donate the money from the Goldman Sachs fine to local authorities

Today, September 9, it has been reported that the bank  Goldman Sachs has been fined £20 million by the FSA.

This money should be put to good use; some of it could be use to renovate my local library, Sydenham, for example.

Yesterday, the BBC Breakfast programme reported that many schools need heavy maintenance.

This money should be spent on such projects which will also stimulate local economies, instead of being "invested" in some bank at interest.

Why is this idea important?

Today, September 9, it has been reported that the bank  Goldman Sachs has been fined £20 million by the FSA.

This money should be put to good use; some of it could be use to renovate my local library, Sydenham, for example.

Yesterday, the BBC Breakfast programme reported that many schools need heavy maintenance.

This money should be spent on such projects which will also stimulate local economies, instead of being "invested" in some bank at interest.

Give people the power to remove their name from mortages

There are so many people that have bought houses jointly, possibly because they could not purchase on their own. When couples split up someone invariabley has to leave the house to enable each party to get on with their life. Mortgage companies make removing ones name from a house that they no longer live in near on impossible – and there doesn't appear to be any legal way to remove a name, even if you can prove the other person still living in the house can make the payments on their own.

I suggest giving people the power to remove their name from mortages based on a set of criteria(i.e. if after 1 year they can prove the other person has been able to make payments)

Why is this idea important?

There are so many people that have bought houses jointly, possibly because they could not purchase on their own. When couples split up someone invariabley has to leave the house to enable each party to get on with their life. Mortgage companies make removing ones name from a house that they no longer live in near on impossible – and there doesn't appear to be any legal way to remove a name, even if you can prove the other person still living in the house can make the payments on their own.

I suggest giving people the power to remove their name from mortages based on a set of criteria(i.e. if after 1 year they can prove the other person has been able to make payments)

Abolish FSA Regulation of Connected Travel Insurance Sales

We write to ask that you repeal this legislation the effect of which, in our experience, has been the opposite of that intended and has resulted in a far worse deal for the consumer.

Why is this idea important?

We write to ask that you repeal this legislation the effect of which, in our experience, has been the opposite of that intended and has resulted in a far worse deal for the consumer.

Change Insolvency Act so that bankruptcy does not mean loss of home

The Insolvency Act 1986 should be changed so that unsecured debt cannot be turned into secured debt on a person's home in the event of a Statutory Demand being served by debt collection agencies on unsecured debt in arrears.   

This is considered a loophole in the Insolvency Act, and is exploited by debt collection agencies who determine which debtors are homeowners and then threaten them with bankruptcy through the use of issuing Statutory Demands.     This in effect enables the debt collection agency to turn the unsecured debt they are seeking to collect into a secured debt on the debtors home.

Why is this idea important?

The Insolvency Act 1986 should be changed so that unsecured debt cannot be turned into secured debt on a person's home in the event of a Statutory Demand being served by debt collection agencies on unsecured debt in arrears.   

This is considered a loophole in the Insolvency Act, and is exploited by debt collection agencies who determine which debtors are homeowners and then threaten them with bankruptcy through the use of issuing Statutory Demands.     This in effect enables the debt collection agency to turn the unsecured debt they are seeking to collect into a secured debt on the debtors home.

abolish FSA’s “money made clear”

As an independent financial adviser working hard to give good advice to the public I find the above system to be totally inappropriate for the following reasons:

>in  trying to give advice the FSA are attempting to do the job of the advisers who they are supposed to regulate. This is a blatant conflict of interest

>the information given on the website often needs explanation to be interpreted and applied correctly. By posting the information for the public to use, the FSA are giving the public the very dangerous impression that the numbers tell the whole story, when for example, a mortgage applicant without professional advice can easily fall foul of unseen lock-ins or exit charges, escalating interest, heavy arrabgement fees, unnecesary legal costs – in other words the myriad of ways in which the banks seek to stitch up the public who are naive enough to enter important financial transactions without taking professional advice

> even worse, the information given by the FSA has been highlighted as being inaccurate, which means that they themselves are misleading the public who they are supposed to be protecting

>finally, by encouraging the public to act without advice the FSA is weakening independent advisers who in my view are the only group capable of steering the public through the morass of sales and marketing driven information designed to attract customers to the "sexiest" deal which may be totally inappropriate for the customer in question AND have hidden costs

Why is this idea important?

