Bank / Building Societies – Notification of Interest Rates

It should be mandatory for the saving institutions to mark clearly upon a customers statements both paper and inetrnet, the current rate of interest being paid and if it is gross or nett.

Also that they clearly mark on the statement under which license they are operating and who are the other banks under this license.

Why is this idea important?

It should be mandatory for the saving institutions to mark clearly upon a customers statements both paper and inetrnet, the current rate of interest being paid and if it is gross or nett.

Also that they clearly mark on the statement under which license they are operating and who are the other banks under this license.

ABOLISH ALL BONUSES

The pay for a job should be the pay. Bonuses are obscene, unfair, clearly unrelated to performance and are creating a massive drain on public money that is needed more justly for front line services.

Why is this idea important?

The pay for a job should be the pay. Bonuses are obscene, unfair, clearly unrelated to performance and are creating a massive drain on public money that is needed more justly for front line services.

EMPLOYERS TO GO BACK TO WEEKLY PAYMENTS.

HELLO.   YEARS AGO WHEN  I WAS IN MY 20'S, I HAD A WEEKLY WAGE FROM MY EMPLOYER WITH A WAGE SLIP INSIDE THE ENVELOPE. 

THIS WAY EMPLOYERS SORTED ANY MONEY PROBLEMS STRAIGHT AWAY.

PAID BILLS  THROUGH POST OFFICE OR BANK BY PAY SLIP  FROM COMPANY THAT YOU ARE PAYING.

STOPS BANKS CHARGES. ( DIRECT DEBIT IS A HUGE PROBLEM FOR US TO USE)

COMPANIES TAKE YOUR MONEY WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

I SPOKE TO BACS- THEY SAY THE MONEY TAKES 3 DAYS.

I HAVE BEEN CHARGED £20.00 FOR 10P OVERDRWN ON MY ACCOUNT.  I  ON BENFITS WITH DISABILITY, I CONTACTED THEM, THEY WONT REFUND IT FOR ME.

EVERYTHING I LIVE ON IS FOR FOOD , BILLS AND RENT.

PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS.   COMPANIES CAN DO WEEKLY WAGE, ITS FAR BETTER THAN  MONTHLY PAYMENT.

THANKYOU FOR YOUR TIME.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, NICK CLEGG AND DAVID CAMERON ARE VERY NICE  PEOPLE.

THEY HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS TO SORT OUT.

I HAVE AN IDEA FOR YOU. GET BACK BANK BONUSES FROM THE MANGERS WHO PUT YOU IN THIS MESS.  WELL THEY DID  TAKE THOUSANDS FOR MESSING UP THE COUNTRY. 

NOW US LOW PAID PEOPLE ARE IN  POCVERTY.  I KNOW YOU WILL HELP US.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

HELLO.   YEARS AGO WHEN  I WAS IN MY 20'S, I HAD A WEEKLY WAGE FROM MY EMPLOYER WITH A WAGE SLIP INSIDE THE ENVELOPE. 

THIS WAY EMPLOYERS SORTED ANY MONEY PROBLEMS STRAIGHT AWAY.

PAID BILLS  THROUGH POST OFFICE OR BANK BY PAY SLIP  FROM COMPANY THAT YOU ARE PAYING.

STOPS BANKS CHARGES. ( DIRECT DEBIT IS A HUGE PROBLEM FOR US TO USE)

COMPANIES TAKE YOUR MONEY WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

I SPOKE TO BACS- THEY SAY THE MONEY TAKES 3 DAYS.

I HAVE BEEN CHARGED £20.00 FOR 10P OVERDRWN ON MY ACCOUNT.  I  ON BENFITS WITH DISABILITY, I CONTACTED THEM, THEY WONT REFUND IT FOR ME.

EVERYTHING I LIVE ON IS FOR FOOD , BILLS AND RENT.

PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS.   COMPANIES CAN DO WEEKLY WAGE, ITS FAR BETTER THAN  MONTHLY PAYMENT.

THANKYOU FOR YOUR TIME.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, NICK CLEGG AND DAVID CAMERON ARE VERY NICE  PEOPLE.

