• 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.

That Wild Billy Letter - FoIA request to OFT and ICO decision

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

  • That Wild Billy Letter - FoIA request to OFT and ICO decision

    I was telling Celestine the other day about this letter and thought I'd post it up.

    Early last year I began working with Wild Billy on a Freedom of Information Act request to the Office of Fair Trading to find out just how the OFT managed to decide on the ludicrous credit card defualt charge threshold of 12 quid. In particular, we want to see the 'model' the OFT used for the calculation of the £12 figure.

    We sent the original request off in March 07 and they refused to release any of the information we asked for and a subsequent internal review reached the same conclusion. I then asked my MP to intervene and he received a 4 page letter from John Fingleton himself giving the OFTs reasons why the information should not be released.

    Our complaint has been with the Information Commisioner's Office since August and due to the backlog at the ICO it has yet to be assigned to a case worker.

    This particular letter is to the OFT's internal review dept. Such was Wild Billy's knowledge of all things OFT, we knew that the lawyer who would be conducting the review was the same person who advised on rejecting the original request and he would essentialy be reviewing his own work and was hardly likely to change his mind. Therefore the letter was really for the consumption of the Information Commisioner.

    It's one of the best written and funniest letters I've ever read. Enjoy!




    Dear OFT Internal Review Coordinator,

    cc: Miss J Slocombe
    cc: Mr J Fingleton

    Request for an Internal Review
    Your Reference EPIC/ENQ/L/3692

    I refer to Miss Slocombe’s letter of 21 June in response to my letter of 17 May. At seven pages in length, I certainly appreciate the effort and creativity that has been expended in crafting the letter. However, I am seriously dissatisfied with the response and I would now like an Internal Review carried out. To be absolutely clear, I fully intend to complain to the Information Commissioner if the information is not forthcoming as I am confident, on the basis of precedent, that at least some of it should be released.

    You should also be aware that I have also now written to Ian McCartney MP to highlight some of the arguments in Miss Slocombe’s response. Her contention that there is no mechanism to record how many complaints there have been about credit card default charges demonstrates the ineptitude of the OFT and I trust Mr McCartney will want to look at this very closely. But let me turn to the arguments in Miss Slocombe’s letter that I would like you to review.

    You acknowledge that all the information is held but essentially argue that it is too costly to find because it is spread across so many files. This is somewhat laughable and a transparent attempt to avoid releasing the information. Is the OFT seriously saying that the questions I asked would cost more than £600 to find? The questions I asked, purposefully, were very straightforward and basic. If it genuinely takes so long for the OFT to find this information then it raises some very serious questions about whether the OFT is “fit for purpose” and this is a question I have asked Mr McCartney MP to review in light of Miss Slocombe’s response. Let me remind you of the questions I asked:

    1. How many OFT staff and/or man-hours were dedicated to the credit card investigation?

    I would have thought this is a standard piece of management information that would be easily obtainable. Otherwise, how does the OFT know whether it is using its resources effectively? If the OFT does not capture this information then it raises serious questions about the management at the OFT, at all levels, and whether the taxpayers’ money is being used efficiently. This is a question I believe Mr McCartney may wish to consider.

    A more general point, which I will make repeatedly, is reference to the number of files is a smokescreen and certainly not something you should be using to withhold information. The suggestion is someone would have to look through each and every file but that, plainly, is not the case. Anyone contributing to the investigation would have a fair idea of where to find the information, even if the paper files are not indexed, and I would also assume someone in senior management would have been presented with this information already. If that assumption is correct, then it is fair to believe the information could be found very quickly. I also assume your electronic system has some sort of indexing system or search functionality that would bring up a smaller number of files which could then be searched far more quickly.

    As I said, the implications of the OFT not being able to provide me with this information bring into disrepute the way it conducts its investigations and how it keeps track of its use of taxpayers’ money. I will leave this for Mr McCartney, and the Treasury, to consider.

    2. On what date was the decision made to begin an investigation into these charges? Who made that decision? Please supply the advice recommending an investigation and documentation that confirms this decision, redacting any information that you feel is exempt.