As an independent financial adviser working hard to give good advice to the public I find the above system to be totally inappropriate for the following reasons:

>in  trying to give advice the FSA are attempting to do the job of the advisers who they are supposed to regulate. This is a blatant conflict of interest

>the information given on the website often needs explanation to be interpreted and applied correctly. By posting the information for the public to use, the FSA are giving the public the very dangerous impression that the numbers tell the whole story, when for example, a mortgage applicant without professional advice can easily fall foul of unseen lock-ins or exit charges, escalating interest, heavy arrabgement fees, unnecesary legal costs – in other words the myriad of ways in which the banks seek to stitch up the public who are naive enough to enter important financial transactions without taking professional advice

> even worse, the information given by the FSA has been highlighted as being inaccurate, which means that they themselves are misleading the public who they are supposed to be protecting

>finally, by encouraging the public to act without advice the FSA is weakening independent advisers who in my view are the only group capable of steering the public through the morass of sales and marketing driven information designed to attract customers to the "sexiest" deal which may be totally inappropriate for the customer in question AND have hidden costs

Conduct an audit of the myriad of ways in which the Financial Services Authority makes IFAs’ lives impossible

I am the wife of a sole proprietor IFA (Independent Financiual Adviser).  He is driven crazy, several times a year, by FSA ridiculous requests for information or their imposition of such silly exercises as "Fairness Audit".  These are disproportionate to any risk posed by my husband's operations, since he has never had a complaint and he knows each client very well, hence can treat them all very personally and appropriately.  He does NOT need to demonstrate to a so-called "inspector", who has never herself provided this kind of service, that he has procedures to treat them "fairly".  I estimate that he spends around 20% of his usable time staisfying FSA demands for information/regulation etc.

The amount of time expended is increased, and stress exacerbated, by the FSA's own systems NEVER working properly, so that on-line returns are routinely impaired/impeded or impossible.  There seems to be no sanction on the FSA's own inefficiency or on their waste of IFAs' time.  To whom are they accountable and why are there no appeals processes in place for some of their pronouncements?

I am aware that the FSA is being broken up.  But in the meantime, PLEASE suspent some of its more silly demands on hard working IFAs who have never caused their clients a moment's anxiety!  And allow them to get on and earn a living, and serve their clients better.

Why is this idea important?

I am the wife of a sole proprietor IFA (Independent Financiual Adviser).  He is driven crazy, several times a year, by FSA ridiculous requests for information or their imposition of such silly exercises as "Fairness Audit".  These are disproportionate to any risk posed by my husband's operations, since he has never had a complaint and he knows each client very well, hence can treat them all very personally and appropriately.  He does NOT need to demonstrate to a so-called "inspector", who has never herself provided this kind of service, that he has procedures to treat them "fairly".  I estimate that he spends around 20% of his usable time staisfying FSA demands for information/regulation etc.

The amount of time expended is increased, and stress exacerbated, by the FSA's own systems NEVER working properly, so that on-line returns are routinely impaired/impeded or impossible.  There seems to be no sanction on the FSA's own inefficiency or on their waste of IFAs' time.  To whom are they accountable and why are there no appeals processes in place for some of their pronouncements?

I am aware that the FSA is being broken up.  But in the meantime, PLEASE suspent some of its more silly demands on hard working IFAs who have never caused their clients a moment's anxiety!  And allow them to get on and earn a living, and serve their clients better.

The FSA should reject Codex regulation – BLATANT HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION

 

This is a call for the Food Standards Agency to REJECT the regulation outlaid by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and drop all use of its legislation.

( http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/Codexbranch/ )

Description: The Codex Alimentarius is a threat to the freedom of people to choose natural healing and alternative medicine and nutrition.

 

‘IN BRIEF’ SECTION:

The Codex Alimentarius regulation standards being proposed affect lobal food standards and prohibit ability to manage our health naturally. These are some of the attributes the Codex Alimentarius paradigm is bringing.


Genetically modified (GM) food;

·      Driven by GM interests which argue world food requirements cannot be met without global implementation of GM.

·      Led by USA and Canada; EU may cave to pressure.

·      GM food plants being given the green light on safety.

·      Terminator’ seeds could be approved for international trade.

·      GM food animals are on the way.

Organic food;

·      ‘Dumbing-down’ of organic standards to suit interests of large food producers.

