Help needed with FOiA request

[EXC]

I want to do a follow up of this to get some updated figures.

As their figures - from 30 November - make clear, only one in six identified cases of financial hardship have been offered some kind of refund (although the figures may not include some claiments who were subsequently offered refunds, which is why I want an update).

Whatever the updated figure will be it MUST be a lower success rate for ALL claiments prior to the waiver and thus proof that the waiver's financial hardship conditiond are not working.

Does anyone have any figures or even a ballpark figure on the percentage of claims (all claims, not just from those claiming financial hardship)that resulted in at least a partial refunds prior tp the waiver?

Also any ideas on how we could refine the request.

Any imput would be appreciated.



Ref: FOI0814
Dear EXC
Freedom of Information: Right to know request
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), for the following information in relation to the FSA's two month complaints handling waiver review:

"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?"

Your request has now been considered and I will respond to each point in order:

1) Whilst we did not ask for this information to be provided as part of the review, a small number of firms did provide an answer, the total being 525.

2) The total figure provided by the firms is 6,908.

In answer to 3) and 4), we do not hold the information separately for each point, however we do hold the aggregated figure for the data which is 1,195.

If you have any queries then please contact me.

Yours sincerely
R. Traynor
Information Access Team

[Kafka]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

Some early thoughts....

By their own admissions about what they asked for and the separation mentioned but not done, they have never even tried to implement an adequate system to monitor the figures closely. This point - even on its own - is a very strong one as they have admitted that their systems are weak, even though they use the results that they have to justify the waiver's success. Given the recent admissions that the monitoring systems for NRock were completely inadequate, this is a point to press hard, goad them with and publicise the parallel. Both were the responsibility of Clive and as he has been forced to resign over NRock the time is ripe to challenge his other systems.

We were told that the waiver would be reviewed on an ongoing basis, so we must press for evidence of ongoing review, precise monitoring systems used and results. If they refuse to provide this we can attack them as failing to fulfil their waiver commitments (such as they are).

HARDSHIP CASES
The old figures for identified cases of hardship given were plainly fantasy. We should still challenge:

• the precise criteria used to classify each of the 6908 as hardship cases;
• how they managed to identify 6908 cases when only 525 claimed hardship, especially when we have evidence that many of the hardship cases submitted were rejected by the banks;
• what they have done to check the accuracy of the data supplied by the banks, given the clear self-interest of the banks in exagerating the figures and the long record of the banks' dishonest dealings over penalty charges, with claimants, the regulators and the courts.

REFUNDS
1195 was clearly not a true figure. This must be challenged as above and if they refuse to provide the criteria then we can attack them on the grounds of failing to monitor and of trusting unreliable sources.

We also need to be prepared for the event of them providing criteria, by having a range of case studies ready that prove that the claims that they are making are false.

Finally, the processing rate was only 17.3%, so why were so few of the identified hardship cases not even being offered a partial refund?

These thoughts are a bit garbled, but I will be happy to look into any of them further if this will help.

[EXC]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

How's this?




Dear Sir

I wish to make request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The request is in 2 parts. Part 1 is for an update of information you provided me in a FoIA request (FOI0814) on 30 November 2007. Part 2 is for additional information. All the information I require ralates to the financial hardship conditions that form the exemption from FSA's complaints handling waiver for banks.

Part 1.

1. To date, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many customers making complaints have been identified by the banks as being cases of financial hardship since the introduction of the waiver?

2. To date, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many identified cases of financial hardship have been offered a partial or full refund of charges claimed?

Part 2

On the introduction of the complaints handling waiver in July 2007 the FSA were asked by the consumer group Which? as to what criteria were the banks and the FSA are using to define 'financial hardship'. The FSA referred them to the Banking Code. My own enquiries to the Banking Code Standards Board found that the BCSB do not have or use any criteria whatsoever.