    How long can it take to find the date on which the decision was taken to investigate!? You do not need to look through all the files for this, only those dated a few days/weeks before the press release. I simply do not accept this would take more than 5 minutes to find.

    As part of this question, I asked who took the decision. I had assumed it was Mr Fingleton but your response suggests otherwise, which is interesting in itself. I accept it would not be wise to put a specific name into the public domain so I will refine this request to ask for the position of the person taking the decision. If it wasn’t the Chief Executive then who was it? The Chairman? Again, this information would not take long to find and the number of files you hold is neither here nor there as you should have a good idea where to find it. It is difficult to understand why Miss Slocombe doesn’t know this without having to refer to the files.

    The desperate attempt not to release the advice is lamentable and the incorrect use of section 36 belies this. Section 36 can only be invoked if it holds in the view of a “reasonable person”, which the DCA’s guidance indicates is usually a Minister. The OFT is a non-ministerial department so I assume you have sought the views of the Chairman or the Chief Executive. Did you? Can I see proof of this?

    DCA’s guidance also says section 36 can only be used where section 35 does not apply. You have therefore acknowledged it does not apply, which is a point I will note. But, as I highlighted in my recent letter, there is precedent for releasing policy advice. The most high profile of these is Gordon Brown releasing policy advice about his decision to abolish the tax dividends in 1997, which he was compelled to release after 2 years of trying to prevent disclosure. As I understand it, he had to release it because of a decision taken by the Information Commissioner in a case against the DfES. So, are you seriously saying this is different? I feel quite sure that Brown would not have released that advice had there been any way to prevent it and I do not see the difference here. Neither will the Information Commissioner. Although the advice in this instance is more recent, the decision has still been taken so whether it is 1 year or 10 years ago is immaterial. Neither can you suggest with any credibility that your policy advice is any more sensitive.

    3. Please supply the documents outlining advice/recommendations provided to you or others in senior management about agreeing to a £12 investigation limit, redacting any information that you feel is exempt.

    Same points as above. It really doesn’t matter if you have 23 files, 15 files or 5 files as someone at the OFT will have a rough idea of when the recommendation was made. My guess is a month or two prior to the press release, maybe sooner, so you can concentrate on those files. I would stress again that I assume this is one document so shouldn’t be hard to find.

    Neither do I agree with the attempt to invoke section 31. This is just nonsense. I specifically encouraged you to redact any information that you feel would be exempt. Anything in the advice or recommendations about future action could be redacted- I just want the advice relating to the information about the £12 decision.

    4. On what date did the investigation begin?

    Again, I assume this is quite an easy thing to find whether there are lots of files or not. I suggest you work back from the date of the press release.

    5. How many complaints did the OFT receive about credit card default charges in the 24 months prior to taking the decision to investigate? Please provide this by month or quarter, whichever is easier. If information for that period is not available, please supply the number of complaints over whatever period featured in your consideration.

    Miss Slocombe’s response is astonishing! This is another area I have asked Mr McCartney to consider. Does the OFT really have no idea about how many complaints it gets about particular topics?! How does it decide what to investigate? How do you know if your action is successful? I am genuinely shocked by this revelation.

    6. How many complaints did Consumer Direct receive about credit card default charges in the 24 months prior to taking the decision to investigate? Please provide this by month or quarter, whichever is easier. If information for that period is not available, please supply the number of complaints over whatever period featured in your consideration.

    As above.

    7. How many complaints have been received by the OFT and Consumer Direct about credit card default charges since the OFT’s announcement that £12 is the threshold for action? Of these, how many relate to charges in excess of that threshold? (The Unfair Contract Terms Regulations (sic) place a duty on the OFT to consider complaints it receives so please explain why it did not consider taking action sooner).

    As above.

    8. (I accept that an oversight means I did not include the question I intended to ask. I shall not pursue this now but may return to it in the future)

    9. Please give dates of external meetings held during the course of the investigation and who attended. This is not a request for details of discussion at these meetings. If you feel individual persons cannot be named then I am happy to receive a list of organisations attending each meeting.

