From: Subject: Fw: pConsumer Action Group March Newsletter Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:53:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0088_01C77172.B4380890" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Unsent: 1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C77172.B4380890 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ...MARCH 2007=20 You are receiving this because you have subscribed.You can use the = unsubscribe button at the bottom of this page to stop receiving these = newsletters.=20 =20 Consumer Action Group - Facts and Figures !=20 Since we began recording site usage in April 2006, when we had = just 2000 members, we have had 730,000 template letters downloaded. = Helped over 6000 people successfully reclaim over =A39.1 million back = from the banks, and attract over 3000 visitors per day. We currently = have over 127,000 registered members. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Thinking of changing supplier/insurance company etc ...? Using = u-switch directly helps this site.=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Northern Ireland Judge accepts Citi's Evidence=20 Elements of the Northern Ireland judiciary have got it into their = heads that =A312 is fair and "recommended by the OFT ".This seems to be = blithely accepted as gospel, despite the OFT report stating otherwise A CAG member issued an appeal against a decision allowing Citi to = charge =A312.88 for breach of contract. The judgement was given in a = Northern Ireland court back in September, and an appeal was granted. The = judgement was held. In Northern Ireland the rules are interpreted slightly differently = and in this case the appeal court ruled that the banks do not have to = give you prior notice of evidence they shall be depending upon in court, = and a judge is fully entitled to accept evidence given in the form of = undisclosed documents,and to accept the validity thereof without any = further investigation. Points of law appealed using the Human Rights = Legislation and Statute regarding overriding objective do not amount to = anything in civil cases. For future reference, it may be prudent for anyone contemplating = action against CITI in NI to either file an action via the English = Courts using anyone whom you know who lives there and who will allow you = to use their address for paperwork from the court, asking for full = disclosure of how their charges are made up, or else take the ex gratia = payment and leave it at that. Read forum discussion here -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - NEW! Protect yourself against Identity Theft=20 Identity theft is on the increase. It can have dramatic = consequences for your life! Lawpack Publishing have just released their new Identity Theft - Self Help Kit The kit contains a detailed guide to identity theft Why wait until this has happened to you? See what you can do about Identity theft now =A39.99 plus =A31.24 P&P Click here for more info -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Natwest Defence Struck out by Reading Court !=20 Seems as though more and more judges have had enough of the banks = constant abuse of the court process. Last month we reported on a number = of claims in Lincoln where judges had threatened to strike out bank = defences to penalty charge claims. A few days ago a judge at Reading = County Court has issued the following order against Natwest Bank; 1. Defence struck out as an abuse of process. 2. Claimant may enter judgement for the outstanding balance of the = claim and court fees and interest. There is NO leave for Natwest to set aside,vary or stay the order. The Claimant is filing for judgement forthwith..... Read forum discussion here -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - A Small Claims handbook=20 Reclaim the Right! Small Claims Procedure by Judge Patricia Pearl = An excellent guide for the layperson .Not for use in Scotland. =A317.10 = + =A31 p&p Click here for more info -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - =20 Letter of Support from Labour MP=20 Following a meeting with a Labour MP, a Consumer Action Group = member received a letter supporting the work we do. ''I am pleased to hear that your consumer action group is = continuing to gather support. I can assure you I am in full support of = your cause to end unfair bank charges which so often negatively affects = the low-income families.'' They also added; The OFT are currently working with the ''Financial Services = Authority and the British Bankers Association to investigate the = application of charges to current accounts. Once the fact finding = mission is reported, which is due to report shortly, the OFT will = consider whether further investigation of the fairness of individual = charges is required. Further to this, the Banking Codes Review, which was undertaken by = the OFT has called for a number of measures relating to bank charges. = These include greater pricing transparency, and end to the reliance on = hidden charges, improving customer information as well as = pre-notification of charges, allowing at least 14 days notice. In addition, in November last year the Treasury Select Committee = urged banks to drop unreasonable penalty charges and introduce a =A310 = penalty buffer zone to help low income households. '' -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Let them know you're serious. The Consumer Action Group envelope labels Sheet of 20 self-adhesive envelope labels =A33.50 inc p&p=20 Click here for more info -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Claiming in Scotland over =A3750 ?? Claiming in Scotland has suffered a small setback...as many of you = know the limit for small claims in Scotland is only =A3750. This has = meant many claimants have split their claims in to two or three parts in = order to avoid Ordinary Cause.=20 Now Stirling and Edinburgh courts have refused to accept second = claims on the same accounts....therefore we are now recommending any = claimant with a claim over =A3750, including the statutory interest = element, complains to the Financial Ombudsman Service as an alternative = to using the courts system. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - ; CAG Meet in Mansfield=20 Fancy meeting up with some of the new friends you have made on the = Consumer Action Group ? There's a CAG Party to be held on April 21st in = Mansfield, Nottinghamshire... Everyone's welcome, the more the merrier View forum discussion=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Donations... .......... PLEASE help us!=20 The Consumer Action Group is a free site. You are not charged for = the help you receive here. There are running costs and we appreciate donations. We don't know = why but hardly anyone is donating. Every day we receive notification of = thousands of pounds of settlements. people receive money they never = thought they would see again. People weren't too bothered when the banks were taking their money = hand over fist but now that they have got it back, they suddenly become = very careful and don't even want to contribute even a little of it to = the site which made it possible. We are not getting rich. We would just like to recover our = expenses and expand a little.Please donate whatever you can, every penny = really does help us! It does not matter how big or how small your = donation is! Please help us to help others! CLICK here to go to the home page to donate by pay pal -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Consumer Action Group CHAT ROOM as featured in BBC1 Whistleblower For help, advice and a good natter VISIT the CHAT ROOM -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Request for Information - Yorkshire / Clydesdale Counterclaims. I think we have all had the threats from these banks saying that = they will counterclaim against us if we pursue our claims for reclaiming = our bank charges, but there have only been a few cases where this has = actually happened, and they haven't carried out the threat for some = time. It happened to me in July 2006 so it is only likely to be "older" = claimants that this applies to. If it has happened to you, I'd be grateful if you could email your = defence and counterclaim to me in pdf format to = caro@consumeractiongroup. co.uk Thanks for your help. Caro. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - CAG Email Addresses=20 Are you writing to your bank by email? Use a Consumer Action group = email address to make the point a little more clearly. We now offer POP3 = email addresses at only =A36.00 per year. Why haven't you got one? Buy Email now... -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Lloyds and the =A3750 Goodwill Gesture....=20 This appears to be a standard tactic for Lloyds claimants now .. = Lloyds are paying =A3750 directly in to claimants accounts, prior to a = court claim being issued, without giving the claimant the opportunty to = decline the offer. Keep an eye on the Lloyds forum for more = information.....=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - If you have any stories you would like including in the next CAG = Newsletter please email admin@consumeractiongroup.co.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - The Consumer Action Group welcomes you to our monthly newsletter. = Its been an exciting couple of weeks with our profile being raised = massively by the BBC1 Whistleblower programme aired on the 21st March = 2007. The fight for fair treatment of all consumers continues ! =20 Bank Penalty Charges - the true costs have now been revealed... =20 Barclays Bank and Yorkshire Bank, Clydesdale Bank and = Northern Bank will be reeling from the revelations broadcast on BBC1 on = the evening of 21st March 2007. The Consumer Action Group are proud to have been involved in = the making of this programme. =20 UK high street banks have maintained their regime of unlawful = charges by hiding the true costs of handling delinquent accounts. The law says that contractual penalties may not exceed the actual = costs incurred by a breach of contract. The BBC Whistleblower program on 21st March revealed that the = Clydesdale and Yorkshire (and at one time - Northern) banks operate a = computerised costing system which shows that the cost to these banks of = handling delinquent accounts is no more than =A32 and normally far less. The costing system is called CYNthesys - which stands for = Clydesdale, Yorkshire, Northern - the system CYNthesys enables the = detailed analysis of any manual operation which is carried out within = the bank so that a precise costing can be obtained. The Whistleblower = demonstrated a CYNthesys spreadsheet in operation. It is convincing documentary evidence of the bank's true costs and = that their penalty charges produce a profit margin as much as 1700% = (seventeen hundred percent). As you know, there has been a massive consumer movement over the = last year. Well over one million bank customers have challenged their = banks on the legality of penalty charges and have reclaimed their money. Despite this, the banks continue to resist claims The banks = continue to deny that they are breaking the law=20 ~~ The banks continue to clog up the courts with sham defences ~~ The banks continue to apply their unlawful penalty charges ~~ Each bank claims that it is acting in line with all of the = other banks Despite all of this, despite mounting public pressure, despite = mounting publicity, despite mounting condemnation from the financial = ombudsman, the banks continue to defy authority and continue = implementing their regimes of unlawful penalty charges contrary to = Common Law and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In December 2003 a Parliamentary select committee failed to = discover the true costs of handling delinquent accounts: Transparency of = Credit Card Charges (First Report, Session 2003-04, HC125). In April 2005 a Treasury select committee again failed to discover = the true costs of handling delinquent accounts: Credit Card Charges and = marketing (HC274). On 5th April 2006 The Office of Fair Trading published a report = which called on the credit card companies and banks to comply with the = law of penalty charges. On 22nd May 2006 an early day motion EDM2227 called for compliance = with the OFT report of 5th April 2006. On 26th October 2006 The Competition Commission of Northern = Ireland published a report which shows that approximately 12% of current = account income was produced by penalty charges. On 16th January 2007 Matthew Taylor MP stated to members of = Parliament in an adjournment debate that bank charges were unlawful. We ask MPs - are you content that Parliament and the Law continue = to be defied? Elected Members of Parliament have a duty to raise this matter = with their colleagues, with the Government and in Parliament. We also ask that the Office of Fair Trading now perform their duty = to take action under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations = 1999. View the programme - here Further information, Copies of Yorkshire Banks defence - here - = PDF File. Read BBC News Article here -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Do you work for a Bank ? Don't worry we won't jump on you .... Did you see Whistleblower on = Wednesday night ? If not you can view it - here How do the practises exposed in the programme compare to your=20 experiences ? Let us know your thoughts on this thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Yorkshire bank and Whistleblower. True costs revealed. Although it was only a fleeting glimpse, Whistleblower revealed = that the Yorkshire bank employ a sophisticated system to ascertain the = true costs of handling delinquent accounts. The BBC revealed that this = true cost is never more than =A32.00 and that this assumes that the = process in question is conducted manually. We can imagine that it costs far less when it is automated and = most of the problems raised by customer contractual breaches are not = subject to manual intervention. Please watch this thread for advice on handling your claim which = will be posted in the next few days. We believe that the Whistleblower disclosure has an impact on the = way you should make your claim. We should say that if these revelations made by the BBC are = correct then it is difficult to reconcile these costs, with the =A335 = charges made by the bank and with the statements which the bank = routinely makes in its court defences to the effect that its charges = reflect its administrative costs. We do believe that the bank should be invited to give an = explanation. We have heard that the BBC have invited the Yorkshire bank to = comment and that so far they have refused. I hope that they will come forward and clear up this very natural = confusion within the next few days. We should add that the Whistleblower reference to the Yorkshire = bank costing system was only part of a very much longer and much more = detailed piece of film. Disappointingly the Whistleblower team decided not to use the rest = of their footage in the documentary -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - OFT Impending Report ~ will it affect claims ??? written by Bookworm - CAG Moderator=20 In the "Tonight" programme a couple of weeks ago, Martin Lewis = announced his belief that the OFT "cap" would be set at =A312-=A315 and = that the banks would then only refund the difference between that amount = and the amount people were charged. This opinion created a panic amongst = reclaimers, thinking that they were about to lose a large chunk of their = money if they didn't rush to claim now. This needs a few clarifications: The facts are these: a) The OFT is a regulatory body, they do not make law. The only = way the law can be changed is through an Act of Parliament. b) The OFT, when they announce the results of their enquiry on = bank charges, will only be announcing a level at which they