3. What criteria do the FSA and the banks use to define 'fanancial hardship'

4. If the answer to question 3 is 'none', does the FSA consider it acceptable to rely soley on the bank's integrity to define 'financial hardship' for the purposes of complying with what is the flagship 'consumer protection' element of the waiver's conditions?

5. Please supply me with a precise list of what financial hardship information and data was requested by the FSA from the banks for consideration of the ongoing review.

In response to my previous request you gave me a figure of 6908 cases of financial hardship being identified by the banks for the period of the initial 2 months of the waiver. You also gave the figure for partial and full refunds offered to these cases as 1195. Both these figures are astonishing! Extensive research by myself and others have found no cases whatsever that have been identified by the banks as being in financial hardship during this period. And to date, the number of cases that have been offered any kind of refund can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

6. What procedures did the FSA undertake to verify the accuracy of the above data.

[Kafka]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

I will think more on this very good start and await other comments.

Two comments to make now.

Firstly, nowhere does the FSA speak of cases relevant to the test case. Presumably the banks could be including credit cards and business accounts in their figures, and some of these have still been settled. The failure to define any of this is symptomatic of the failure to manage the monitoring process properly. Perhaps we need to raise the issue of the other claims that have been dragged into the test case and waiver debate, even where they are really unconnected? The waiver should only be dealing with bank personal current accounts, the fact that other claims are drawn in is a separate issue to fight.

Secondly, can we include the issue of the admitted failures of monitoring NRock?
"The FSA has this week acknowledged serious failings in its monitoring of Northern Rock prior to that firm's recent difficulties. The person primarily responsible for the failings - who has since resigned before the findings were published - was Clive Briault, Director of Retail Markets.
In view of the fact that Mr Briault also took personal responsibility for the claims-handling waiver - and is credited with numerous inaccurate statements concerning this on the FSA website - what steps is the FSA taking to review the necessity, effectiveness and monitoring systems of the waiver?"

[EXC]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

I think you raise a good point in that credit card and business claims could have been included in their figures and contaminated them. I think the request should clarify that only PCA's are relevent.

I'm not sure we'd get any response on the Clive Briault issue.

I'd like to include one further question regarding the FSA's imput into the new banking code review. As you know one of the major changes to the banking code was for banks ''to deal more quickly and sympathetically with things that go wrong and consider all cases of financial difficulty sympathetically and positively''. As a major contributor to the 3 year BC review, it is possible that the FSA were advising the Banking Code Standards Board on the failings of banks to deal with cases of financial hardship while at the same time relying on the banks to deal with them as their flagship waiver condition, that the FSA described as a ''safety net'' for consumers.

[EXC]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

This has gon off now and under FoIA rules they have a month to respond. My only concern is that they may refuse it on cost grounds.


----- Original Message ----- From: EXC
To: Freedom of Information FSA
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:41 AM
Subject: FoIA Request




Dear Sir

I wish to make request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The request is in 2 parts. Part 1 is for an update of information you provided me in a FoIA request (FOI0814) on 30 November 2007. Part 2 is for additional information. All the information I require relates to the financial hardship conditions that form the exemption from FSA's complaints handling waiver for banks.


Please note that all the information required relates to personal current accounts and not business or credit card accounts.




Part 1

1. To date, or from the latest date available, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many customers making complaints have been identified by the banks as being cases of financial hardship since the introduction of the waiver?

2. To date, or from the latest date available, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many identified cases of financial hardship have been offered a partial or full refund of charges claimed?


Part 2

On the introduction of the complaints handling waiver in July 2007 the FSA were asked by the consumer group Which? as to what criteria the banks and the FSA were using to define 'financial hardship’. The FSA referred them to the Banking Code. My own enquiries to the Banking Code Standards Board have found that the BCSB do not have or use any criteria whatsoever.

