Ev 118 Treasury Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Struggle against Financial Exploitation (SAFE)

The proposal will save the banks themselves over a £billion in costs a year, free up 20—25% of court time, put back into the economy £billions by way of re-motivated productive small businessmen and save £millions in Benefit payments and National Health costs.

The members of SAFE came together because they had experienced various problems’ with their banks, ranging from overcharging, forgery, theft, conspiracy and outright fraud. Some have been in conflict for decades and have lost millions, some their lives, many have died, become ill, been made bankrupt and inevitably divorced.

Remarkably, in spite of the above, SAFE respects the need for the bank’s to retain their illusion of integrity so as to protect the British Financial Industry, one must accept that the Ombudsman and FSA do not have the will expertise or experience to deal with these matters, there being a conflict of interest as they are seen as part of the establishment and will therefore protect the banking industry. Similarly the police and judiciary ere towards protecting the probity of the banks to the detriment of the casualty, (the Police!CPS have never brought an action against a High Street Bank!).

SAFE believes the problem of complaints can be dealt with confidentially and fairly in conjunction with the banks and CHAPS, if only 10% of the abandoned bank account funds were to be donated to CHAPS/SAFE then by the application of an agreed formula the complainants’ claim could be investigated and if deemed legitimate be quietly settled from the charity on the instruction of SAFE.

SAFE has already built up a substantial data base of bank victims which demonstrates without question that there is systemic fraud and conspiracy throughout the banking industry and proposes that the banks, like members of parliament, Citizens Advice, Ombudsmen, FSA etc pass to them all complainants, likewise it could be integrated as part of the legal procedure that the parties register the claim with SAFE before any court proceedings are commenced. This data could then be processed and used by the banks as it would highlight potential fraud clusters of cases and commonality within defined areas.

June2007

NB: SAFE has since disolved CHaPs with the cooperation and assistance of the Charity Commissioners.

Memorandum submitted by Martyn Jones MP

I write to submit my formal written evidence to the Treasury Select Committee’s current Inquiry into “Unclaimed assets within the financial system”.

You may aware, I have campaigned for several years in Parliament to “liberate” dormant account money from banks, to enable such money to be used for the good of society—as in other countries, most notably Ireland.

I was successful in persuading Gordon Brown to include my vision for using dormant money for charitable purposes, in the Labour Party’s Manifesto in 2005.

I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to addressing this important issue.

However, I do have concerns around any suggestion of there being a voluntary nature to the involvement by the financial sector in releasing unclaimed assets for charitable purposes.

During the early stages of my campaign, there was a huge reluctance by the British Banking Association (BBA), to even recognise that there was problem with unclaimed assets.

Furthermore, there was no desire by the BBA to address issues such as the definition of a dormant account, nor to reveal publicly even an estimate as to the total amount of money residing in such accounts.

As a result of the uncooperative, defensive and reluctant nature of the BBA to engage in an open debate on unclaimed assets, I was convinced from a very early stage, that a compulsory scheme was the only sensible way for the Government to make progress on this matter.

I believe it is paramount that there should be established—through statute—a compulsory scheme as introduced in Ireland, and this should be independently regulated.

In my opinion, the present proposals for 15 year “cut-oil” point are excessive, and allow banks to continue to hold onto vast amounts of dormant money, that could be otherwise used for charitable purposes.

As I have always said throughout my campaign, any scheme must ensure that a fund should retain sufficient sums to enable bank customers, who can prove ownership of their account, to be re-united with their money.

On the “delivery ide” of dormant accounts, I also have concerns about the proposition put forward by the Commission on Unclaimed Assets, in relation to the establishment of a Social Investment Bank, as laid out in their consultation ~per~ “A Social Investment Bank”.

Indeed, the coneept of “social investment” is gaining increasing support from the Government as indicated in its latest consultation document, “Unclaimed assets distribution mechanism: A Consultation”.