themselves = will take legal action against the banks. It is not a cap. In their credit cards report of April 5th, 2006, they clearly = stated that they could not declare what was a fair or lawful charge, = only the courts could decide on this. Furthermore, the OFT also declared = at the time that consumers who felt that they had been charged unfairly = should go through the legal system to reclaim their charges. There is no = reason to suspect that their stance will not be identical this time. c) The law on penalties is well entrenched in contract law. Even = if a bank tries to tell you after the OFT announcement that they will = only refund the difference between the "cap" (It's NOT a cap!) and what = you were charged originally, (leaving aside the fact that such a = decision couldn't apply retrospectively anyway ), well, they also told = you their charges were lawful, fair and transparent, and did you believe = them? Why should you believe them now? d) Bottom line is this: If the bank try to say that they'll only = refund you the difference, carry on with your claim. They will still = have to convince a judge that what they are charging is lawful, which = means they would still have to disclose how those costs are calculated, = and they still won't want/be able to do that. Conclusion: Ignore the sensationalism, stick to the facts, and you = can't go very wrong. In other words, business as usual, OFT or no OFT = report. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - OFT recommendations for Banking Code Review=20 The OFT has submitted a range of recommendations to raise = standards of fairness in the way British banks treat their personal and = businesses customers. In its response to the Banking Codes Review - an ongoing review = into the self-regulatory codes of practice governing British banking - = the OFT has called for a range of measures. The OFT has called for the new banking code to: * include greater pricing transparency for customers, in = particular ending reliance on hidden charges as well as improving the = quality of information to ensure easy comparisons across different = products * require pre-notification of charges so that at least 14 days = notification is given before all charges and interest are taken from = customers' accounts * take account of forthcoming changes to consumer protection = legislation. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive contains a duty = not to trade unfairly and prevents 'misleading omissions', particularly = a failure to provide sufficient pre-contractual information for bank = customers. The Consumer Credit Act 2006 also explicitly includes = 'irresponsible lending' as an unfair practice relevant to the OFT when = considering a licensee's fitness to hold a consumer credit licence * implement the recommendations of the Payments Systems Task Force = which agreed a number of key improvements to cheque clearing times, and * implement OFT recommendations regarding small and medium size = enterprises (SME) banking, in particular, a commitment to give SMEs = information displaying transaction volumes on monthly statements, which = is essential for customers to assess the benefits of switching. John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, said: 'Significant change is needed to the banking codes of practice, = particularly to address the lack of transparency that pervades the = retail banking sector. We aspire to a self-regulatory framework in UK = retail banking that achieves sufficiently high levels of fair treatment = of customers that little or no external regulatory intervention is = called for.' -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Make CAG your homepage ! Help us to reach more bank charges victims! Help us by always = accessing the forum through the homepage link. It will cost you nothing = but help us enormously. When you set CAG as your homepage and use our = web search you will be contributing towards our running costs at no cost = to you.=20 Click to Search...=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Have you received a request for Payment to process your = Preliminary Letter or Letter Before Action ?=20 Ignore the request and move on to the next stage of your claim = when your deadline expires. Get some evidence of their request if you can such as a letter. = Ask the bank to confirm their request in writing and that you will then = send them the money. Best of all, record all conversations with your bank as a matter = of routine. Do not give warnings that the calls are being recorded. You do not = have to. Read the forum thread here -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Can you reclaim Barclays Additions account fees ?=20 If you took out a current account with Barclays and did NOT = request the Additions account with the monthly charge attached - and on = checking your bank statements you realise you have been paying for a = service you did NOT request or want ... YES - you can write to Barclays = and ask that these payments are returned to you. View forum discussion here -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Yorkshire Bank and claiming beyond 6 years=20 On the basis of you may want to consider claiming beyond 6 years = if your account has been open that long and you have received charges = during the pre-6 year period. This is because it seems clear from the BBC programme that the YB = operate a highly structured system intended to audit the cost of = handling a delinquent account and probably also in order to refine the = process with a view to profit. This would mean that the Yorkshire Bank is fully aware of the = facts and very likely have been for some time. We believe that the protection which they enjoy from the = Limitation Act falls away in these circumstances. Furthermore we believe that on the basis of the BBC disclosures = any existing full and final settlement agreement is vitiated. At the end of the day it is a matter for the court to decide or a = matter for the YB to offer their simple explanation for what otherwise = seems to be a very puzzling set of circumstances. Read forum information=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - FOS Adjudication regarding the =A3125 fine imposed on Alliance & = Leiceseter for account closure. Last month we reported that the Ombudsman has just adjudicated = against the A&L on a complaint that they closed a customer account in = response to a claim for bank charges. The FOS decided that the closure was indeed unfair as it was = punitive and retaliatory. They awarded =A3125 against the bank to the = claimant as compensation. This is a derisory figure of course but the ruling is highly = significant. ''I am satisfied that there was a genuine dispute as to whether or = not the charges made to Mr L's account were enforceable. Whatever the = outcome of the court action, Mr L was entitled to bring it. It is = possible that the court would have given judgment in his favour, had the = action proceeded.'' adjudicator Financial Ombudsman Service=20 Read the financial ombudsman's official adjudiction here In a second case they awarded the complainant =A3200 in = compensation stating in the adjudication ''I do not consider that it was = either fair or reasonable for the bank to use the closure of the account = as a way of deterring or punishing Mr A for complaining'' Read the financial ombudsman's official adjudiction here =20 Total Amount of Bank Charges returned to Consumer Action Group = users.. =A39105818 to 6414!! *We estimate this to be under 1/3 of the actual amount that we have helped our members to reclaim. =A9 Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road, London, NW11 7PE Contact The Consumer Action Group =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- You are subscribed as info@crimesharetv.com. To unsubscribe please click = here. ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C77172.B4380890 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 

