BCOB Regulations

[Bill-K]

Re: BCOB Regulations

Regardless of the outcome, I admire Dougal's ability as a messenger. Why he has not been shot by the Idiot King - who considers his subjects as mugs - is beyond me. Maybe truth and sincerity is filtering through ?

[EXC]

Re: BCOB Regulations

HI
I thought BF was referring to the refunds of processed PPI claims and the delays in payment by the banks.
I would have thought he would be correct in that this would be actionable under the BDOB. Section 5.1
Peter

Yes that's what he was referring to but BCOBs only applies to the deposit taking activities of banks.

Mis-selling insurance and being tardy in refunding premiums doesn't go anywhere near BCOBs. This would fall to ICOBs or more likely DISP.

[Guest]

Re: BCOB Regulations

THis would seem to be an extremely imited guide then , what exactly does it cover.

Taking deposits, recommending incorrect investment oppotunities, is that it?

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Peter, which specific part of BCOBS 5.1 are you referring to?

.

firm must provide a service in relation to a retail banking service

which is prompt, efficient and fair to a banking customer and which

5.1.1

has regard to any communications or

financial promotion made by the
firm to the banking customer from time to time.

Underlined above

Peter

[EXC]

Re: BCOB Regulations

THis would seem to be an extremely imited guide then , what exactly does it cover.

Taking deposits, recommending incorrect investment oppotunities, is that it?

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------



.

firm must provide a service in relation to a retail banking service

which is prompt, efficient and fair to a banking customer and which

5.1.1

has regard to any communications or

financial promotion made by the
firm to the banking customer from time to time.

Underlined above

Peter

Yes it really is very limited and mainly deals with payment services. As s5.1 makes clear it relates to 'retail banking services'. Insurance and loans - although provided by banks are also provided by many firms who are not banks and don't provide banking services and therefore it would be impossible to have some firms covered by these regulations and some not.

[Guest]

Re: BCOB Regulations

Hi
I see
So just to be clear. We are saying that although some of the requirements may be applicable to certain deposit takers, banks are not covered in these areas because other legislative bodies do the job and there cannot be an overlap.
Peter

[EXC]

Re: BCOB Regulations

Hi
I see
So just to be clear. We are saying that although some of the requirements may be applicable to certain deposit takers, banks are not covered in these areas because other legislative bodies do the job and there cannot be an overlap.
Peter

Well to be clear they are applicable to all deposit takers (including credit unions to some extent) but only for deposit taking and payment service activities.

You're right to identify the regulatory overlap, or as Justice Ousley referred to it during the BBA Judicial Review, it's an occupied field.

[Guest]

Re: BCOB Regulations

Yes that's what he was referring to but BCOBs only applies to the deposit taking activities of banks.

Mis-selling insurance and being tardy in refunding premiums doesn't go anywhere near BCOBs. This would fall to ICOBs or more likely DISP.

Are either of these actionable by the individual?

Peter

[EXC]

Re: BCOB Regulations

Are either of these actionable by the individual?

Peter

ICOBs is but I'm not sure about DISP.

CAG are also asserting that the FSA's Principles - although not actionable by a private individual - can be used by way of them being implied in the contract terms but I don't think this could work. The FSA removed the right of action from the Principles by removing the statutory obligation banks have to them in respect of private individuals.

[Guest]

Re: BCOB Regulations

ICOBs is but I'm not sure about DISP.

CAG are also asserting that the FSA's Principles - although not actionable by a private individual - can be used by way of them being implied in the contract terms but I don't think this could work. The FSA removed the right of action from the Principles by removing the statutory obligation banks have to them in respect of private individuals.

I thought they were refering to just plain old breach of contract but using an implied term as the cause for action, is this not possible?

Peter

[Guest]

Re: BCOB Regulations

I thought they were refering to just plain old breach of contract but using an implied term as the cause for action, is this not possible?

Peter

Sorry i see what you mean i thought they were talking about implied terms that are usually present in a contract.


Peter

[Guest]

Re: BCOB Regulations

This was the quote i ws thinking of

"Not necessarily. There is another approach.
Your bank or credit card issuer or lender have a legal -statutory- duty to treat you fairly. This means that this duty is implied into your contract by law.
If you suffer unfair treatment from your credit card issuer or lender then they are probably acting in breach of contract. You can use them in the county court for Breach of Contract"

Peter

[EXC]

Re: BCOB Regulations

This was the quote i ws thinking of

"Not necessarily. There is another approach.
Your bank or credit card issuer or lender have a legal -statutory- duty to treat you fairly. This means that this duty is implied into your contract by law.
If you suffer unfair treatment from your credit card issuer or lender then they are probably acting in breach of contract. You can use them in the county court for Breach of Contract"

Peter

Yes that's it. Although they have a statutory duty (to abide by the Principles) towards the FSA, the statutory duty was removed in respect of causes of action by individuals.

[whizzkid001]

Re: BCOB Regulations

Can someone clarify whether it is in fact possible to sue a bank under BCOB. Only I put this question to a barrister the other day and got this response back:

'As to a proposed claim in the County Courts: this is probably unattractive and unviable for a number of reasons, but I would just point out .... that the Principles of Business are not actionable by consumers. You refer to Principle 6, but the combined effect of PRIN 3.4.4 R and s.150 FSMA 2000 is to deprive consumers of a right of action under this provision.'

Am now thoroughly confused!

[Dougal16T]

Re: BCOB Regulations

Evening all,

Is this not therefore a Restrictive Practice by the Banks....or am I just barking as usual??

See: Restrictive Practices Court Act 1976 ? and English Contract law...

Best wishes

Dougal

[whizzkid001]

Re: BCOB Regulations

PRIN 3.4.4 R states - 'A contravention of the rules in PRIN does not give rise to a right of action by a private person under section 150 of the Act (and each of those rules is specified under section 150(2) of the Act as a provision giving rise to no such right of action).'

Am very confused now as up to now led to believe that we could sue under s150.