·      Promotion of large-scale, high-input agriculture and international freight.

·      Approval of various synthetic chemical additives and ‘processing aids’ in organic foods.

·      No outright ban on use of irradiation post-production.

·      Labelling allows use of hidden, non-organic ingredients

Food additives;

·      Approval as safe around 300 different food additives (mainly synthetic) including aspartame, BHA, BHT, potassium bromate, tartrazine, etc.

·      No consideration given to potential risks associated with long-term exposure to mixtures of additives

Pesticide residues;

·      Allows significant residues of over 3,275 different pesticides, including those that are suspected carcinogens or endocrine disruptors, e.g. 2,4-D, atrazine, methyl bromide.

·      No account taken of long-term effects of exposure to mixtures of residues in food.

Food/dietary supplements;

·      Setting very low maximum daily doses for supplements using scientifically flawed risk assessment methods.

·      Effectively establishing international borderline between foods and drugs for nutrients, forcing therapeutic nutrients into drug category.

·      Requirement for clinical trials to substantiate health claims; too expensive for small companies. Therefore provides passport system for big corporations and acts as obstacle to freedom of speech for smaller ones.

·      Setting of unnecessarily low Nutrient Reference Values which seriously understate requirements for long-term optimum health for given sub-populations, age groups and genders

 

 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is responsible for establishing a system of guidelines, standards and recommendations that guide the direction of the global food supply. It aims to tell us what is safe, but in the process often uses criteria that are manipulated to support the interests of the world’s largest corporations.

Why is this idea important?

 

This is a call for the Food Standards Agency to REJECT the regulation outlaid by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and drop all use of its legislation.

( http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/Codexbranch/ )

Description: The Codex Alimentarius is a threat to the freedom of people to choose natural healing and alternative medicine and nutrition.

 

‘IN BRIEF’ SECTION:

The Codex Alimentarius regulation standards being proposed affect lobal food standards and prohibit ability to manage our health naturally. These are some of the attributes the Codex Alimentarius paradigm is bringing.


Genetically modified (GM) food;

·      Driven by GM interests which argue world food requirements cannot be met without global implementation of GM.

·      Led by USA and Canada; EU may cave to pressure.

·      GM food plants being given the green light on safety.

·      Terminator’ seeds could be approved for international trade.

·      GM food animals are on the way.

Organic food;

·      ‘Dumbing-down’ of organic standards to suit interests of large food producers.

·      Promotion of large-scale, high-input agriculture and international freight.

·      Approval of various synthetic chemical additives and ‘processing aids’ in organic foods.

·      No outright ban on use of irradiation post-production.

·      Labelling allows use of hidden, non-organic ingredients

Food additives;

·      Approval as safe around 300 different food additives (mainly synthetic) including aspartame, BHA, BHT, potassium bromate, tartrazine, etc.

·      No consideration given to potential risks associated with long-term exposure to mixtures of additives

Pesticide residues;

·      Allows significant residues of over 3,275 different pesticides, including those that are suspected carcinogens or endocrine disruptors, e.g. 2,4-D, atrazine, methyl bromide.

·      No account taken of long-term effects of exposure to mixtures of residues in food.

Food/dietary supplements;

·      Setting very low maximum daily doses for supplements using scientifically flawed risk assessment methods.

·      Effectively establishing international borderline between foods and drugs for nutrients, forcing therapeutic nutrients into drug category.

·      Requirement for clinical trials to substantiate health claims; too expensive for small companies. Therefore provides passport system for big corporations and acts as obstacle to freedom of speech for smaller ones.

·      Setting of unnecessarily low Nutrient Reference Values which seriously understate requirements for long-term optimum health for given sub-populations, age groups and genders

 

 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is responsible for establishing a system of guidelines, standards and recommendations that guide the direction of the global food supply. It aims to tell us what is safe, but in the process often uses criteria that are manipulated to support the interests of the world’s largest corporations.

creditor penalties/fines

When Gordon Brown changed our financial system, he seems to have given companies offering credit carte blanche to 'fine' customers who might miss a payment for genuine reasons or fall on hard times.  As I've got older (60) I've only been able to find temporary work after being made redundant (without a big payoff) but, despite proving my income and expenditure some, such as Shop Direct who cover catalogue credit, have harangued and harassed me with threats, fines ('default' sums) despite paying over the odds each month after missing just one payment) until I had to contact the FSA ombudsman whereby they stopped and all charges dropped. I had, incidentally, paid for unemployment insurance but they wouldn/'t pay out.