= ...MARCH 2007 =

You are receiving this because you have = subscribed.You can=20 use the unsubscribe button at the bottom of this page to stop = receiving=20 these newsletters.

=20 Consumer Action Group - Facts and Figures !=20

Since we=20 began recording site usage in April 2006, when we had just 2000 = members,=20 we have had 730,000 template letters = downloaded.=20 Helped over 6000 people successfully reclaim over =A39.1 million back from the banks, and = attract over 3000=20 visitors per day. We currently have over 127,000 registered=20 members.

Thinking of = changing=20 supplier/insurance company etc ...? Using u-switch directly helps = this=20 site.

=20 Northern Ireland Judge accepts Citi's Evidence=20

Elements of=20 the Northern Ireland judiciary have got it into their heads that = =A312 is=20 fair and "recommended by the OFT ".This seems to be blithely = accepted as=20 gospel, despite the OFT report stating = otherwise

A CAG member issued an appeal against a decision = allowing Citi=20 to charge =A312.88 for breach of contract. The judgement was given = in a=20 Northern Ireland court back in September, and an appeal was = granted. The=20 judgement was held.

In Northern Ireland the rules are interpreted = slightly=20 differently and in this case the appeal court ruled that the banks = do not=20 have to give you prior notice of evidence they shall be depending = upon in=20 court, and a judge is fully entitled to accept evidence given in = the form=20 of undisclosed documents,and to accept the validity thereof = without any=20 further investigation. Points of law appealed using the Human = Rights=20 Legislation and Statute regarding overriding objective do not = amount to=20 anything in civil cases.

