA to ensure that it continues to monitor closely the working of the current waiver in respect of complaints handling on unauthorised overdraft charges, but believes the waiver will be difficult to justify if the court case initiated by the Office of Fair Trading goes on beyond February 2008.
              The Consumer Panel believes the FSA should apply conduct of business regulation to retail banking, and if this had already been done, the issue of bank charges could well have been dealt with much earlier under the FSA's principle of Treating Customers Fairly.
              In the FSA's review of the waiver, the Panel was pleased that the FSA recognised the need to pay close attention to people in financial hardship and to make sure they are treated sympathetically and positively in accordance with the Banking Code. However, the Panel also believes that the FSA should do more to publicise the fact that consumers in genuine financial hardship do not have to wait for the outcome of the court case for their case to be considered.
              The Panel also calls on the FSA to investigate reports that some consumers have been told by providers that complaints in regard to credit card charges are also covered by the waiver. The FSA and the banks must make clear to consumers that complaints about credit card charges are not included in this waiver, and their complaints will be investigated within the normal timescales.
              John Howard, Chairman of the Financial Services Consumer Panel said:
              "Although we understand why the FSA has put the waiver in place, it has had the unfortunate effect of delaying consumers' access to justice, whilst allowing the banks to continue taking money from accounts for what may turn out to be illegal charges. The longer this goes on the more unfair it will be, especially on those in financial hardship."
              – ends–
              Originally posted by EXC View Post
              I've been trying to figure out the % of claimants who got some kind of a refund from this but my calculator has died.

              A quarter (24% of the smaller follow-up sample) had been told that a final decision could not be made until the end of the FSA waiver period. Of the rest:
                1. 44% had received some or all of the charges refunded
                2. 12% had their complaint rejected
                3. 9% had received no decision nor told their complaint was on hold.



              Interesting that they concluded that the definition of hardship was an issue.
              Doesnt seem they had a very large consumer base for the study. Only thirteen in depth interviews and mentions of 45 people etc so I expect it was only 100.
              #staysafestayhome

              Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

              Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

                Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
                The research was commissioned by the financial services consumer panel who released this in November 08:- .
                Yes and disapointingly the FSACP are not remotely interested in sharing the full study with us even though I was polite. Honest.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

                  Interesting repsonses to consultations http://www.fs-cp.org.uk/pdf/ca_study.pdf
                  #staysafestayhome

                  Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                  Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

                    Yes I think I posted that up on our PCA consultation thread and remarked on how brief it was in comparison to ours.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

                      I came across some consumer research - 'Treating Customers' Fairly: The Consumers View' - commissioned by the FSA to ''help understand consumers perception and views on what constitutes fairness in their dealings with providers of financial services''.

                      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/consumer-research/crpr38.pdf

                      It's interesting in that it was published way back in June 2005 - before overdraft charges were seriously challenged - and just goes to show that the FSA were made aware it was an issue long before they acted on it.

                      The extract dealing with overdraft charges concludes that regulation covering this area is ''limited''.

                      More generally it finds that - as with the Cruikshank report - banking is ''very difficult to opt out of'':

                      In the first instance we need to evaluate the impact of financial services being a ‘must have’ category. In modern Britain it is very difficult to opt out of the banking system, as employers and government increasingly insist on paying direct to bank accounts, and being unable to pay with a credit or debit card can, for example, block certain types of purchase. As a result consumers are constrained to deal with the industry, and constrained to deal with it on its own terms. Since
                      financial institutions and their products tend to have far more in common than they do differentiating them, it is not unreasonable for the consumer to see themselves as having little or no real choice - if I dislike my existing provider’s current account and overdraft product, it is difficult to find one elsewhere that is significantly different in the way it works, its charges etc.