THEY HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS TO SORT OUT.

I HAVE AN IDEA FOR YOU. GET BACK BANK BONUSES FROM THE MANGERS WHO PUT YOU IN THIS MESS.  WELL THEY DID  TAKE THOUSANDS FOR MESSING UP THE COUNTRY. 

NOW US LOW PAID PEOPLE ARE IN  POCVERTY.  I KNOW YOU WILL HELP US.

 

 

Restoring the Liberties Taken by the UK Banking Industry

This is a suggestion under the heading of Restoring Civil Liberties. 

It relates to the bank bailout and the liberties the Financial Sector took in excessive risk taking with money that was not truly theirs to gamble with.  This became a Civil Liberty when we all had to bail them out.

My suggestion for restoring this liberty is that the laws on Government company ownership should be changed such that, before the Government is allowed to sell off the shares they have acquired in these institutions, all UK tax payers should be given first option on buying a modest stake. 

Restoring the liberties in this way could then mean that we as taxpayers and share holders could have a say in future salaries and bonus payments and the level of risk we wanted our banks to take. 

Further variations on this concept could be that all young people (say under 16 or 18) who have had their life chances affected by the cuts to the School Building Programme, child tax credits, and child trust funds could be given a small stake, say £200, to introduce them to the concept of share ownership and an interest in how commerce works.  I would not be adverse to the idea of this being funded through a small levy on the public subscriptions (if we paid slightly over the odds then fewer people would be tempted to sell off their stake as we all did with the 1980's sell offs!)

Alternatively pensioners could be given the opportunity to be given shares in lieu of a portion of index linked pension allowing the Government to reduce its cash liability for future pensions.  Pensioners could gain more from the dividends from the banks than they will from the limited rises likely from the state pension in future years.

Another option would be for prisoners detained at HM pleasure could be paid for working inside in shares.  Convicted criminals would then be able to vote on bankers bonuses – which has a kind of poetic justice about it.

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

This is a suggestion under the heading of Restoring Civil Liberties. 

It relates to the bank bailout and the liberties the Financial Sector took in excessive risk taking with money that was not truly theirs to gamble with.  This became a Civil Liberty when we all had to bail them out.

My suggestion for restoring this liberty is that the laws on Government company ownership should be changed such that, before the Government is allowed to sell off the shares they have acquired in these institutions, all UK tax payers should be given first option on buying a modest stake. 

Restoring the liberties in this way could then mean that we as taxpayers and share holders could have a say in future salaries and bonus payments and the level of risk we wanted our banks to take. 

Further variations on this concept could be that all young people (say under 16 or 18) who have had their life chances affected by the cuts to the School Building Programme, child tax credits, and child trust funds could be given a small stake, say £200, to introduce them to the concept of share ownership and an interest in how commerce works.  I would not be adverse to the idea of this being funded through a small levy on the public subscriptions (if we paid slightly over the odds then fewer people would be tempted to sell off their stake as we all did with the 1980's sell offs!)

Alternatively pensioners could be given the opportunity to be given shares in lieu of a portion of index linked pension allowing the Government to reduce its cash liability for future pensions.  Pensioners could gain more from the dividends from the banks than they will from the limited rises likely from the state pension in future years.

Another option would be for prisoners detained at HM pleasure could be paid for working inside in shares.  Convicted criminals would then be able to vote on bankers bonuses – which has a kind of poetic justice about it.

 

 

 

 

 

Reduce unnecessary money laundering requirements

Remove the money laundering requirements which make it necessary to re-prove identity to a bank and/or stockbroker when certain trading limits or transactions are reached or when new products/accounts are required.. 

You can't have an account in the first place without confirming identity so, having done so once, it should not be necessary to do so again.

This is particularly true bearing in mind the additional legal requirement for staff of such companies to report "out of the ordinary transactions" to the police for investigation into possible money laundering.

As it stands I can lose time and money when I try to sell shares I hold if the sale takes my cumulative dealings over a (secret) limit.  I then cannot deal until my id is confirmed again.  Crazy and very frustrating it will be!