But what about the poor devils who can't speak up for themselves and have charges put on top of charges -as well as the legitimate interest but that is calculated on the outstanding sum + the charges.  So the poor get poorer and these snakes who simply profiteer at the expense of the unfotunate go on to sell the debts in the sub-prime market which brought us the banking crisis in the first place. These charges should be made illegal. After all, these companies do not have to take on a customer and should bear the risks when they decide to do so. They are no better than doorstep loan sharks who constantly seek to increase the debt with spurious charges.

Why is this idea important?

When Gordon Brown changed our financial system, he seems to have given companies offering credit carte blanche to 'fine' customers who might miss a payment for genuine reasons or fall on hard times.  As I've got older (60) I've only been able to find temporary work after being made redundant (without a big payoff) but, despite proving my income and expenditure some, such as Shop Direct who cover catalogue credit, have harangued and harassed me with threats, fines ('default' sums) despite paying over the odds each month after missing just one payment) until I had to contact the FSA ombudsman whereby they stopped and all charges dropped. I had, incidentally, paid for unemployment insurance but they wouldn/'t pay out.

But what about the poor devils who can't speak up for themselves and have charges put on top of charges -as well as the legitimate interest but that is calculated on the outstanding sum + the charges.  So the poor get poorer and these snakes who simply profiteer at the expense of the unfotunate go on to sell the debts in the sub-prime market which brought us the banking crisis in the first place. These charges should be made illegal. After all, these companies do not have to take on a customer and should bear the risks when they decide to do so. They are no better than doorstep loan sharks who constantly seek to increase the debt with spurious charges.

MORTGAGES FOR ALL – 2

Why not have split lending rates?

 

Surely private individuals needing a home could be offered one rate (with appropriate controls) whilst business pays something more commercial.

 

Why allow low-earners to be subject to vagaries in bank rates?

Why is this idea important?

Why not have split lending rates?

 

Surely private individuals needing a home could be offered one rate (with appropriate controls) whilst business pays something more commercial.

 

Why allow low-earners to be subject to vagaries in bank rates?

MORTGAGES FOR ALL

Instead of regularly being subject to the whims of financial institutions, why not have a NATIONAL mortgage service?

 

Criteria would be universal; demographic considerations would be handled; fairness and equality a feature; continuity and simplicity;

Why is this idea important?

Instead of regularly being subject to the whims of financial institutions, why not have a NATIONAL mortgage service?

 

Criteria would be universal; demographic considerations would be handled; fairness and equality a feature; continuity and simplicity;

Regulatory tyranny

No one would suggest that the financial services industry does not need good, fair and accountable regulation.  Presently, it doesn't have that or anything like it.  The FSA is an unbridled monster, accountable to no one.  It sets it own agenda and budgets and anyone or any body who dares to stand in its way can basically go jump off a cliff or be trampled underfoot like some tiresome and inconsequential insect.

A Statutory Code of Practice For Regulators was drawn up in 2007 by the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory reform.  The FSA ignores it totally and nobody makes the slightest effort to enforce it.

A framework has already been designed and created to rein in the worst and most brazen excesses and injustices of the FSA.  All this government needs to do is put that structure into action, firstly with the FSA and then with the CPMA.  No new laws, no repealing of existing ones.  Just activate the framework we already have to regulate the regultor.

Why is this idea important?

No one would suggest that the financial services industry does not need good, fair and accountable regulation.  Presently, it doesn't have that or anything like it.  The FSA is an unbridled monster, accountable to no one.  It sets it own agenda and budgets and anyone or any body who dares to stand in its way can basically go jump off a cliff or be trampled underfoot like some tiresome and inconsequential insect.

A Statutory Code of Practice For Regulators was drawn up in 2007 by the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory reform.  The FSA ignores it totally and nobody makes the slightest effort to enforce it.

A framework has already been designed and created to rein in the worst and most brazen excesses and injustices of the FSA.  All this government needs to do is put that structure into action, firstly with the FSA and then with the CPMA.  No new laws, no repealing of existing ones.  Just activate the framework we already have to regulate the regultor.

Repeal the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000

All financial services firms are subject to the Act and the interpretation placed on it by the Financial Services Authority.