    I simply don’t accept the arguments made. How does telling me who you met with and when you met them prejudice future action? I have specifically not asked for details of the meetings to avoid your attempt to exempt this information.

    10. Please give dates of correspondence between the OFT and those credit card lenders you were consulting with.

    At risk of boring myself, I have asked for dates, not the letters themselves. Does it really take a long time to look through files and note a some dates?

    11. Please provide any models used by the OFT to calculate that £12 should be the threshold for action. This is not a request for any information supplied by the credit card lenders to populate the model

    I’ve got no idea why you haven’t released this as you haven’t specified anything beyond the blanket cost argument. Are you seriously telling me you have to look through 23 files to find the model you used to make the calculation? Are you seriously telling me you don’t have this to hand? This is either laughable or the OFT is even more incompetent than its actions suggest.

    I would therefore ask that you review Miss Slocombe’s decision not to release any of this information. I would remind you that the OFT is there to serve the public and its attempts to obstruct the release of this information is very disappointing. More widely, the OFT should be taking a good long look at itself if, as Miss Slocombe has suggested, it does not hold certain records or account for the amount of resource dedicated to this investigation.

    I await your response, and that of Mr McCartney MP, with interest. I also suspect the media might be interested in Miss Slocombe’s revelations. Let me emphasise once again that I fully intend to complain to the Information Commissioner if I am not satisfied with the response.

    Yours sincerely,
    Last edited by EXC; 15th February 2008, 12:07:PM.

  • #2
    Re: That Wild Billy Letter

    lol great letter.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: That Wild Billy Letter

      lol excellent stuff ... may i ask.. when did he send it? and I take it there has been no response to it yet?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: That Wild Billy Letter

        31 Aug 07
        Dear xxx

        The OFT's response letter of 21 June acknowledges that the OFT holds the information that falls within your request.

        The response letter is eight pages in length and provedes a detailed examination and explanation of the request and application of the FoIA.

        Grounds for refusal

        Your request was refused on the grounds of cost pursuant to the exemption under section 12 of the FoIA. As detailed in the OFT response letter there are not less than 26 A4 files as well as a significant number of electronic records. It was assesed that the time required (at £25 per hour) to locate, retrieve and extract (including potentially exempt information) would exceed the cost limit of £600; and to that extent I am satisfied that s.12 was correctly applied.

        Scope of request

        It is appreciated that at first glance you could form the view that the information to answer some parts of your request could be obtained within the cost limit. In your five page letter of 25 June (which includes your request for internal review) you have singled out parts of your request where you believe that this is the case.

        In order to dispel any possible confusion I repeat the matters covered in the second page of the OFT response letter, namely; the ten requests (some of which have mutiple parts) have been considered by the OFT as one single request for the purposes of the OFT.

        There are Information Commisioner's Office (ICO) cases which have approved of this approach when the information requested is 'closely related in nature' and 'made at a single point in time'. I am satisfied that this was an appropriate approach to your request. However in addition, the response letter sets out in some detail ways in which you may wish to refine your request in order to bring it within the relevant cost limit.

        Outcome of review

        Upon the review I have decided to uphold the original decision, please note that this does not restrict your ability to refine and resubmit your request.

        Observations

        (i) Without prejudice to the above assessment, while examining the files I considered that a general response can be provided to the first part of your second request. You asked: On what date was the decision made to begin an investigation into these charges? From the papers it appears that the investigation involving banks commenced sometime around October 2003.

        (ii) Similarly, in response to your detailed request regarding the number of complaints, I am able to give a general response. While there is no specific category of credit card default charges, under the category of 'credi cards' in the OFT records, the OFT recorded 524 enquiries or complaints in 2005, 540 in 2006 and 114 so far in 2007.
        Further considerations for a refined request

        Sections 31, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44 of the FoIA, and part 9 of the enterprise act 2002 (''EA'') were all refered to in the OFT's response letter of 21 June. While the refusal was based on the exemption set out in s.12 of the FoIA, I have set out below further information regarding these sections which may assist; especialy if you were to refine your request.