Why is this idea important?

Remove the money laundering requirements which make it necessary to re-prove identity to a bank and/or stockbroker when certain trading limits or transactions are reached or when new products/accounts are required.. 

You can't have an account in the first place without confirming identity so, having done so once, it should not be necessary to do so again.

This is particularly true bearing in mind the additional legal requirement for staff of such companies to report "out of the ordinary transactions" to the police for investigation into possible money laundering.

As it stands I can lose time and money when I try to sell shares I hold if the sale takes my cumulative dealings over a (secret) limit.  I then cannot deal until my id is confirmed again.  Crazy and very frustrating it will be!

Money laundering regulations

That the requirement for financial institutions and other organisations to check customer ID is re-framed to ensure that the requirements placed on the customer are proportionate to the risk that the regulations are trying to stop, ie money laundering.

Why is this idea important?

That the requirement for financial institutions and other organisations to check customer ID is re-framed to ensure that the requirements placed on the customer are proportionate to the risk that the regulations are trying to stop, ie money laundering.

Relaxation of restrictions on ability of charities to invest.

Charities are told that Banks are restricted by regulations in regard to the type of deposit accounts they may offer, and therefore the rate of interest they provide. These 'regulations' should be made less rigid and more flexible, so that charities may earn a reasonable rate of return. The rates offered by the Banks in no way reflect the returns the banks themselves earn by using the depositors monies. 

Why is this idea important?

Charities are told that Banks are restricted by regulations in regard to the type of deposit accounts they may offer, and therefore the rate of interest they provide. These 'regulations' should be made less rigid and more flexible, so that charities may earn a reasonable rate of return. The rates offered by the Banks in no way reflect the returns the banks themselves earn by using the depositors monies. 

You can steal from a dying relatives bank account and the police won’t get involved!!!

To change the law because at the moment a relative can steal from a dying man's bank account, watch his life slipping away and make transation after transaction and even though proof, bank statements, dates of admission to hospital etc are supplied to the police, they choose not to look at them and send you on your way. How is this justice? Thousands of pounds can be withdrawn. You can also ransack their house whilst they are dying in hospital, force locks on cash tins and empty cash tins. You can take thousands. The police call it a civil matter so won't get involved. How do I know? It happened at Hartlepool Police Station on Monday. I have made an official complaint. The man that this happened too was my granda. Where is his justice?

Why is this idea important?

To change the law because at the moment a relative can steal from a dying man's bank account, watch his life slipping away and make transation after transaction and even though proof, bank statements, dates of admission to hospital etc are supplied to the police, they choose not to look at them and send you on your way. How is this justice? Thousands of pounds can be withdrawn. You can also ransack their house whilst they are dying in hospital, force locks on cash tins and empty cash tins. You can take thousands. The police call it a civil matter so won't get involved. How do I know? It happened at Hartlepool Police Station on Monday. I have made an official complaint. The man that this happened too was my granda. Where is his justice?

Overdraft.

My idea is to change the law for the international student, as coming to the United Kingdom. When the student arrived in the U.K. to study, they should not be entitled to any kind of banking credit or debit card or overdraft limit. As I have seen many international student came to U.K. and then graduated. Once they have complete their graduation, they work for sometimes and then suddenly they live the country without notifying the bank or other organisation. Afterword’s, student live the U.K. return to their country and then disappear to thin air and not to be found. Put the Bank and the country in high and dry.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to change the law for the international student, as coming to the United Kingdom. When the student arrived in the U.K. to study, they should not be entitled to any kind of banking credit or debit card or overdraft limit. As I have seen many international student came to U.K. and then graduated. Once they have complete their graduation, they work for sometimes and then suddenly they live the country without notifying the bank or other organisation. Afterword’s, student live the U.K. return to their country and then disappear to thin air and not to be found. Put the Bank and the country in high and dry.