                      It also states that ''The mass-market consumer will tend not to read terms and conditions because they expect them to be incomprehensible; experience suggests they will be full of jargon and legal language which will make it very difficult for them to understand what is being written. The most cynical see this as a conscious effort on the part of providers to disguise the existence of clauses which work against consumer interests and manipulate circumstances to the provider’s advantage (e.g.exclusions, charges etc).


                      The section that deals with overdrafts is as follows:

                      A similar situation, discussed in many of the groups, concerned current account overdraft charges.

                      We have not included a specific example since they tend to be brief and generic but the reader will be familiar with the typical consumer argument in this situation, which tends to consist of the
                      following points:

                      I am a ‘good and loyal’ customer (i.e. I have been with the provider for many years and do not tend to go overdrawn).

                      Through an entirely understandable and forgivable error on my part I went very slightly
                      overdrawn.

                      Case study 4.2.3
                      The consumer was intending to post payment for his credit card bill whilst on the way to the airport for his family holiday. He put the cheque in the car’s glove compartment and subsequently forgot about it. On returning from holiday two weeks later, he cleared out the car and found the cheque. He telephoned the credit card’s customer service department to explain why his payment was late. The member of staff he spoke to accepted his explanation without question, told him it was ‘the kind of thing that could happen to anyone’ and
                      explained that, even though he would see a non-payment charge on his account, this would be
                      credited back to him the following month.
                      Relatively inexperienced, Birmingham, under 40

                      The bank then sent me a letter telling me I was overdrawn and charged me a considerable amount for doing so (this is often emphasised by saying that the charge was greater than the level of overdraft used).

                      In many cases the customer is further aggrieved because the bank should have known that, for
                      example, the customer’s salary would be being paid into the relevant account within a couple of days and should have taken this into account.

                      Whether all the elements of this scenario are true is, to a large extent, irrelevant to the respondent their perception is that this clearly demonstrates the way in which banks exploit their customers ‘unfairly’ in order to boost their own profits.

                      When challenged over this type of example, on the grounds that the providers are simply acting within their rights based on the terms and conditions of the product, there is a good deal of apparent illogic in respondents’ responses. They acknowledge their awareness that, according to the terms and conditions of their product, going overdrawn will incur a charge. However, they feel that, in their situation, the bank should make an exception, giving a range of reasons for this, some explicitly stated, others implied.

                      The following are not direct quotes but a review of the consumer thinking that we found:

                      Since going overdrawn was a mistake, rather than a pre-meditated act, I shouldn’t be treated as if I’ve done something naughty (charges are a penalty, a punishment and I shouldn’t be punished
                      for an ‘honest’ mistake).

                      It was only a matter of a few pounds for a few days. It’s not as if I went seriously overdrawn and their charges are entirely disproportionate to the amount involved.

                      The banks keep telling us that they value their customers. If it’s true that I’m a valued customer,
                      I should be allowed to get away with a minor thing like this.

                      The banks make huge amounts of money so they can afford to let me off a little matter of a few
                      pounds overdrawn, and they certainly don’t need the money they’ve charged just for sending me
                      a letter.

                      Whilst we recognise the extent of regulation in banking services is limited compared to other financial products, we have included a discussion of this issue because of the insights it gives us into consumer thinking.

















                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: FSA waiver report claims figures to November 2008

                        The FOS annual review shows only 4% of banking and credit complaints related to Hardship.

                        However, consumers who are experiencing fi nancial hardship can continue to bring their complaints to us. Many current-account providers have taken proper steps in these cases to assess their customer’s circumstances, and to make fair proposals to ease their fi nancial diffi culty. This has helped us to mediate a satisfactory settlement of these complaints. On the other hand, we have been disappointed to see that some current-account providers have been very slow to engage with customers in such cases – and have needed to be prompted by us before coming up with any meaningful proposals. This is of particular concern, given that these consumers are already in fi nancial hardship.
                        #staysafestayhome

                        Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                        Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

                        Comment

                        View our Terms and Conditions

                        LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                        If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                        If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                        Working...
                        X