        Application of section 31 FoIA

        Information is exempt under s.31, if it would, or may be likely to, prejudice the exercise by the OFT of it's functions for the purpose of (a) ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law (b) ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper, or (c) ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise. Where this exemption applies, the OFT must go on to consider whether the balance of the public interest favours disclosure.

        Appliction of section 36

        In addition to the detailed explanation provided in the OFT response letter, s.36 (2) (c) is as follows: 36 (2) information to which this section applies is exempt information if, in the reasonable opinoin of a qualified person, disclosure of the information under this act would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the the effective conduct of public affairs.

        Application of section 41 FoIA

        Section 41 provides an absoloute exemption to disclosure if the information sought was provided in confidence. Information that is supplied to the OFT on the understanding that it will only be used to facilitate the exercise of the OFT's functions as provided by statute and, other than to facilitate such functions, will not be disclosed to persons outside the OFT.

        Application of sections 42, 43 FoIA

        The response letter makes refernce to the likelihood that copies of advice and documentation that is the subject of your request will include priviledged or commercially sensitive information. For your assistance I have set out both provisions below:

        42 Legal proffesional privilege.

        (1) Information in respect of which a claim to legal proffesional privilege, or, in Scotland, to confidentiality of communications could be could be maintained in legal proceedings is exempt information. (2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, with section 1(1) (a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) in respect of which such a claim could be maintained in legal proceedings.

        43 Commercial interests

        1) Information is exempt information if it constitutes a trade secret. (2) Information is exempt information if it's disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (inculding the public authority holding it). (3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that , compliance with section 1(1) (a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice the interests mentioned in subsection (2).

        The response letter identifies that both of these sections are qualified exemptions subject to the public interest test but they have not been required to weigh up the factors as refusal is based on the s.12 exemption.

        Application of section 44 FoIA Section 44 of the FoIA is as follows: 44 (1) Information is exempt information if it's disclosure (otherwise than under this act) by the public authority holding it- (a) is prohibited by or under any enactment. Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002 ('EA') prevents the OFT from disclosing information which it has received in the course of the exercise of it's functions exept in limited circumstances. Under Part 9 of the EA disclosure of such information is prohibited (unless these limited circumstance) apply and it is a criminal offence for the OFT to disclose such information.

        Brian McHenry
        General Council to the OFT

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: That Wild Billy Letter

          Original FOiA request

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: That Wild Billy Letter

            FOI/EIR Complaints Resolution
            Information Commissioner's Office
            Wycliffe House
            Water Lane
            Wilmslow
            Cheshire
            SK9 5AF



            6 August 2007
            Dear Information Commissioner,

            I wish to complain about the handling of a Freedom of Information Request by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). The case has been internally reviewed by the OFT but I am left desperately disappointed with the outcome; not only has it failed to provide the information requested, its handling of the case has shown a contempt for the principles underpinning the Act.

            As your website suggests, I enclose the following documentation.

            · Details of my initial request dated 17/05/07.
            · A copy of the OFT’s initial response dated 21/06/07.
            · A copy of the complaint made to the OFT requesting an Internal Review dated 25/06/07.
            · A copy of a letter from the OFT, dated 19/07/07, which attempts (but fails) to provide some of the information.
            · A copy of my response dated 25/07/07.
            · A copy of the public authority’s substantive response concerning the Internal
            review dated 31/07/07.
            · My contact details (as above).

            Overview of my request

            As you will be aware from the recent press coverage, the issue of credit card and bank charges is of tremendous public interest with millions of consumers affected and more than £10bn at stake. The OFT completed its investigation into credit card charges in April 2006 and is currently undertaking an investigation into bank charges, with a test case announced on Thursday 26th July. It is against this background that I made my request but it is important to emphasise I have only asked for information about the completed credit card investigation; I have not requested information about the onging investigation into bank charges, which I fully appreciate may be more sensitive. I feel this is a very important point and one that should certainly be in your mind when considering my complaint.