For future reference, it may be prudent for anyone=20 contemplating action against CITI in NI to either file an action = via the=20 English Courts using anyone whom you know who lives there and who = will=20 allow you to use their address for paperwork from the court, = asking for=20 full disclosure of how their charges are made up, or else take the = ex=20 gratia payment and leave it at that.

Read=20 forum discussion here

NEW!
Protect yourself against Identity = Theft=20

Identity theft is on the increase. It can have dramatic=20 consequences for your life!
Lawpack Publishing
have just = released=20 their new
Identity Theft - Self Help Kit
The kit contains a = detailed=20 guide to identity theft

Why wait until this has happened to you?
See what you = can do=20 about Identity theft now
=A39.99 plus =A31.24 = P&P

Click=20 here for more info

=20 Natwest Defence Struck out by Reading Court !=20

Seems as though more and more judges have had enough = of the=20 banks constant abuse of the court process. Last month we reported = on a=20 number of claims in Lincoln where judges had threatened to strike = out bank=20 defences to penalty charge claims. A few days ago a judge at = Reading=20 County Court has issued the following order against Natwest=20 Bank;

1. Defence=20 struck out as an abuse of process.

2. Claimant=20 may enter judgement for the outstanding balance of the claim and = court=20 fees and interest.

There is NO=20 leave for Natwest to set aside,vary or stay the=20 order.

The Claimant=20 is filing for judgement forthwith.....

Read=20 forum discussion here

A = Small Claims=20 handbook

Reclaim the Right! Small Claims Procedure by Judge = Patricia Pearl=20 An excellent guide for the layperson .Not for use in Scotland. = =A317.10 + =A31=20 p&p


Click = here for more=20 info

 =20

Letter of Support from Labour MP =

Following a=20 meeting with a Labour MP, a Consumer Action Group member received = a letter=20 supporting the work we do.

''I am pleased to hear that your consumer action = group is=20 continuing to gather support. I can assure you I am in full = support of=20 your cause to end unfair bank charges which so often negatively = affects=20 the low-income families.''

They also added;

The OFT are currently working with the ''Financial = Services=20 Authority and the British Bankers Association to investigate the=20 application of charges to current accounts. Once the fact finding = mission=20 is reported, which is due to report shortly, the OFT will consider = whether=20 further investigation of the fairness of individual charges is=20 required.

Further to this, the Banking Codes Review, which was = undertaken=20 by the OFT has called for a number of measures relating to bank = charges.=20 These include greater pricing transparency, and end to the = reliance on=20 hidden charges, improving customer information as well as = pre-notification=20 of charges, allowing at least 14 days notice.

In addition, in November last year the Treasury = Select=20 Committee urged banks to drop unreasonable penalty charges and = introduce a=20 =A310 penalty buffer zone to help low income households. = ''


Let them know you're serious.
The Consumer Action = Group envelope=20 labels
Sheet of 20 self-adhesive envelope labels
=A33.50 inc = p&p=20

Click here for more info

=20 Claiming in Scotland over =A3750 = ??

Claiming in=20 Scotland has suffered a small setback...as many of you know the = limit for=20 small claims in Scotland is only =A3750. This has meant many = claimants have=20 split their claims in to two or three parts in order to avoid = Ordinary=20 Cause.

Now Stirling=20 and Edinburgh courts have refused to accept second claims on the = same=20 accounts....therefore we are now recommending any claimant with a = claim=20 over =A3750, including the statutory interest element, complains = to the Financial=20 Ombudsman Service as an alternative to using the courts=20 system.

; CAG Meet in Mansfield =

Fancy meeting up with some = of the new=20 friends you have made on the Consumer Action Group ? There's a CAG = Party=20 to be held on April 21st in Mansfield, = Nottinghamshire...

Everyone's welcome, the more = the=20 merrier

View=20 forum discussion

=20 Donations...
.......... PLEASE help us!=20


The=20 Consumer Action Group is a free site. You are not charged for the = help you=20 receive here.

There are=20 running costs and we appreciate donations. We don't know why but = hardly=20 anyone is donating. Every day we receive notification of thousands = of=20 pounds of settlements. people receive money they never thought = they would=20 see again.

People=20 weren't too bothered when the banks were taking their money hand = over fist=20 but now that they have got it back, they suddenly become very = careful and=20 don't even want to contribute even a little of it to the site = which made=20 it possible.

We are not=20 getting rich. We would just like to recover our expenses and = expand a=20 little.Please donate whatever you can, every penny really does = help us! It=20 does not matter how big or how small your donation = is!

Please=20 help us to help others!