3. What criteria do the FSA and the banks use to define 'financial hardship'

4. If the answer to question 3 is 'none', does the FSA consider it sufficiently robust to rely solely on the bank's integrity to define 'financial hardship' for the purposes of complying with what is the flagship 'consumer protection' element of the waiver's conditions?

5. Please supply me with a precise list of what financial hardship information and data was requested by the FSA from the banks for consideration of the ongoing review.

In response to my previous request you gave me a figure of 6908 cases of financial hardship being identified by the banks for the period of the initial 2 months of the waiver. You also gave the figure for partial and full refunds offered to these cases as 1195. Both these figures are astonishing! Extensive research by myself and others have found no cases whatsoever that have been identified by the banks as being in financial hardship during this period. And to date, the number of cases that have been offered any kind of refund can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

6. What procedures did the FSA undertake to verify the accuracy of the above data.

The FSA was widely consulted in the Banking Code review published in May 2007 that resulted in changes to the Banking Code bought into effect in March 2008, including a greater commitment for banks to offer ‘’more help for customers who may be heading towards financial difficulties’’.

7. Please supply me with the FSA’s views/recommendations given to the Banking Code review on the subject of the bank’s handling of cases of financial hardship.

Kind Regards

EXC

[EXC]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

Looks like these people are not answering their e-mails as quickly as they should



----- Original Message ----- From: EXC
To: Freedom of Information FSA
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:33 AM
Subject: Fw: FoIA Request:



Dear sir

Can you please acknowledge receipt of the e-mail below, sent on 14 April.

Many thanks

EXC


----- Original Message ----- From: EXC
To: Freedom of Information FSA
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:41 AM
Subject: FoIA Request:




Dear Sir
I wish to make request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The request is in 2 parts. Part 1 is for an update of information you provided me in a FoIA request (FOI0814) on 30 November 2007. Part 2 is for additional information. All the information I require relates to the financial hardship conditions that form the exemption from FSA's complaints handling waiver for banks.



Part 1.

1. To date, or from the latest date available, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many customers making complaints have been identified by the banks as being cases of financial hardship since the introduction of the waiver?

2. To date, or from the latest date available, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many identified cases of financial hardship have been offered a partial or full refund of charges claimed?


Part 2

On the introduction of the complaints handling waiver in July 2007 the FSA were asked by the consumer group Which? as to what criteria the banks and the FSA were using to define 'financial hardship’. The FSA referred them to the Banking Code. My own enquiries to the Banking Code Standards Board have found that the BCSB do not have or use any criteria whatsoever.

3. What criteria do the FSA and the banks use to define 'financial hardship'

4. If the answer to question 3 is 'none', does the FSA consider it sufficiently robust to rely solely on the bank's integrity to define 'financial hardship' for the purposes of complying with what is the flagship 'consumer protection' element of the waiver's conditions?

5. Please supply me with a precise list of what financial hardship information and data was requested by the FSA from the banks for consideration of the ongoing review.

In response to my previous request you gave me a figure of 6908 cases of financial hardship being identified by the banks for the period of the initial 2 months of the waiver. You also gave the figure for partial and full refunds offered to these cases as 1195. Both these figures are astonishing! Extensive research by myself and others have found no cases whatsoever that have been identified by the banks as being in financial hardship during this period. And to date, the number of cases that have been offered any kind of refund can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

6. What procedures did the FSA undertake to verify the accuracy of the above data.
The FSA was widely consulted in the Banking Code review published in May 2007 that resulted in changes to the Banking Code bought into effect in March 2008, including a greater commitment for banks to offer ‘’more help for customers who may be heading towards financial difficulties’’.

7. Please supply me with the FSA’s views/recommendations given to the Banking Code review on the subject of the bank’s handling of cases of financial hardship.

Kind Regards

EXC

[EXC]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

Ooops, someones woken up



----- Original Message ----- From: Freedom of Information FSA
To: EXC
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:33 PM
Subject: Request for Information - FOI0914



************************************************** ***************
Your attention is drawn to the warning notice at the end of this message.