Identity requirements for opening a bank account

The Id requirements for opening a bank account are very onerous – I can understand that this is a way of trying to stop illegal money entering the main money supply.  However, this has made opening a bank account very difficult – On a number of occasions I have had to provide ID and evidence of address when I already have a bank account with the bank with whom I wish to open a new account.  I live in a rural area and this often involves a special visit to the bank and can mean a drive of 60 miles round trip.  The banks say that they cannot find me electronically – I can't understand this as I am on the Electoral Roll. 

I don't think that this system works when it can't find honest citizens so how will it deter those who aren't honest.

I often find it difficult to meet the ID requirements unless I go into the bank with my passport or driving licence – I often don't have the other required documents.

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The Id requirements for opening a bank account are very onerous – I can understand that this is a way of trying to stop illegal money entering the main money supply.  However, this has made opening a bank account very difficult – On a number of occasions I have had to provide ID and evidence of address when I already have a bank account with the bank with whom I wish to open a new account.  I live in a rural area and this often involves a special visit to the bank and can mean a drive of 60 miles round trip.  The banks say that they cannot find me electronically – I can't understand this as I am on the Electoral Roll. 

I don't think that this system works when it can't find honest citizens so how will it deter those who aren't honest.

I often find it difficult to meet the ID requirements unless I go into the bank with my passport or driving licence – I often don't have the other required documents.

 

 

 

 

 

Empower the Grey Panthers

City folklore suggests banking regulators are motivated to a) avoid blame fore recent issues b) stay alive c) avoid regulatory arbitrage. There is a collosal amount of legacy and new regulation in the pipeline. Penalties are not evenly apportioned. Key regulators appear overworked and uncertain.

Within the Tier 1 investment banks, Compliance teams and Business heads are not working together well enough to meet the public's demands for a more responsible City. A victim culture still exists whereby responsibility for compliance is not being owned by the right people. Penalites are views as ill-informed, arbitrary and consequently an ostritch-style gambler approach emerges. Do nothing and wait for our competitor to get it in the neck, then we'll put a plaster on.

Rather than wait for major (ill-directed, fear-based?) penalties and perhaps more systemic rupture to force a short-termist City to change attitude, I would argue changed/new legislation to expand the role of the FSA's "grey panthers". They have significant and deeply respect reputation over many years for integrity and discretion. Rather than being deployed to find regulatory failures, I believe a more pragmatic and successful line would include coaching and mentoring Head of Product Line Operations to take responsibility for regulatory risk (within their firms and collaborating through the trade body).

If Product lines and COOs do not step up the plate, given this support, then the FSA has every reason to fine heavily, and fine individuals too by barring them from working in the financial serivces. That will work better than a £33.3m fine against JPM, where client money issues were missed by the auditor, the regulator and the bank itself for years.

By working diirectly with decision makers across the City, being employed by the FSA, and liasing with Commissioner Barnier, SEC, etc, the Grey Panther could save a lot of risk, cost and time all round.

This apporach shoudl support a robust, hard-fighting and well-regulated City.

Why is this idea important?

City folklore suggests banking regulators are motivated to a) avoid blame fore recent issues b) stay alive c) avoid regulatory arbitrage. There is a collosal amount of legacy and new regulation in the pipeline. Penalties are not evenly apportioned. Key regulators appear overworked and uncertain.

Within the Tier 1 investment banks, Compliance teams and Business heads are not working together well enough to meet the public's demands for a more responsible City. A victim culture still exists whereby responsibility for compliance is not being owned by the right people. Penalites are views as ill-informed, arbitrary and consequently an ostritch-style gambler approach emerges. Do nothing and wait for our competitor to get it in the neck, then we'll put a plaster on.

Rather than wait for major (ill-directed, fear-based?) penalties and perhaps more systemic rupture to force a short-termist City to change attitude, I would argue changed/new legislation to expand the role of the FSA's "grey panthers". They have significant and deeply respect reputation over many years for integrity and discretion. Rather than being deployed to find regulatory failures, I believe a more pragmatic and successful line would include coaching and mentoring Head of Product Line Operations to take responsibility for regulatory risk (within their firms and collaborating through the trade body).