CLICK=20 here to go to the home page to donate by pay = pal

 Consumer Action Group

CHAT=20 ROOM

as=20 featured in BBC1 Whistleblower

For=20 help, advice and a good natter

VISIT the CHAT ROOM

=20 Request for Information - Yorkshire / = Clydesdale=20 Counterclaims.

I think we have all = had the=20 threats from these banks saying that they will counterclaim = against us if=20 we pursue our claims for reclaiming our bank charges, but there = have only=20 been a few cases where this has actually happened, and they = haven't=20 carried out the threat for some time. It happened to me in July = 2006 so it=20 is only likely to be "older" claimants that this applies=20 to.

If it has=20 happened to you, I'd be grateful if you could email your defence = and=20 counterclaim to me in pdf format to caro@consumeractiongroup.=20 co.uk

Thanks for=20 your help.

Caro.


CAG Email Addresses =

Are you=20 writing to your bank by email? Use a Consumer Action group email = address=20 to make the point a little more clearly. We now offer POP3 email = addresses=20 at only =A36.00 per year. Why haven't you got one?

Buy Email=20 now...

 

Lloyds and the =A3750 Goodwill=20 Gesture....

This appears to=20 be a standard tactic for Lloyds claimants now .. Lloyds are paying = =A3750=20 directly in to claimants accounts, prior to a court claim being = issued,=20 without giving the claimant the opportunty to decline the offer. = Keep an=20 eye on the Lloyds=20 forum for more information.....=20

If you have any stories you would like = including in=20 the next CAG Newsletter please email=20 admin@consumeractiongroup.co.uk

 

The Consumer Action Group welcomes you to = our monthly=20 newsletter. Its been an exciting couple of weeks with our profile = being=20 raised massively by the BBC1 Whistleblower programme aired on the = 21st=20 March 2007.

The fight for fair treatment of all consumers = continues=20 !

 

=20 Bank Penalty Charges - the true costs = have now been=20 revealed...


Barclays Bank=20 and Yorkshire Bank, Clydesdale Bank and Northern Bank will = be=20 reeling from the revelations broadcast on BBC1 on the = evening of=20 21st March 2007.

The Consumer Action Group are = proud to have=20 been involved in the making of this=20 programme.=20

UK high street banks have maintained their regime of = unlawful=20 charges by hiding the true costs of handling delinquent=20 accounts.

The law says that contractual penalties may not = exceed=20 the actual costs incurred by a breach of contract.

The BBC=20 Whistleblower program on 21st March revealed that the Clydesdale = and=20 Yorkshire (and at one time - Northern) banks operate a = computerised=20 costing system which shows that the cost to these banks of = handling=20 delinquent accounts is no more than =A32 and normally far = less.

The=20 costing system is called CYNthesys - which stands for Clydesdale,=20 Yorkshire, Northern - the system CYNthesys enables the detailed = analysis=20 of any manual operation which is carried out within the bank so = that a=20 precise costing can be obtained. The Whistleblower demonstrated a=20 CYNthesys spreadsheet in operation.

It is convincing = documentary=20 evidence of the bank's true costs and that their penalty charges = produce a=20 profit margin as much as 1700% (seventeen hundred=20 percent).


As you know, there has been a massive consumer = movement=20 over the last year. Well over one million bank customers have = challenged=20 their banks on the legality of penalty charges and have reclaimed = their=20 money.

Despite = this, the=20 banks continue to resist claims The banks continue to deny that = they are=20 breaking the law

~~ = The banks continue to clog up the courts with sham = defences

~~ = The=20 banks continue to apply their unlawful penalty = charges

~~ Each bank = claims that it=20 is acting in line with all of the other banks

Despite all = of this,=20 despite mounting public pressure, despite mounting publicity, = despite=20 mounting condemnation from the financial ombudsman, the banks = continue to=20 defy authority and continue implementing their regimes of unlawful = penalty=20 charges contrary to Common Law and the Unfair Terms in Consumer = Contracts=20 Regulations 1999.

In December 2003 a Parliamentary select = committee=20 failed to discover the true costs of handling delinquent accounts: = Transparency of Credit Card Charges (First Report, Session = 2003-04,=20 HC125).

In April 2005 a Treasury select = committee=20 again failed to discover the true costs of handling delinquent = accounts:=20 Credit Card Charges and marketing (HC274).

On 5th = April=20 2006 The Office of Fair Trading published a report which = called=20 on the credit card companies and banks to comply with the law of = penalty=20 charges.

On 22nd May 2006 an early day = motion=20 EDM2227 called for compliance with the OFT report of 5th April=20 2006.

On 26th October 2006 The Competition = Commission of Northern Ireland published a report which shows that = approximately 12% of current account income was produced by = penalty=20 charges.

On 16th January 2007 Matthew = Taylor MP=20 stated to members of Parliament in an adjournment debate that bank = charges=20 were unlawful.

We ask MPs - are you content that Parliament = and the=20 Law continue to be defied?