Unbeknownst to Parliament the passing of FSMA breached financial advisers human rights by retrospectively removing the ability to claim protection under the Limitation Act 1980. All other UK citizens and firms are able to rely upon the 15 year longstop to protect thrmselves against stale claims.

Financial advisers have not only lost this protection but it has been amde retrospective. In this regard they have lesser rights than terrorists, sex offenders and other unsavoury groups.

If we are fighting for a fairer and more just society then this distortion must be removed.

Why is this idea important?

All financial services firms are subject to the Act and the interpretation placed on it by the Financial Services Authority.

Unbeknownst to Parliament the passing of FSMA breached financial advisers human rights by retrospectively removing the ability to claim protection under the Limitation Act 1980. All other UK citizens and firms are able to rely upon the 15 year longstop to protect thrmselves against stale claims.

Financial advisers have not only lost this protection but it has been amde retrospective. In this regard they have lesser rights than terrorists, sex offenders and other unsavoury groups.

If we are fighting for a fairer and more just society then this distortion must be removed.

Revise Money Laundering Regulations

Amend these regulations so that a credit card company (Co-op Visa) cannot say to me that it is illegal for me to pay my credit card bill with cash!!

The Money Laundering Regulations are too wide in their application, causing unneccessay aggravation to honest citizens trying to carry out unremarkable transactions. They apply to activities with quite small monetary values. They also mean people feeling affronted at having to establish their identity over and over again. 

Why is this idea important?

Amend these regulations so that a credit card company (Co-op Visa) cannot say to me that it is illegal for me to pay my credit card bill with cash!!

The Money Laundering Regulations are too wide in their application, causing unneccessay aggravation to honest citizens trying to carry out unremarkable transactions. They apply to activities with quite small monetary values. They also mean people feeling affronted at having to establish their identity over and over again. 

Proof of identity – certification of documents

When proof of identity is required (opening bank accounts etc.) the range of individuals who can certify documents should be broadened.

At present, document certification is allowed only by a narrow band of individuals (doctors, lawyers etc) defined by  their occupation.  If an element of objectivity is the requirement, then the term 'anyone who is not a family member or close friend' would be more appropriate.  Afterall, a doctor or lawyer could be a close friend or family member and, therefore, not necessarily provide the objectivity required.

If honesty is the requirement, there is nothing to say that a bank manager would be more honest than a plumber, a shopkeeper or a neighbour.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

When proof of identity is required (opening bank accounts etc.) the range of individuals who can certify documents should be broadened.

At present, document certification is allowed only by a narrow band of individuals (doctors, lawyers etc) defined by  their occupation.  If an element of objectivity is the requirement, then the term 'anyone who is not a family member or close friend' would be more appropriate.  Afterall, a doctor or lawyer could be a close friend or family member and, therefore, not necessarily provide the objectivity required.

If honesty is the requirement, there is nothing to say that a bank manager would be more honest than a plumber, a shopkeeper or a neighbour.

 

 

Amend the Money Laundering Regulations

Repeal the need for ID checks and proof of identity papers etc in respect of the opening of some types of account e.g. children's accounts etc Ridiculous process entailed with opening a chils account involving £25 per month for example.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the need for ID checks and proof of identity papers etc in respect of the opening of some types of account e.g. children's accounts etc Ridiculous process entailed with opening a chils account involving £25 per month for example.

Bank Charges

I would like to see a law to retrospectively repay bank charges.

Following the disappointing decision by the supreme court on bank charges we should review this case and opposed to going through another drawn out and costly court action we should force the banks to repay the charges they have taken from us all over the past years, it is understood that banks only have to keep our information on file for a period of six years so this should at least be the starting point, or if individuals have already made claims against their banks it should be six years from that date.

Given the level of charges applied for frequently going overdrawn for pennies the profit made can run into 1000’s %. This is wrong and is not much different from legitimised door step money lenders

We are all effectively forced to operate bank accounts and it's agreed they must make a profit, but should it be via punitive charges and at the expense of individuals who simply can't afford it or are the most vunerable in our society.

This is why we need a law to address future and the past level of charges.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see a law to retrospectively repay bank charges.

Following the disappointing decision by the supreme court on bank charges we should review this case and opposed to going through another drawn out and costly court action we should force the banks to repay the charges they have taken from us all over the past years, it is understood that banks only have to keep our information on file for a period of six years so this should at least be the starting point, or if individuals have already made claims against their banks it should be six years from that date.