If Product lines and COOs do not step up the plate, given this support, then the FSA has every reason to fine heavily, and fine individuals too by barring them from working in the financial serivces. That will work better than a £33.3m fine against JPM, where client money issues were missed by the auditor, the regulator and the bank itself for years.

By working diirectly with decision makers across the City, being employed by the FSA, and liasing with Commissioner Barnier, SEC, etc, the Grey Panther could save a lot of risk, cost and time all round.

This apporach shoudl support a robust, hard-fighting and well-regulated City.

Revocation of Limited Liability for Banks and other “Critical” Businesses

Any bank, or other business, or an individual sector of the economy whose survival is considered necessary to the health of the nation's economy should not be permitted to benefit from laws and regulations granting limited liability.

Limited liability laws should be repealed, except for those organisations whose failure would not be serious enough to justify taxpayers' money being spent to repair or mitigate the damage.

Why is this idea important?

Any bank, or other business, or an individual sector of the economy whose survival is considered necessary to the health of the nation's economy should not be permitted to benefit from laws and regulations granting limited liability.

Limited liability laws should be repealed, except for those organisations whose failure would not be serious enough to justify taxpayers' money being spent to repair or mitigate the damage.

Stop NIMBYism harming motorsport and the motorsport industry

Residents that have moved into an area where a motorsport circuit, venue or facility was already established should not be able to lodge complaints against the circuit or organiser in terms of sound or traffic.

Proper research and effective reports by estate agents and solicitors should have highlighted the existence of the site in the locality at time of purchase, and if they didn't, the fault therefore lies with the house purchaser and their agents, not the owners of the pre-existing venue.

Therefore, restrictions should not be placed on motorsport activities where new local residents lodge NIMBYistic complaints against the event or venue.

Why is this idea important?

Residents that have moved into an area where a motorsport circuit, venue or facility was already established should not be able to lodge complaints against the circuit or organiser in terms of sound or traffic.

Proper research and effective reports by estate agents and solicitors should have highlighted the existence of the site in the locality at time of purchase, and if they didn't, the fault therefore lies with the house purchaser and their agents, not the owners of the pre-existing venue.

Therefore, restrictions should not be placed on motorsport activities where new local residents lodge NIMBYistic complaints against the event or venue.

Enact the Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010

Forcing millions of ordinary people to borrow their means of exchange into existence from the banks at their own risk and expense, in the form of over-priced mortgages and other loans, and then taxing them to service government debt on top of that, severely limits economic independence and freedom of choice.  If the definition of a slave is not ill-treatment, but the fact that he or she has no say in their own policy, the decision to tax the people to save the banks, without any offer of a vote or any discussion of alternative means of creating new purchasing power, reduces large swaths of the population to slavery.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 proposes a simple reform which will dramatically reduce taxes, while at the same time expanding and maintaining infrastructure and providing decent public services.

The Bill establishes as its Universal Principle that: “Throughout the entire banking and deposit taking system … every credit to an account must be matched by an equal debit from a different account.”  Only the Bank of England will be exempt from this requirement, thereby enjoying sole right to create all of the UK’s new money, both cash and non-cash.

Enactment of the Bill will complete the work of The Bank Charter Act of 1844, which made it as illegal for the commercial banks to print notes as it already was for them to mint coins.  Under the Act it will also be illegal for them to create non-cash money in the form of "credit".  In effect, the money supply will be nationalised without any need to nationalise the banks, which will continue to compete for their profits in the open market – with the difference that they will now confine themselves to borrowing and lending money which already exists.

With money recognised as a public utility, the MPC will be responsible for issuing or withdrawing it from circulation directly, instead of depending on the blunt instrument of interest rates to control inflation; and any new money created can be spent into circulation on  public works and services as indicated by voters in the usual way, at general elections.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 is online, with detailed explanations and FAQs, at http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/.

Why is this idea important?