Elected Members of Parliament = have a=20 duty to raise this matter with their colleagues, with the = Government and=20 in Parliament.

We also ask that the Office of Fair Trading = now=20 perform their duty to take action under the Unfair Terms in = Consumer=20 Contracts Regulations 1999.

View the = programme=20 - here

Further = information,=20 Copies of Yorkshire Banks defence - here=20 - PDF File.

Read=20 BBC News Article here

=20 Do you work for a Bank=20 ?

Don't worry we won't = jump on you=20 .... Did you see Whistleblower on Wednesday night ? If not you can = view it=20 - here

How do the practises exposed in the = programme compare=20 to your
experiences ? Let us know your thoughts on this=20 thread

=20 Yorkshire = bank and=20 Whistleblower. True costs revealed.


Although it was only a fleeting glimpse, = Whistleblower=20 revealed that the Yorkshire bank employ a sophisticated system to=20 ascertain the true costs of handling delinquent accounts. The BBC = revealed=20 that this true cost is never more than =A32.00 and that this = assumes that=20 the process in question is conducted manually.

We can=20 imagine that it costs far less when it is automated and most of = the=20 problems raised by customer contractual breaches are not subject = to manual=20 intervention.

Please=20 watch this=20 thread for advice on handling your claim which will be posted = in the=20 next few days.

We = believe that=20 the Whistleblower disclosure has an impact on the way you should = make your=20 claim.

We should=20 say that if these revelations made by the BBC are correct then it = is=20 difficult to reconcile these costs, with the =A335 charges made by = the bank=20 and with the statements which the bank routinely makes in its = court=20 defences to the effect that its charges reflect its administrative = costs.

We do=20 believe that the bank should be invited to give an=20 explanation.

We have=20 heard that the BBC have invited the Yorkshire bank to comment and = that so=20 far they have refused.

I hope=20 that they will come forward and clear up this very natural = confusion=20 within the next few days.

We should=20 add that the Whistleblower reference to the Yorkshire bank costing = system=20 was only part of a very much longer and much more detailed piece = of=20 film.

Disappointingly the Whistleblower team decided not to = use the=20 rest of their footage in the documentary

OFT Impending Report ~ will it affect = claims=20 ???
written by Bookworm -=20 CAG Moderator

In the "Tonight" programme a couple of weeks ago, = Martin Lewis=20 announced his belief that the OFT "cap" would be set at = =A312-=A315 and that=20 the banks would then only refund the difference between that = amount and=20 the amount people were charged. This opinion created a panic = amongst=20 reclaimers, thinking that they were about to lose a large chunk of = their=20 money if they didn't rush to claim now.

This needs a=20 few clarifications:

The facts are=20 these:

a) The OFT is=20 a regulatory body, they do not make law. The only way the law can = be=20 changed is through an Act of Parliament.

b) The OFT,=20 when they announce the results of their enquiry on bank charges, = will only=20 be announcing a level at which they themselves will take legal = action=20 against the banks. It is not a cap.

In their=20 credit cards report of April 5th, 2006, they clearly stated that = they=20 could not declare what was a fair or lawful charge, only the = courts could=20 decide on this. Furthermore, the OFT also declared at the time = that=20 consumers who felt that they had been charged unfairly should go = through=20 the legal system to reclaim their charges. There is no reason to = suspect=20 that their stance will not be identical this = time.

c) The law on=20 penalties is well entrenched in contract law. Even if a bank tries = to tell=20 you after the OFT announcement that they will only refund the = difference=20 between the "cap" (It's NOT a cap!) and what you were charged = originally,=20 (leaving aside the fact that such a decision couldn't apply=20 retrospectively anyway ), well, they also told you their charges = were=20 lawful, fair and transparent, and did you believe them? Why should = you=20 believe them now?

d) Bottom=20 line is this: If the bank try to say that they'll only refund you = the=20 difference, carry on with your claim. They will still have to = convince a=20 judge that what they are charging is lawful, which means they = would still=20 have to disclose how those costs are calculated, and they still = won't=20 want/be able to do that.

Conclusion:=20 Ignore the sensationalism, stick to the facts, and you can't go = very=20 wrong. In other words, business as usual, OFT or no OFT=20 report.

OFT=20 recommendations for Banking Code Review =

The OFT has = submitted a range=20 of recommendations to raise standards of fairness in the way = British banks=20 treat their personal and businesses = customers.

In its response to the Banking Codes Review - an = ongoing review=20 into the self-regulatory codes of practice governing British = banking =96 the=20 OFT has called for a range of measures.