            I listened with great interest to your comments to the Public Administration Select Committee on 24 July and believe the OFT is demonstrating the same attitude as the DfES, which you described as follows:

            I would like to say more about the case which Maurice Frankel mentioned, the Department for Education and Skills. This was a case where we ruled in favour of disclosure of what we thought were very innocuous minutes. The case went to the tribunal, the Government appealed and, I think it is fair to say, they took a very strong line in challenging the ruling that we had made. As well as a senior official from the department, they also had Lord Turnbull, who had recently retired as the Cabinet Secretary, and they argued the case that disclosure of these innocuous minutes would cause damage, if you like, to the way the Civil Service works, and the tribunal rejected those arguments and upheld the decision in a very full analysis; but I am bound to say that the line being put forward by the DfES was a rather old-fashioned line. It did not perhaps fully acknowledge that we are in an era of much greater transparency, that the Act does promote greater transparency and, relying upon the some of the evidence that came up - there was reference to the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of the nineteenth century, to the Franks Report into the Official Secrets Act 1911, into a speech made by Lord Bridges in 1967, into the Fulton Committee - it was a bit disappointing - the old ways of doing things. I have to say and we have to recognise, Freedom of Information Act does mean there are new ways of doing things; the landscape has changed.

            Current position

            Of the 10 questions in my request, the position is as follows:
            How many OFT staff and/or man-hours were dedicated to the credit card investigation? Not provided.
            On what date was the decision made to begin an investigation into these charges? Who made that decision? Please supply the advice recommending an investigation and documentation that confirms this decision, redacting any information that you feel is exempt. Partially provided but unsatisfactory as only indicated the general level of people who make decisions rather than the specific position of the person making the decision.
            Please supply the documents outlining advice/recommendations provided to you or others in senior management about agreeing to a £12 investigation limit, redacting any information that you feel is exempt. Not provided.
            On what date did the investigation begin? Provided, although I’m not sure “sometime in October 2003” is a particularly satisfactory answer.
            How many complaints did the OFT receive about credit card default charges in the 24 months prior to taking the decision to investigate? Please provide this by month or quarter, whichever is easier. If information for that period is not available, please supply the number of complaints over whatever period featured in your consideration. Not provided. The number of complaints highlighted in the Internal Review relates to after the investigation began and not prior as I asked for. I believe this is evidence of the carelessness with which the OFT has handled this request for information.
            How many complaints did Consumer Direct receive about credit card default charges in the 24 months prior to taking the decision to investigate? Please provide this by month or quarter, whichever is easier. If information for that period is not available, please supply the number of complaints over whatever period featured in your consideration. Not provided.
            How many complaints have been received by the OFT and Consumer Direct about credit card default charges since the OFT’s announcement that £12 is the threshold for action? Of these, how many relate to charges in excess of that threshold? (The Unfair Contract Terms Regulations (sic) place a duty on the OFT to consider complaints it receives so please explain why it did not consider taking action sooner). Partially provided.
            Please give dates of external meetings held during the course of the investigation and who attended. This is not a request for details of discussion at these meetings. If you feel individual persons cannot be named then I am happy to receive a list of organisations attending each meeting. Not provided.
            Please give dates of correspondence between the OFT and those credit card lenders you were consulting with. Not provided.
            Please provide any models used by the OFT to calculate that £12 should be the threshold for action. This is not a request for any information supplied by the credit card lenders to populate the model. Not provided.
            I trust the correspondence will speak for itself so I will not reiterate the arguments I have made to the OFT but I would like to highlight a few issues below in regard to the information still being withheld.

            S12 exemption

            You will observe from the correspondence that I made 11 requests in my initial letter to the OFT. However, I considered this extremely carefully and believed the request should not be so onerous to invoke s12 of the FOIA. You will see that I specifically highlight this and suggested I should be allowed to make individual requests if this exemption came into play. While I accept I made a number of requests, you will see I was trying to build a picture of the investigation and this necessitated the length.

