Unfair bank?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/section/150 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 You are here: * 2000 c. 8 * Part X * Chapter I * Contravention of rules * Section 150 150 Actions for damages.E+W+S+N.I. This section has no associated Explanatory Notes (1)A contravention by an authorised person of a rule is actionable at the suit of a private person who suffers loss as a result of the contravention, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty. (2)If rules so provide, subsection (1) does not apply to contravention of a specified provision of those rules. (3)In prescribed cases, a contravention of a rule which would be actionable at the suit of a private person is actionable at the suit of a person who is not a private person, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty. (4)In subsections (1) and (3) “rule” does not include— (a)[F1Part 6 rules]; [F2(aa)rules under section 131B (short selling rules);] or (b)a rule requiring an authorised person to have or maintain financial resources. (5)“Private person” has such meaning as may be prescribed. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/section/150 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19511542 Unfair bank? A new set of rules to help you sue Money Talk by Marc Gander Consumer Action Group 12 September 2012 For the past three years, bank customers in the UK have had an excellent set of legal powers to tackle their banks if they think they have been treated unfairly. Unfortunately, hardly anyone knows about them, and the relevant authorities have failed to give the powers any meaningful publicity. The rules were been laid down by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). They are known as the Banking: Conduct of Business sourcebook (BCOBS) and they apply to small businesses as well as to private individuals. Most significantly, they give any aggrieved customer the right to sue their bank in the county court. This may not obvious to the first-time reader, but it is spelt out right at the bottom of the document in Schedule 5. This explicitly links breaches of these rules to the right of individuals to take legal action under section 150 of Financial Services and Markets Act. What is unfair? Under BCOBS, your bank has a duty to operate your current account so the consequences are not unfair to you. Your bank cannot just go ahead and apply your contracthttp://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3859674681412731052#editor/target=post;postID=8725094523221245812ual terms regardless of the consequences. It is obliged to have regards to your interests, when making decisions. Your bank may want to say they are only obliged to treat you fairly within the limits of the account contract. However, fair treatment under BCOBS means you are entitled to receive fair treatment despite the limits of the contract (otherwise BCOBS would be rendered completely ineffective by the bank's terms and conditions). If you discuss your bank's treatment of you calmly with a group of friends or colleagues and the general feeling is you have been treated unfairly, then the chances are you have been. Unfairness depends on the circumstances. British judges have been deciding what is reasonable or unfair for hundreds of years so it does not pose much of a problem for them. Examples Here are a few common examples of treatment likely to be unfair, although none of these have been tested in court yet. They are drawn from examples discussed on the Consumer Action Group website. * You or your business have been a long-standing customer of your bank and have kept your affairs generally in order. You suddenly receive a demand for repayment of the overdraft you have depended upon for some time. There is no apparent reason why this demand should have been made, but the bank says they are allowed to do this because of the contract. * Your bank has refused to allow you to have a "planned" overdraft because of your poor circumstances. However when a forgotten direct debit pushes you over the edge, the bank allows you to have an "unplanned overdraft" and you start incurring charges at a higher rate that plunge you into a spiral of debt. * Your bank blocks payment of cheques or direct debits and starts adding charges to your account even though you have received no discernible benefit or service from the bank. * Your bank refuses to discuss your circumstances with you when you fall into hardship. * Your bank takes your benefits money to pay charges or other bank debts even though you have made it clear you are on benefits and have priority commitments such as food and rent or clothes for your children. * Your bank's computer systems suffer a glitch that means certain bills such as gas or loan repayments are not paid automatically or a house purchase cannot be completed. As a result you incur charges from other companies, or your credit file is marked by other companies. Your bank refuses to take steps to remedy this damage or to compensate you for the time and inconvenience and stress incurred sorting out the mess. * You are suffering hardship and you enter into an agreement to repay a debt in regular instalments. Although you never miss a payment and your difficult circumstances haven't changed, your bank for no reason suddenly insists on a higher rate of instalment or complete repayment of the debt. Your bank's demand is likely to plunge you into greater difficulty because either you cannot afford to comply or else if you do, you will be unable to keep up payments to other creditors who have accepted similar repayment schemes. Having a go County court small claims are quick, easy, effective and cheap, although you will forfeit your court fee if you lose. The simplest way for an ordinary individual to bring an action based on BCOBS is to allege that the BCOBS requirements form part of your current account contract (which they do) and that by breaching BCOBS, your bank has committed a breach of contract (which it has). Keep your claim for compensation modest. The key is to obtain a judgement in which the judge agrees your bank has breached its statutory duty. A modest claim, say for £100 or £200, will mean that you risk a much smaller claims fee if you lose. A county court judgement on the basis of a BCOBS breach can have serious consequences for your bank. If you win, your next step would be to send a copy of the court judgement to the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as part of a formal complaint. The FSA has the power to impose very serious sanctions on the banks if they breach the BCOBS rules. Your bank would be very anxious for this not to happen, but this is the only way to start encouraging good behaviour from your bank. Official help? It is hardly surprising that the British Banking Association's guide to BCOBS makes no mention whatsoever of this powerful consumer right. Rather more surprising is that the FSA's own Know Your Rights guide makes no mention either. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) website only makes passing references to BCOBS. Under the previous Banking Code, it was the FOS which dealt with breaches of it. I am doubtful about the ability of the FOS to apply the new rules. According to the FOS, it seeks to achieve outcomes that are fair to both sides. But BCOBS is much more one sided - in favour of customers - and requires fair treatment of bank customers in order to offset the inherent inequality in your bargaining-power. As the FOS objectives do not seem to square very well with those laid out in BCOBS, I suggest you take the legal route in the county courts if you have a legitimate complaint about unfair treatment by your bank. The opinions expressed are those of the author and are not held by the BBC unless specifically stated. The material is for general information only and does not constitute investment, tax, legal or other form of advice. You should not rely on this information to make (or refrain from making) any decisions. Links to external sites are for information only and do not constitute endorsement. Always obtain independent professional advice for your own particular situation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19511542