Given the level of charges applied for frequently going overdrawn for pennies the profit made can run into 1000’s %. This is wrong and is not much different from legitimised door step money lenders

We are all effectively forced to operate bank accounts and it's agreed they must make a profit, but should it be via punitive charges and at the expense of individuals who simply can't afford it or are the most vunerable in our society.

This is why we need a law to address future and the past level of charges.

Company Law – Necessary Reforms

I agree that most of the regulation as currently set up is not fit for purpose. Companies House and the FSA require complete rationalisation and reform. Let's start with a simple question – what do we want company law to achieve? We want responsible and productive companies to be protected, we want shareholders to have meaningful protection from rogue companies and directors, we want the general public to be protected from scam artists, and we want to instil confidence in our national economy. To take a concrete example, the new regulatory body would have the power to compel rogue companies and directors to produce overdue reports and accounts. What is the point of prosecution, fines and disqualification, when the perpetrators can legally withhold the evidence of their fraud indefinitely?

To summarise, I am asking for the entire body of company law to be reformed from this perspective. This will involve substantial repeal of unnecessary and ineffective legislation, combined with enactment of meaningful and effective laws.

Why is this idea important?

I agree that most of the regulation as currently set up is not fit for purpose. Companies House and the FSA require complete rationalisation and reform. Let's start with a simple question – what do we want company law to achieve? We want responsible and productive companies to be protected, we want shareholders to have meaningful protection from rogue companies and directors, we want the general public to be protected from scam artists, and we want to instil confidence in our national economy. To take a concrete example, the new regulatory body would have the power to compel rogue companies and directors to produce overdue reports and accounts. What is the point of prosecution, fines and disqualification, when the perpetrators can legally withhold the evidence of their fraud indefinitely?

To summarise, I am asking for the entire body of company law to be reformed from this perspective. This will involve substantial repeal of unnecessary and ineffective legislation, combined with enactment of meaningful and effective laws.

Remove onerous money laundering regulation

The money laundering regulations must have cost the British economy millions and millions of pounds.  The administrative burden and cost placed on legitimate companies and the various institutions that have to follow it is very subsantial and yet I am sure that the criminals who want to would get round it easily.

Why is this idea important?

The money laundering regulations must have cost the British economy millions and millions of pounds.  The administrative burden and cost placed on legitimate companies and the various institutions that have to follow it is very subsantial and yet I am sure that the criminals who want to would get round it easily.

Broken up charges

I have noticed that banks have lowered their charges slightly but at the same time they have introduced other new charges. At the end of the day you end up paying more for going few pennies over.

I couldn't vote LibDem as I live in NI but I do support them fully and our MPs will back him on this issue. Mr Clegg cut this unauthorize money  taking powers away from the banks.

Why is this idea important?

I have noticed that banks have lowered their charges slightly but at the same time they have introduced other new charges. At the end of the day you end up paying more for going few pennies over.

I couldn't vote LibDem as I live in NI but I do support them fully and our MPs will back him on this issue. Mr Clegg cut this unauthorize money  taking powers away from the banks.

Credit Reference Agencies – proper regulation and accountability

The Credit Reference Agencies seem to be a wholly unregulated industry yet there activities have a direct bearing on questions involving human rights, namely Data Protection and the right to respect for privacy.

 

They should be brought within a proper transparent and controlled regulatory framework with very clear rules as to the operation of their activities and with direct access by person aggrieved.

Why is this idea important?

The Credit Reference Agencies seem to be a wholly unregulated industry yet there activities have a direct bearing on questions involving human rights, namely Data Protection and the right to respect for privacy.

 

They should be brought within a proper transparent and controlled regulatory framework with very clear rules as to the operation of their activities and with direct access by person aggrieved.

unwarrated impact of Anti-money laundering requirements

It is becoming ever more difficult and burdensome to open new bank accounts or other financial services, even for people who already have multiple bank accounts, UK jobs, NI numbers, tax codes and passports. 

I now have to send off multiple important documents – passport, driving licence each time I want to open an account, despite the fact that these are uniquely important documents and difficult to replace.  This increases the risk of them going missing en-route and being used for identity fraud.  No wonder ID fraud is a growing probem.