            The OFT seems to have almost used s12 as a blanket exemption, which I find wholly unacceptable. I hope you will agree with me that the requests were all amazingly specific and could in no way be claimed to be a “fishing trip”. I hope you will also agree that this is information that should not be too difficult for a public authority to find, yet the OFT suggests otherwise. I simply do not believe this and cannot understand the argument that there are a number of files to look through. Are the files not indexed or searchable? That notwithstanding, the OFT have implied it needs to look through all 26 files to find this information when it is plain that it is not the case; the information required to answer Q3 would have been in a specific timeframe, as would the information requested for Q8 and Q9- although I accept this is a slightly longer time frame, being “sometime in October 2003” to April 2006, I still fail to see it would take a long time to find some dates.

            If the request genuinely brings s12 into play then that raises very serious questions about the standard of the OFT’s record keeping and I have brought this to the attention of my local MP and Ministers at the DBERR. I’m sure this might be of interest to you too. Can poor record keeping be an excuse not to provide information? If so, what is to stop public authorities keeping poor records for this purpose?

            Use of other exemptions

            Alongside s12, the OFT mention a host of other exemptions too numerous to mention here but which I address in my correspondence. Not only do I feel that they do not apply, I feel it is an attempt by the OFT to discourage me from pursuing my request. You will note for example that the Internal Review simply lists a number of exemptions without clarifying how they apply to each of the requests. To take only one example, s43 is mentioned yet I made clear in my request that I am not asking for any commercially sensitive information! It is also difficult to reconcile the use of all these exemptions with the statement that the OFT may be able to forego s12 if I refine my requests. If that is the case then why are all these other exemptions in play? I feel the OFT has simply taken a scattergun approach to this.

            It is also unclear that any public interest test has been undertaken with regard use of these exemptions. As I set out in my introduction to this letter, this is an issue of massive public interest but it is not at all clear this has even been considered! Again, you highlighted this of central importance in your evidence to the Public Administration Committee on 24th July. I would have thought the advice provided on the setting of the £12 threshold for investigation would be of huge public interest and I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask for the advice provided on that figure and the model used to reach it. Surely that can be done without providing commercially sensitive information? The refusal to provide this advice or the model does little for transparency and trust in a public authority, and can only lead consumers to believe the number was plucked out of the air. How is that different to the advice provided to Gordon Brown on the dividend tax credit in 1997, which was disclosed earlier this year? It doesn’t seem very consistent.

            OFT handling

            Can I also point out that the OFT missed the deadline for responding to the request for the Internal review. Which was posted 4 days after the deadline despite being dated within it. I believe this is yet further evidence of the organisation’s contempt for the FOIA and those making requests under it.

            I look forward to hearing from you.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: That Wild Billy Letter

              To: John Fingleton
              Chief Executive
              Office Of Fair Trading
              Fleetbank House
              2-6 Salisbury Square
              London
              EC4Y 8JX
              24/2/07




              Hey Johnny boy !

              How’s it hangin’ my man?

              I wondered if you could drag yourself away from compiling my FOI request and do me a lemon. My nipper is doing a school project about the ‘The Seven Wonders Of The World’ and she would be thrilled if you could help her out. So over to you kid -and be nice ok? Mr Fingleton is a very clever and important man

              Dear Mr Twelve Quid,

              My project is entitled ‘The Seven Wonders Of The World’ and I’m featuring things like the the awe inspiring Grand Canyon, the majestic Victoria Falls, and the truly incredible decision you made allowing credit card issuers to charge a criminal £12 for sending out a letter informing their customers that their missed payment is accumulating an interest rate of 178 trillion per cent .

              I just need some background on your inspiration for the decision , what kind of drugs you were on, were you bullied as a child, that kind of thing really. If you could just write it in a letter and pop it in the post to me that would be well cool.

              My dad said that any request under the freedom of information act should rightly be paid for so I have my pocket money at the ready. Let me just work out how much to enclose.

              Now lets see, it should only take about ten minutes of your time so if I divide that into your hourly pay of £6 (dad said you must be on the minimum wage cause that’s all you’re worth) so I’ll call it 87p. Then there is stationary and postage at, say, 50p. Now all I have to do is add the 2 numbers up, so I’ll use my new ‘OFT Ready Reckoner’ calculator that Santa got me for Christmas. So lets see, 87p + 50p = …..erm….£12.

