• paul posted an update 3 years, 10 months ago

    We all would like to think that Rothschild´s, Barclays and other UK banks involved uphold high standards of banking practice .Commissioner Holland has given his verdict on the legal requirements of the FSA. This is his position as he has very clearly laid out. It is a complicated issue to deal with .

    However there is a moral responsibility to uphold within the banking sector .

    You will note from the extract from the OFT document (link attached) and indeed the whole document that in order to maintain a well respected banking sector the guidelines on irresponsible lending are written to underpin this requirement.

    It is obvious from this document, from the standpoint of the OFT it is not acceptable to allow any entity linked to a creditor (BANK) to behave in a way that is not fair to its customers. The Creditor (The Bank) should be responsible for those other businesses it does business with. As if it were its own advise

    Rothschilds, Barclays and other banks were using subsidiaries of their own companies, regulated and unregulated IFAs (UK) situated outside the UK to promote these schemes . This does not according to the OFT negate their responsibility to the public or the OFT

    These are guidelines not laws.

    I CALL AGAIN ON ROTHSCHILDS, BARCLAYS AND OTHER BANKS IN THE UK TO UPHOLD THE STANDARDS THAT WE THE PUBLIC AND THE OFT AND PROBABLY THE FCA WOULD EXPECT .

    CONTACT THOSE INVOLVED, PUT THEM BACK INTO THE SITUATION THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN PRIOR TO THIS SITUATION AND TRY TO REGAIN THE RESPECT OF THE PUBLIC AS YOU (THE BANKS) PROPORT TO BE STRIVEING TO ACHIEVE.

    There Are 80 pages of this document from the OFT a good many are relevant to the situation . In particular note ANNEXE 1 as below.

    Could someone please pass this to the Commissioner, bring this situation to the attention of the banks involved and the OFT . Mps and others who are involved .

    See the link for the whole document at ….

    http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft1107.pdf

    Irresponsible lending
    OFT guidance for creditors

    ANNEXE 1 – CREDITOR’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT
    OF AGENTS AND THIRD PARTIES
    The OFT considers that creditors should take appropriate responsibility for acts
    or omissions of brokers, debt recovery businesses (DRBs) and other
    intermediaries or agents involved in the lending process. A broker may be a
    business associate and/or agent of a creditor if the broker is tied to the creditor,
    or has an ongoing relationship with the creditor, or frequently does business
    with the creditor. This will be a matter of fact and degree. Similarly, the OFT
    considers third party debt collection businesses that recover debts on behalf of
    creditors may be business associates and/or agents of the creditors on whose
    behalf they act. DRBs to whom creditors have assigned debts may themselves
    become the ‘creditor’ under the agreement.

    It is not for the OFT to specify in this guidance how creditors’ choices about
    third party selection are made nor to advise on desired conduct between
    creditors and third parties. However, the OFT would expect creditors to take
    reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that such persons are not engaging in
    unfair business practices or acting unlawfully and to take care in selecting third
    parties with whom to form business associations (complaints about any such
    third parties to be considered by creditors and action to be taken by creditors in
    respect of any such complaints as appropriate). If a creditor chooses to do
    business and/or continues to do business with a third party which it suspects, or
    reasonably ought to suspect, is engaged in behavior which the OFT is likely to
    consider to be inconsistent with fitness to hold a license, its own fitness may be
    called into consideration. We would consider licensed businesses simply ignoring
    the unfair practices of those acting on their behalf – whether in-house or external
    – to be inconsistent with fitness to hold a consumer credit license.