Our Ref: FOI0914


Dear EXC

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

Your request was received on 14 April 2008 and will be processed in accordance with the Act.

There may be a fee payable for the information you have requested. If that is the case, you will be informed of the likely charges before we proceed. The fee must be paid before the information is released.

If you have any queries please contact me.

Yours sincerely

K. Edwards
Information Access Team

[EXC]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

Our Ref: FOI0914

Dear EXC

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), for the following information in relation to … an update of information you provided me in a FoIA request (FOI0814) on 30 November 2007…and… the financial hardship conditions that form the exemption from FSA's complaints handling waiver for banks:

1.To date, or from the latest date available, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many customers making complaints have been identified by the banks as being cases of financial hardship since the introduction of the waiver?
2.To date, or from the latest date available, from the information supplied to you by the banks for consideration in the ongoing review, how many identified cases of financial hardship have been offered a partial or full refund of charges claimed?
3.What criteria do the FSA and the banks use to define 'financial hardship'.
4.If the answer to question 3 is 'none', does the FSA consider it sufficiently robust to rely solely on the bank's integrity to define 'financial hardship' for the purposes of complying with what is the flagship 'consumer protection' element of the waiver's conditions?
5.Please supply me with a precise list of what financial hardship information and data was requested by the FSA from the banks for consideration of the ongoing review.
6.What procedures did the FSA undertake to verify the accuracy of the above data.
7.Please supply me with the FSA’s views/recommendations given to the Banking Code review on the subject of the bank’s handling of cases of financial hardship.
Your request has now been considered and I will respond to each point below. Please be aware that we have used the term ‘financial difficulty’ in place of ‘financial hardship’ as explained in our response to question 3:

• <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2">For the period ending 29 February 2008 (latest date available) all of the firms (that is, banks and building societies) who were granted the waiver, reported a total of 22,191 relevant charges complaints where financial difficulty has been claimed by the customer. The FSA has observed that claims made by customers to be in financial difficulty, were subject to an assessment by firms in conjunction with their own criteria for accepting financial difficulty.
• The FSA has asked several larger firms to provide information relating to how they have handled relevant charges complaints where financial difficulty had been accepted. Based on the data sample received from these firms in February 2008, we found that 64%[1] of relevant charges complainants, who were accepted as being in financial difficulty, received a refund offer.

• The term financial hardship is not defined by the FSA. However, financial difficulty is defined in the Guidance for subscribers to the Banking Code. A copy of the Code can be found on the Banking Code Standards Boards website, which is located at the following address: http://www.bankingcode.org.uk/thecodes.htm. The definition that the firms would be expected to be using when assessing cases of financial difficulty in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges complaints is outlined in paragraph 14 of the Code.

• See response to point 3 above.

5.The FSA has undertaken a joint review with the Banking Code Standards Board. We have asked firms to provide data on the:
· number of financial difficulty cases that have been identified within the relevant charges complaint population (see response to point 1 above);
· offers that have been made (see response to point 2 above); and
· processes used by firms to identify and handle complainants in financial difficulty.

• The FSA has undertaken a range of monitoring activities in its review of how firms meet the requirements set out in the waiver. On-site inspections have been undertaken to assess the reliability of the data received by the FSA. These on-site inspections have examined the effectiveness of the processes used by firms, including a review of individual complaints.

The Banking Code Standards Board has reviewed the compliance by firms with Banking Code requirements that relate to the handling of complainants in financial difficulty.