Forcing millions of ordinary people to borrow their means of exchange into existence from the banks at their own risk and expense, in the form of over-priced mortgages and other loans, and then taxing them to service government debt on top of that, severely limits economic independence and freedom of choice.  If the definition of a slave is not ill-treatment, but the fact that he or she has no say in their own policy, the decision to tax the people to save the banks, without any offer of a vote or any discussion of alternative means of creating new purchasing power, reduces large swaths of the population to slavery.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 proposes a simple reform which will dramatically reduce taxes, while at the same time expanding and maintaining infrastructure and providing decent public services.

The Bill establishes as its Universal Principle that: “Throughout the entire banking and deposit taking system … every credit to an account must be matched by an equal debit from a different account.”  Only the Bank of England will be exempt from this requirement, thereby enjoying sole right to create all of the UK’s new money, both cash and non-cash.

Enactment of the Bill will complete the work of The Bank Charter Act of 1844, which made it as illegal for the commercial banks to print notes as it already was for them to mint coins.  Under the Act it will also be illegal for them to create non-cash money in the form of "credit".  In effect, the money supply will be nationalised without any need to nationalise the banks, which will continue to compete for their profits in the open market – with the difference that they will now confine themselves to borrowing and lending money which already exists.

With money recognised as a public utility, the MPC will be responsible for issuing or withdrawing it from circulation directly, instead of depending on the blunt instrument of interest rates to control inflation; and any new money created can be spent into circulation on  public works and services as indicated by voters in the usual way, at general elections.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 is online, with detailed explanations and FAQs, at http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/.

Make The Banking System Legitimate Again

Over the past few hundred years, Britain has moved from a gold-based currency based upon the physical metal, through to paper receipts claiming that that gold is stored in the vaults of a goldsmith, through to paper without backing, and now to electronic, debt-based money created by privately owned banks, on a whim.

What do I mean? The Bank Of England used to print many notes, and produce many coins, free of debt which people could exchange to pay for goods and services.

Now, most of those notes and coins over the past few decades have been replaced by electronic money, created by banks, issued as credit on which interest is owed. This has happened as people have liked the convenience electronic cards offer.

But what's the effect? Now, we pay an awful lot of interest on merely the cash in circulation, back to privately owned banks, who never created the wealth necessary to give that cash its value in the first place.

It amounts to a private tax.

This is not the sort of problem though to be solved on an online forum about freedom, but it is a forum in which it should be brought to light.

Set up a panel investigating social injustices of the financial system as it has evolved. Banking as it stands at the moment exists because a legal system is in place allowing it to grow and develop.

This panel should consist of those qualified to speak on the subject – for example academics, former banking employees who have less interest and pressure to support the system as it stands, and most of all, awareness of this issue should be significantly increased by finally encouraging a debate on the subject.

Why is this idea important?

Over the past few hundred years, Britain has moved from a gold-based currency based upon the physical metal, through to paper receipts claiming that that gold is stored in the vaults of a goldsmith, through to paper without backing, and now to electronic, debt-based money created by privately owned banks, on a whim.

What do I mean? The Bank Of England used to print many notes, and produce many coins, free of debt which people could exchange to pay for goods and services.

Now, most of those notes and coins over the past few decades have been replaced by electronic money, created by banks, issued as credit on which interest is owed. This has happened as people have liked the convenience electronic cards offer.

But what's the effect? Now, we pay an awful lot of interest on merely the cash in circulation, back to privately owned banks, who never created the wealth necessary to give that cash its value in the first place.

It amounts to a private tax.

This is not the sort of problem though to be solved on an online forum about freedom, but it is a forum in which it should be brought to light.

Set up a panel investigating social injustices of the financial system as it has evolved. Banking as it stands at the moment exists because a legal system is in place allowing it to grow and develop.

This panel should consist of those qualified to speak on the subject – for example academics, former banking employees who have less interest and pressure to support the system as it stands, and most of all, awareness of this issue should be significantly increased by finally encouraging a debate on the subject.

Enhance ease of communication between banks and customers.

Introduction of requirement that all branches of banks and other retail financial institutions should have a standard geographical telephone number so that contact can be made without the need to use expensive non-geographic numbers (often characterised by lengthy queues).