Read Him His Rights

What the corporate policy enforcers SAY are your rights are: “You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention now, anything you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence.” Lets analyse this. The very first thing you are told AFTER you are under arrest is that ‘you do not have to say anything’. It is total logic that if you are at any time not under arrest then you have more rights than when you are under arrest. Therefore if you are not under arrest you are not obliged to say anything at all to a policeman, ever. They will tell you that this makes them suspicious; they can arrest you on suspicion only tell you that you have a right not to say anything. ‘but it may harm your defence’ MAY is confusing legal speak. It is legalese and does not as commonly misperceived actually mean ‘possibly’. It is granting permission. What it means to the policeman and in court is literally; ‘I give myself permission to…’ ‘may… your DEFENCE’ Thus assuming that you are on the defensive by the policeman giving himself authority to be on the offensive. The interesting interplay between two definitions of the word ‘offense’ here, however during an arrest is probably not the best time to be analyzing that particular issue. ‘Anything you do say will be given in evidence’ Yes, this is where you say “I AM UNDER DURESS” which destabilizes the arrest because it denies giving authority to that arrest. We are policed by consent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oAwnw-mLNs&feature=related If a policeman asks you “Do you understand” he does not mean ‘Do you comprehend?'. It is more legalese. It means 'Do you stand beneath my authority' and if you say “yes" then you have given him the power above you. A maxim of Law is that we are all equal under Law. If you say “no” then you retain your real Rights. Rights are Rights. They are automatically yours by Right. That is what it means. The only possible time your Rights do not apply is if you are being abused or if someone has tricked you into giving away your rights. There is a law (I will have to check up on exactly what it says) that if you have been tricked into giving your rights away, the result is void because the real rights remain your rights. For example if I sign a contract agreeing to allow somebody to kill me and that person kills me, they are not exempt from being incarcerated for murder. Rights are definitive. Now it is time to analyse our REAL Rights which is NOT what the policeman say are your rights. This is your homework assignment. Despite Rights being What Is Right, if you do not speak up in defense of your rights then you have none. If you do not know your Rights then you are a push-over. If I spell it out here for you, you will forget it by tomorrow. If you put time and effort into educating yourself, you will deserve your Rights. Meanwhile let us explore a finishing topic; Oath of Constable: “I swear to serve the Queen with fairness integrity diligence and impartiality upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.” The wording is confusing in that to ‘discharge all the duties thereof’ technically means ‘to let go of’ / ‘release from’. Therefore the oath is a promise both to do something and to remove obligation to do it. What the? I have not yet ascertained the legal meaning of discharged. One would think that it means the opposite of being charged (with an offense). Not that the corporate policy enforcers nor parliament care about such matters, however the Office of Fair Trading states that; "It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner." It would be a very different sort of community were they to apply this to themselves. Additional: Names, Castes & Wiki on Egalitarianism To claim ownership of a name of a legal fiction person (a name on a birth certificate) puts you under governmental policy enforcement jurisdiction. This is why a policyman requests your name. A name that has been registered (register means to 'transfer title ownership of deeds) means that the name is crown copyright and therefore in truth you would be committing theft to claim it as your own. A distinction must be made between the name of a piece of paper (a legal person) and the name of a flesh and blood living being with or without a soul (a natural person). This distinction IS made and recognised by courts, by legislation. A name that does not exist on the database of registered names indicates a living being who is bound by Law but not bound by legislation. "A Statute is given the force of a Law by consent of the governed." and I do not consent to be governed. My name is Commonly Known As somebody, it is not Mr. somebody. Mr somebody is a paperwork. Living beings make paperwork. Paperwork does not make living beings. See the hierarchy? The Common Law of our Ancestors also known as the Law of the Land is easy to abide by and remember;Do not steal from, trick or harm anybody; and Keep the Peace. If you live within that then you have not broken any laws. Everything else is statutory regulations legislated by parliament, who are empowered to do so by the monarchy, and is 'legal' rather than 'lawful'. You only have to abide by all of that if you consent to the paperwork (legal person) being you (the natural person). The authorities might not like this approach, they assume that everyone is a legal fiction and anyone who is evasive about it is likely to be persecuted hard. This is because the deception has corrupted so many peoples minds that they cannot recognise common sense. It is a money industry sworn to protect itself. The following is some quick research I did in Wikipedia: “Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law.[2] The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world. The idea of human rights[3] states, "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights “Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments. A legal right can be enforced in courts of law against another who has infringed the right. The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.[3] Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative rights[4], whereas human rights also comprise positive rights.[5]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights DISCLAIMER: This document is not in any way intended as antagonism. It is intended as exploration of situations involving Rights and corporate policy enforcers, and for educational purposes; and without ill will, frivolity nor vexation. All rights reserved. COMMENTS PLEASE WELCOME first published on facebook 2.9.2012 Associated Links: http://www.mckenziefriend.com http://www.hmpbritain.co.uk/police-are-there-as-public-servants/ http://www.thelioness.co.uk/POLICEDBYCONSENT.php