              Simple really isn’t it?

              Could whack off 10 copies please? My school chums like a laugh.

              Pleased find enclosed.


              Buttercup (age 7)


              ''It is not clear whether you expect a response to your letter of 24 February. In any event, we are sure you will not be surprised to learn that the OFT does not have any information of the kind described in your letter. As far as you are really interested in an explanation of the OFT’s action in relation to credit card default charges, please see above and previous correspondence.''











              Comment


              • #8
                Re: That Wild Billy Letter

                Thanks EXC

                made for some really interesting reading.
                when will these organisations learn that the contempt with which they the little people will no longer be accepted.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: That Wild Billy Letter

                  Originally posted by EXC View Post
                  To: John Fingleton
                  Chief Executive
                  Office Of Fair Trading
                  Fleetbank House
                  2-6 Salisbury Square
                  London
                  EC4Y 8JX
                  24/2/07
                  Hey Johnny boy !

                  How’s it hangin’ my man?

                  I wondered if you could drag yourself away from compiling my FOI request and do me a lemon. My nipper is doing a school project about the ‘The Seven Wonders Of The World’ and she would be thrilled if you could help her out. So over to you kid -and be nice ok? Mr Fingleton is a very clever and important man

                  Dear Mr Twelve Quid,

                  My project is entitled ‘The Seven Wonders Of The World’ and I’m featuring things like the the awe inspiring Grand Canyon, the majestic Victoria Falls, and the truly incredible decision you made allowing credit card issuers to charge a criminal £12 for sending out a letter informing their customers that their missed payment is accumulating an interest rate of 178 trillion per cent .

                  I just need some background on your inspiration for the decision , what kind of drugs you were on, were you bullied as a child, that kind of thing really. If you could just write it in a letter and pop it in the post to me that would be well cool.

                  My dad said that any request under the freedom of information act should rightly be paid for so I have my pocket money at the ready. Let me just work out how much to enclose.

                  Now lets see, it should only take about ten minutes of your time so if I divide that into your hourly pay of £6 (dad said you must be on the minimum wage cause that’s all you’re worth) so I’ll call it 87p. Then there is stationary and postage at, say, 50p. Now all I have to do is add the 2 numbers up, so I’ll use my new ‘OFT Ready Reckoner’ calculator that Santa got me for Christmas. So lets see, 87p + 50p = …..erm….£12.

                  Simple really isn’t it?

                  Could whack off 10 copies please? My school chums like a laugh.

                  Pleased find enclosed.


                  Buttercup (age 7)


                  ''It is not clear whether you expect a response to your letter of 24 February. In any event, we are sure you will not be surprised to learn that the OFT does not have any information of the kind described in your letter. As far as you are really interested in an explanation of the OFT’s action in relation to credit card default charges, please see above and previous correspondence.''














                  what more can i say other then ROTFLMAO :rofl::rofl::laugh:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: That Wild Billy Letter

                    Havng been with the Information Commisioner for 8 months the complaint has finally been assigned to a case worker.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: That Wild Billy Letter

                      I spoke to the Information Commisioner's office for a progress update. The case worker's investigation is nearing completion but it then goes off to a another department for 'review' (a further 3 months)before it's finally signed signed off. The OFT will then have 21 days in which to appeal the decision and if this is the case, we're looking well into next year before I know if we'll actually get any information.
                      Last edited by EXC; 27th June 2008, 19:40:PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: That Wild Billy Letter

                        Things are moving along albeit at a snail's pace.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: That Wild Billy Letter

                          The Information Commissioner has isssued it's Decision Notice which has found in favour of both parties.

                          I'm still reading through the 17 pages and I'll scan them up later.



                          [edit added PDF version of full decision]
                          Last edited by Amethyst; 15th December 2008, 07:44:AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: That Wild Billy Letter

                            Pages 1 to 5.

                            A summary of the decision and steps required are on pages 12 to 13.
                            Last edited by EXC; 13th December 2008, 16:27:PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: That Wild Billy Letter

                              Pages 6 to 10.

                              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