1. The FSA's submission to the review of the Banking Code was made in February 2007. Please note there are no references to the treatment of customers in financial difficulty. A link to the submission is given below.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/banking_review07.pdf
If you have any queries then please contact me.
Yours sincerely

K. Edwards
Information Access


[1] Refers to 101 cases from a sample population of 157 complaints where financial difficulty had been confirmed. N.B. A high proportion of customers had not responded to a request for details of their income and expenditure


************************************************** ***************
If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@fsa.gov.uk immediately and delete the email from your computer. This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal relations or contractual relationships. This email has originated from:


The Financial Services Authority (FSA)
25 The North Colonnade,
Canary Wharf,
London
E14 5HS
United Kingdom


Registered as a Limited Company in England and Wales No.1920623.
Registered Office as above


Switchboard: 020 7066 1000


Web Site: Financial Services Authority
************************************************** ***************

[Amethyst]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

For the period ending 29 February 2008 (latest date available) all of the firms (that is, banks and building societies) who were granted the waiver, reported a total of 22,191 relevant charges complaints where financial difficulty has been claimed by the customer. The FSA has observed that claims made by customers to be in financial difficulty, were subject to an assessment by firms in conjunction with their own criteria for accepting financial difficulty.

The FSA has asked several larger firms to provide information relating to how they have handled relevant charges complaints where financial difficulty had been accepted. Based on the data sample received from these firms in February 2008, we found that 64% (

Refers to 101 cases from a sample population of 157 complaints where financial difficulty had been confirmed. N.B. A high proportion of customers had not responded to a request for details of their income and expenditure) of relevant charges complainants, who were accepted as being in financial difficulty, received a refund offer.

So out of 22,191 complaints claiming Financial Difficulty only 157 cases were actually looked at by the FSA, and of those 157 cases 64% were considered true hardship cases and offered refunds. Not sure that 64% would spread over the 22,191.

Also interesting the comments regarding the income and expenditure details asked for not being returned. I do agree this is probably the case in a lot of cases where hardship may be border line, but I don't recall seeing many, if any letters replying to a claim for hardship on charges claims actually requesting I/E information.

I think all the ones we have dealt with have send I/E's with their complaints/subsequently and although a few have been true hardship have still be poo poo'd by the banks and left to court and FOS to sort out.

Not sure the figures actually represent the true picture IMO but it is interesting to see how many claims of hardship were actually made. Of course a % of these may be people not in hardship trying to bypass the waiver by claiming hardship and thus why no I/E have been returned.



Anyway great response and good work EXC x

[stevokenevo]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

And thanks for decifering it Ame!

[EXC]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

The response to question 3 is simply untrue.


Q ''What criteria do the FSA and the banks use to define 'financial hardship'?


A The term financial hardship is not defined by the FSA. However, financial difficulty is defined in the Guidance for subscribers to the Banking Code. A copy of the Code can be found on the Banking Code Standards Boards website, which is located at the following address: http://www.bankingcode.org.uk/thecodes.htm. The definition that the firms would be expected to be using when assessing cases of financial difficulty in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges complaints is outlined in paragraph 14 of the Code.

Neither the Banking Code or the guidance makes any reference whatsoever to the definition of 'financial hardship' or 'financial difficulty'.

Moreover, the Banking Code Standards Board, in an e-mail -below - states quite clearly that '' 'Financial hardship' is not defined in the Banking Code''.

I think some clarification is in order.