Why is this idea important?

Introduction of requirement that all branches of banks and other retail financial institutions should have a standard geographical telephone number so that contact can be made without the need to use expensive non-geographic numbers (often characterised by lengthy queues).

Allow the housing bubble to correct

Allow the massive housing bubble to correct, thus providing affordable housing, thus giving us all more money in our pockets, helping to build a sustainable workable economy.

Why is this idea important?

Allow the massive housing bubble to correct, thus providing affordable housing, thus giving us all more money in our pockets, helping to build a sustainable workable economy.

Remove Credit Reference Agencies Right to a Persons information without our permission

Credit Reference Agencies seem to think it is their moral duty to have information concerning us,without care or concern they add data to your file and without your permision,they can collate references without your knowledge and they keep this data which may hold  information which is untrue  or incorrect,they also charge you for  the privelage to see what they hold,this charge must be removed and be free so we can check wether or not it is correct and factual,for too long banks have had the upper hand in trashing your information and this does affect you for years to come,

if the information is in dispute the CRA'S must inform you and your right to reply must be added to the information gathered it also must  be compulsary for these agancies to  send you a copy of the information before they enter it onto their books,if it is factual then this is fair but if it involves a default coming from anyone you must be able to dispute this and they must never accept any information from DEBT COLLECTION AGENTS who will trash your files for years to come and not just the six years as you imagine but it can go on every 5 years and 11 months thereafter,in other words you have no say….the time has come where you are able now to charge the CRA'S with data that is untrue and we should be allowed legal aid free to prosecute the companies involved

Why is this idea important?

Credit Reference Agencies seem to think it is their moral duty to have information concerning us,without care or concern they add data to your file and without your permision,they can collate references without your knowledge and they keep this data which may hold  information which is untrue  or incorrect,they also charge you for  the privelage to see what they hold,this charge must be removed and be free so we can check wether or not it is correct and factual,for too long banks have had the upper hand in trashing your information and this does affect you for years to come,

if the information is in dispute the CRA'S must inform you and your right to reply must be added to the information gathered it also must  be compulsary for these agancies to  send you a copy of the information before they enter it onto their books,if it is factual then this is fair but if it involves a default coming from anyone you must be able to dispute this and they must never accept any information from DEBT COLLECTION AGENTS who will trash your files for years to come and not just the six years as you imagine but it can go on every 5 years and 11 months thereafter,in other words you have no say….the time has come where you are able now to charge the CRA'S with data that is untrue and we should be allowed legal aid free to prosecute the companies involved

How about a REAL bank of ENGLAND

The bank of "England" is located in the "city of london" a suitably ambiguous name for somewhere that wants to hide the fact it isn't actually London OR England,

So why is the bank of ENGLAND, NOT in ENGLAND?! Because it's a private company, that we all rely on to screw us royally through nothing more than an interest based ponzi scheme

If we are to EVER fix the financial issues facing the country, we must face the rather massive elephant in the room that is the bank of 'england' – a PRIVATE company that we give everything to, and yet receive nothing back from in return,

Why is this idea important?

The bank of "England" is located in the "city of london" a suitably ambiguous name for somewhere that wants to hide the fact it isn't actually London OR England,

So why is the bank of ENGLAND, NOT in ENGLAND?! Because it's a private company, that we all rely on to screw us royally through nothing more than an interest based ponzi scheme

If we are to EVER fix the financial issues facing the country, we must face the rather massive elephant in the room that is the bank of 'england' – a PRIVATE company that we give everything to, and yet receive nothing back from in return,

late payment fees

credt card companies often introduce small new charges such as card insurance cover, without telling the customer. Then the customer finds a late payment fee has been charged when the payment has been missed.

I find this practice an example of stealth encroachment on our freedom, and I am not sure how legally valid it is.

Why is this idea important?

credt card companies often introduce small new charges such as card insurance cover, without telling the customer. Then the customer finds a late payment fee has been charged when the payment has been missed.

I find this practice an example of stealth encroachment on our freedom, and I am not sure how legally valid it is.