Tweet
Now the waiver review should be completed by now, albeit awaiting publication, I've sent off an FoIA request to the FSA asking them to come clean on the number of hardship cases the banks have successfully dealt with before the FSA have a chance to claim the ''safeguards built into the waiver'' have been an unparalleled success.
I've also asked the OFT a few questions about the updated 'questions & answers' about the test case.
----- Original Message ----- From: EXC
To: Freedom of Information Financial Services Authority
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 11:32 AM
Subject: FOIA Request
Dear Roisin Traynor
I wish to make a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Subject
My request centres on the FSA's 2 month complaints handling waiver review which according to the FSA has now been completed. I understand that the review largely concentrates on the compliance of firms to the conditions of the waiver and in particular how well firms aredealing with bank charge complaints made by those experiencing financial hardship.
Request
My request takes the form of 4 questions:
1) From the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the review, how
many complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges from customers claiming financial
hardship have the banks received?
2) From the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the review, how
many customers making complaints have been identified by the banks as being cases of
financial hardship?
3) From the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the review, how
many identified cases of financial hardship have been offered a partial refund of charges
claimed?
4) From the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the review,How
many identified cases of financial hardship have been offered a full refund of charges
claimed?
I have considered this request very carefully, checking each question against the exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and I am confident that all the information I seek should be released. I wish to make it clear to the FSA that if any of the information requested is not released I fully intend to publish my request and your response in the national press.
Yours sincerely
EXC
----- Original Message -----
From: EXC
To: Kate Farrow Office of Fair Trading
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:32 AM
Subject: Questions & Answers
Dear Kate Farrow
I would be grateful if you could clarify your answer to a question in your updated ''questions & answers'' about the issues surrounding the OFT test case with the banks, published on 22 October 2007.
Question 18 asks ''Why can the banks continue to levy charges until the OFT's action is resolved, while consumer actions to reclaim charges are being suspended?''. The vast bulk of the answer deals with the entirely different question of why are consumer actions are being suspended while the banks can continue to levy charges. Of the appx 350 words that form your answer, only a mere fraction of them are actually devoted to why banks can continue to levy charges; ''As we have not yet completed our investigation into the fairness of the current levels of charges..''. I and many others would attribute this to the OFT's continuing procrastination on the issue. I think it is worth reminding the OFT that it's lengthy review into unauthorised overdraft charges was due for completion on 29 March claiming there was ''no quick fix'' to the problem even though you subsequently claimed ''We are committed to ensuring this process is resolved quickly''. The answer then goes on to reveal that ''..it would not be appropriate for us to ask banks to make changes to their charging structure at the moment''. To simply claim something is ''not appropriate'' is the kind of language one uses when stumped for an honest answer.
The answer also claims that prior to the test case announcement, litigation by consumers to reclaim charges was resulting in ''significant costs to individual consumers''. This is astonishing! On what evidence does the OFT base this belief? How many complaints has the OFT received about these costs? Is the OFT not aware that litigation costs are routinely recovered? Does the OFT not know that of the hundreds of thousands of court actions made by claimants, defeats can be counted on the fingers of one hand and therefore actual costs incurred apply to almost nobody. I would also like to know what justification the OFT has for
making regulatory decisions (based on an inaccurate belief) that consumers are spending too much on litigation.
It is not within the OFT's remit to decide the level of legal expenditure incurred by consumers especially when these legal actions and costs are a direct result of the OFT's abject failure to resolve the issue to date.
The OFT has no business to effectively waive the fundamental human rights of everybody to challenge any charge made to them in a court of law.
I have not made this enquiry as a request under the Freedom of Information Act as I simply require clarification of information already given. Therefore I would consider it reasonable to receive your response within this week.
Yours Sincerely
ECX
I've also asked the OFT a few questions about the updated 'questions & answers' about the test case.
----- Original Message ----- From: EXC
To: Freedom of Information Financial Services Authority
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 11:32 AM
Subject: FOIA Request
Dear Roisin Traynor
I wish to make a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Subject
My request centres on the FSA's 2 month complaints handling waiver review which according to the FSA has now been completed. I understand that the review largely concentrates on the compliance of firms to the conditions of the waiver and in particular how well firms aredealing with bank charge complaints made by those experiencing financial hardship.
Request
My request takes the form of 4 questions:
1) From the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the review, how
many complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges from customers claiming financial
hardship have the banks received?
2) From the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the review, how
many customers making complaints have been identified by the banks as being cases of
financial hardship?
3) From the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the review, how
many identified cases of financial hardship have been offered a partial refund of charges
claimed?
4) From the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the review,How
many identified cases of financial hardship have been offered a full refund of charges
claimed?
I have considered this request very carefully, checking each question against the exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and I am confident that all the information I seek should be released. I wish to make it clear to the FSA that if any of the information requested is not released I fully intend to publish my request and your response in the national press.
Yours sincerely
EXC
----- Original Message -----
From: EXC
To: Kate Farrow Office of Fair Trading
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:32 AM
Subject: Questions & Answers
Dear Kate Farrow
I would be grateful if you could clarify your answer to a question in your updated ''questions & answers'' about the issues surrounding the OFT test case with the banks, published on 22 October 2007.
Question 18 asks ''Why can the banks continue to levy charges until the OFT's action is resolved, while consumer actions to reclaim charges are being suspended?''. The vast bulk of the answer deals with the entirely different question of why are consumer actions are being suspended while the banks can continue to levy charges. Of the appx 350 words that form your answer, only a mere fraction of them are actually devoted to why banks can continue to levy charges; ''As we have not yet completed our investigation into the fairness of the current levels of charges..''. I and many others would attribute this to the OFT's continuing procrastination on the issue. I think it is worth reminding the OFT that it's lengthy review into unauthorised overdraft charges was due for completion on 29 March claiming there was ''no quick fix'' to the problem even though you subsequently claimed ''We are committed to ensuring this process is resolved quickly''. The answer then goes on to reveal that ''..it would not be appropriate for us to ask banks to make changes to their charging structure at the moment''. To simply claim something is ''not appropriate'' is the kind of language one uses when stumped for an honest answer.
The answer also claims that prior to the test case announcement, litigation by consumers to reclaim charges was resulting in ''significant costs to individual consumers''. This is astonishing! On what evidence does the OFT base this belief? How many complaints has the OFT received about these costs? Is the OFT not aware that litigation costs are routinely recovered? Does the OFT not know that of the hundreds of thousands of court actions made by claimants, defeats can be counted on the fingers of one hand and therefore actual costs incurred apply to almost nobody. I would also like to know what justification the OFT has for
making regulatory decisions (based on an inaccurate belief) that consumers are spending too much on litigation.
It is not within the OFT's remit to decide the level of legal expenditure incurred by consumers especially when these legal actions and costs are a direct result of the OFT's abject failure to resolve the issue to date.
The OFT has no business to effectively waive the fundamental human rights of everybody to challenge any charge made to them in a court of law.
I have not made this enquiry as a request under the Freedom of Information Act as I simply require clarification of information already given. Therefore I would consider it reasonable to receive your response within this week.
Yours Sincerely
ECX
Comment