Dear EXC
I refer to our telephone conversation earlier. I have set out below the text of an email we have prepared to send to people who contact us regarding the definition of financial hardship following on from the complaints handling waiver granted by the FSA to the banks pending the outcome of the test case in the new year.
“The BCSB is an independent body that polices the Banking Code and the Business Banking Code. We do not investigate individual complaints against banks, building societies and card companies, because that is the role of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The BCSB Helpline can only advise on your rights under the Banking Codes, and cannot give legal advice.
Your rights under the Code
Section 14 of the Code says that your bank should “consider cases of financial difficulty sympathetically and positively. Our first step will be to try to contact you to discuss the matter.”
Section 14.4 says that you can instruct an advice agency, such as a Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) to act on your behalf in repayment negotiations with your bank. The bank is then obliged to correspond and deal with your money adviser there, who will have had experience in handling repayment negotiations and will provide a free service. You should be able to negotiate repayments that you can afford. You may be able to ask the bank to freeze interest and other charges accruing to the account, although this is discretionary. Other agencies which provide a free advice service are:
National Debtline: 0808 808 4000 (www.nationaldebtline.co.uk)
Consumer Credit Counselling Service: 0800 138 1111 (www.cccs.co.uk)
Payplan: 0800 085 4298 (www.payplan.com)
A money advisor at one of the above-listed agencies can help you to draw up a Financial Statement that shows how much of your income is needed to pay for essential living expenses, before assessing how much you can afford to repay the bank.
Complaining about your bank
You may believe that the bank has not complied with its obligation under the Code to be “sympathetic and positive” and to work with you in resolving your financial difficulties, and that this has caused you a financial loss. In this case, one course of action is for you to pursue this as a complaint against the bank. You should make your complaint through the bank’s internal complaints procedure. The bank will give you details of this, on request. This sets out the legal timescale the bank is required to follow in dealing with your complaint. Your complaint should be made in writing, to its designated complaints department. After the bank has looked into your complaint, it will write to tell you of the outcome of its investigation. It will also tell you about your right to bring your complaint to the FOS if you are still not happy.
The FOS helps settle disputes between individuals or small businesses and financial organisations. If a settlement cannot be agreed, they decide who is right. The service is free to consumers and its decisions are binding on financial organisations. FOS can make awards of up to £100,000. You can find their contact details on their website at www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk. The FOS takes account of the Banking Code in making its decisions.
Complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges: hardship cases
An announcement was made recently about a test case on unauthorised overdraft charges. Until that case is heard in court, banks joined in the case have been given dispensation by the FSA just to acknowledge but not to investigate complaints, unless the customer is in very difficult financial circumstances. Banks and building societies will have to conduct a filtering process to ensure that cases of genuine hardship are still dealt with during the waiver period. Complaints about banks which have not complied with the financial difficulties provisions of the Code would still be entitled to be referred to, and dealt with by, the FOS under the complaints procedure as explained above.
“Financial hardship” is not defined in the Banking Code. Financial institutions should consider complaints on a case by case basis, taking into account the information provided by the customer. Similarly FOS will consider the merits of each individual case. Section 14 of the Code and Guidance cover how firms should treat customers in financial difficulties.”
I hope this is helpful to you and the CAG.
Regards,
Mrs Hilary Putt
Helpdesk Manager
Banking Code Standard Board

[scoobydoo]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

see what you mean. I Like 14.7 where it says if they sell n the debt it will be to a company that also adheres to the code. Lol


this is from A&L website - dont think this is true either

What if I am in very difficult financial circumstances? – (hardship cases)
Alliance & Leicester will continue to review all cases where hardship is claimed during the waiver period. Where a customer has claimed hardship and is not happy with our response they are still entitled to be referred to, and dealt with by, the FOS. See the Banking Code for further guidance


Interesting that it does not say that the hardship has to be caused by the charges - just where a customer claims hardship.


And from your info above "unless the customer is in very difficult financial circumstances"

Says nothng again about being caused by the charges.

I think some of the confusion has come from where hardship cases where they had been to court to argue against the stays on a hardship basis.Each judge then had his/her own views and also no guidance . If they said yes toa few cases the floodgates would have opened and it should have been the bans and the FOS dealig with these cases not the courts. thats why I am so mad about the Travel girl case.

jan
.

[EXC]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

Thanks Scoob.

In the Banking Code Guidance For Subscribers it says ''The onus is on the customer to let subscribers know if they are experiencing or anticipate difficulties.'' This is of course very different to the waiver condition where the onus is on the banks.

http://www.bankingcode.org.uk/pdfdoc...DANCE_2008.PDF

[Amethyst]

Re: Help needed with FOiA request

Where does it say in the waiver that the onus is on the banks to indentify hardship ?