I am also increasingly frustrated by the requirement to get documents signed by a person of standing.  These are apparently limited to such people as bank/building society official, solicitor, accountant, commissioner of oaths, justice of the peace, legal secretary, member of parliament, police officer or an officer of the armed services include bank managers.  Why are these the only jobs that mean people are honest and upstanding.  Surely someone who has held the same job for 10 years, has a degree and a passport and driving licence should be perfecty acceptable.  This is insulting to honest, hard working people.

There is also a growing trend for these people to charge for this signing service.  So now we have to pay for the priviledge of proving who we obviously are, just to open a bank account.  These standards need to be widened to allow any professional person to sign (like passports – why do we need a narrower standard than passports??).  Or better still, this madness needs to be unwound. 

Why is this idea important?

It is becoming ever more difficult and burdensome to open new bank accounts or other financial services, even for people who already have multiple bank accounts, UK jobs, NI numbers, tax codes and passports. 

I now have to send off multiple important documents – passport, driving licence each time I want to open an account, despite the fact that these are uniquely important documents and difficult to replace.  This increases the risk of them going missing en-route and being used for identity fraud.  No wonder ID fraud is a growing probem.

I am also increasingly frustrated by the requirement to get documents signed by a person of standing.  These are apparently limited to such people as bank/building society official, solicitor, accountant, commissioner of oaths, justice of the peace, legal secretary, member of parliament, police officer or an officer of the armed services include bank managers.  Why are these the only jobs that mean people are honest and upstanding.  Surely someone who has held the same job for 10 years, has a degree and a passport and driving licence should be perfecty acceptable.  This is insulting to honest, hard working people.

There is also a growing trend for these people to charge for this signing service.  So now we have to pay for the priviledge of proving who we obviously are, just to open a bank account.  These standards need to be widened to allow any professional person to sign (like passports – why do we need a narrower standard than passports??).  Or better still, this madness needs to be unwound. 

Sections 348 & 352 of the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000

Did you know that the law establishing the Financial Services Authority (FSA), an executive agency of the government, gives the agency the right to gag journalists and threatens the freedom of the press?

 

I am an experienced financial journalist and am currently writing a book about the recent financial crisis which will be published next year. I am currently checking facts for my book with various institutions, and I recently received an email from a lawyer at the FSA including the following paragraph:

You appear to intend to refer to the financial condition of RBS (and possibly other banks) during 2008.  On the basis of your e-mails, it is not possible for us to know what information you intend to publish about the bank(s) concerned.  To the extent that the information you intend to publish was originally received by the FSA in the course of carrying out our supervisory functions, it will be "confidential information" for the purposes of the confidentiality regime set up under section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA").  It is not possible to disclose such information, let alone publish it, unless certain, limited exemptions apply or the consent of the subject of the information (for example RBS) has been obtained.  It seems to us that none of the exemptions will apply to your book, but we do not know if you have obtained RBS's consent.  Assuming you have not, however, you should be aware that the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information is a criminal offence (see section 352 FSMA).

My idea is that the relevant sections of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 be amended or abolished so that no financial regulatory agency can be permitted to threaten or intimidate journalists who wish to disclose information in the public interest and hold the relevant bodies to account.

Why is this idea important?

Did you know that the law establishing the Financial Services Authority (FSA), an executive agency of the government, gives the agency the right to gag journalists and threatens the freedom of the press?

 

I am an experienced financial journalist and am currently writing a book about the recent financial crisis which will be published next year. I am currently checking facts for my book with various institutions, and I recently received an email from a lawyer at the FSA including the following paragraph:

You appear to intend to refer to the financial condition of RBS (and possibly other banks) during 2008.  On the basis of your e-mails, it is not possible for us to know what information you intend to publish about the bank(s) concerned.  To the extent that the information you intend to publish was originally received by the FSA in the course of carrying out our supervisory functions, it will be "confidential information" for the purposes of the confidentiality regime set up under section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA").  It is not possible to disclose such information, let alone publish it, unless certain, limited exemptions apply or the consent of the subject of the information (for example RBS) has been obtained.  It seems to us that none of the exemptions will apply to your book, but we do not know if you have obtained RBS's consent.  Assuming you have not, however, you should be aware that the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information is a criminal offence (see section 352 FSMA).

My idea is that the relevant sections of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 be amended or abolished so that no financial regulatory agency can be permitted to threaten or intimidate journalists who wish to disclose information in the public interest and hold the relevant bodies to account.

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