The OFT has called for the new banking code = to:

* include greater pricing transparency for customers, = in=20 particular ending reliance on hidden charges as well as improving = the=20 quality of information to ensure easy comparisons across different = products
* require pre-notification of charges so that at least = 14 days=20 notification is given before all charges and interest are taken = from=20 customers' accounts
* take account of forthcoming changes to = consumer=20 protection legislation. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive = contains=20 a duty not to trade unfairly and prevents 'misleading omissions',=20 particularly a failure to provide sufficient pre-contractual = information=20 for bank customers. The Consumer Credit Act 2006 also explicitly = includes=20 'irresponsible lending' as an unfair practice relevant to the OFT = when=20 considering a licensee's fitness to hold a consumer credit = licence
*=20 implement the recommendations of the Payments Systems Task Force = which=20 agreed a number of key improvements to cheque clearing times, = and
*=20 implement OFT recommendations regarding small and medium size = enterprises=20 (SME) banking, in particular, a commitment to give SMEs = information=20 displaying transaction volumes on monthly statements, which is = essential=20 for customers to assess the benefits of switching.

John=20 Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, said:

'Significant change is needed to the banking codes of = practice,=20 particularly to address the lack of transparency that pervades the = retail=20 banking sector. We aspire to a self-regulatory framework in UK = retail=20 banking that achieves sufficiently high levels of fair treatment = of=20 customers that little or no external regulatory intervention is = called=20 for.'

Make CAG your homepage = !

Help us to reach more bank charges victims! Help us = by always=20 accessing the forum through the homepage link. It will cost you = nothing=20 but help us enormously. When you set CAG as your homepage and use = our web=20 search you will be contributing towards our running costs at no = cost to=20 you.

Click to=20 Search...=20

=20 Have you received a request for Payment to process your = Preliminary=20 Letter or Letter Before Action ?

Ignore the=20 request and move on to the next stage of your claim when your = deadline=20 expires.

Get some=20 evidence of their request if you can such as a letter. Ask the = bank to=20 confirm their request in writing and that you will then send them = the=20 money.

Best of=20 all, record all conversations with your bank as a matter of=20 routine.

Do not give warnings that the calls are being = recorded.=20 You do not have to.

Read the = forum thread=20 here

=20 Can you reclaim Barclays Additions account fees = ?=20

If you=20 took out a current account with Barclays and did NOT request the = Additions=20 account with the monthly charge attached - and on checking your = bank=20 statements you realise you have been paying for a service you did = NOT=20 request or want ... YES - you can write to Barclays and ask that = these=20 payments are returned to you.

View= =20 forum discussion here

 Yorkshire Bank and claiming beyond 6=20 years=20

On the=20 basis of you may want to consider claiming beyond 6 years if your = account=20 has been open that long and you have received charges during the = pre-6=20 year period.

This is=20 because it seems clear from the BBC programme that the YB operate = a highly=20 structured system intended to audit the cost of handling a = delinquent=20 account and probably also in order to refine the process with a = view to=20 profit.

This would=20 mean that the Yorkshire Bank is fully aware of the facts and very = likely=20 have been for some time.

We believe=20 that the protection which they enjoy from the Limitation Act falls = away in=20 these circumstances.

Furthermore we believe that on the basis of the BBC = disclosures any=20 existing full and final settlement agreement is = vitiated.

At the end=20 of the day it is a matter for the court to decide or a matter for = the YB=20 to offer their simple explanation for what otherwise seems to be a = very=20 puzzling set of circumstances.

Read=20 forum information

FOS Adjudication regarding the =A3125 fine = imposed on=20 Alliance & Leiceseter for account closure.

Last month=20 we reported that the Ombudsman has just adjudicated against the = A&L on=20 a complaint that they closed a customer account in response to a = claim for=20 bank charges.

The FOS=20 decided that the closure was indeed unfair as it was punitive and=20 retaliatory. They awarded =A3125 against the bank to the claimant = as=20 compensation.

This is a=20 derisory figure of course but the ruling is highly=20 significant.

''I am=20 satisfied that there was a genuine dispute as to whether or not = the=20 charges made to Mr L=92s account were enforceable. Whatever the = outcome of=20 the court action, Mr L was entitled to bring it. It is possible = that the=20 court would have given judgment in his favour, had the action = proceeded.''=20 adjudicator
Financial Ombudsman Service

Read = the financial=20 ombudsman's official adjudiction here

In a=20 second case they awarded the complainant =A3200 in compensation = stating in=20 the adjudication ''I do not consider that it was either fair or = reasonable=20 for the bank to use the closure of the account as a way of = deterring or=20 punishing Mr A for complaining''

Read = the financial=20 ombudsman's official adjudiction = here

 

Total Amount of = Bank Charges=20 returned to Consumer Action Group = users..

=A39105818 to=20 6414!!

*We estimate this to = be under=20 1/3 of the actual amount that we
have helped our = members to=20 reclaim.

 

=A9 Reclaim=20 the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK
reg. office:- 923 = Finchley=20 Road, London, NW11 7PE

Contact The = Consumer Action=20 Group



You are subscribed as info@crimesharetv.com. To unsubscribe = please clic= k=20 here.




------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C77172.B4380890--