Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1. who knows... 2. not the whole A/C vanishes from your file on the DN's 6th b'day ...already carefully explain this. 3.yes 4.already carefully explain this.
    • if i remember rightly, long ago in one of the first drafts of the old proposed gov't overhauls, there was a listing of recommended 'charges' that inc wrong reg = £20. some PPC's implemented such changes in advance. then later as it looked increasing likely the new code was never going to be implemented after it's 1st review and another set of codes was to be debated they all quietly revert back .......... dx
    • Potentially it may not even get sold on? Just the default left for 6 years then gone? but if it is sold on ill get a letter from the DCA which is the notice of assignment? Sorry what is the different between a default notice and a default cal marker? yes, i may try and work arrangements out with the OCs after the breathing space but I'll see my circumstances then thank you again for all your help and patience, I really appreciate it and apologies If i am too fast or repeating myself.
    • receiving a default NOTICE (forget simple default cal markers) does not mean it will get sold on... OC's very very rarely do court themselves.  if it does you would receive a Notice of Assignment from the debt buyer/DCA.  as for reduced payment if it remains with the OC and they issue a DN, no harm in trying but lets get all your ducks inline first. dx  
    • okay thanks do you know how long it will take for it to get to the DCA or could the OC try and issue a CCJ? even though it's unlikely also for example would the OC agree to a reduction and a small payment over a super lengthy period of time if agreed? Rather than go through chasing apologies again for all the questions, just trying to understand all the possible scenarios.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

FCA Fines and bans three previous Swinton Executives


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3459 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news/2379614/fca-fines-and-bans-three-former-swinton-senior-executives?utm_term=&utm_content=FCA%20fines%20and%20bans%20three%20former%20Swinton%20senior%20executives&utm_campaign=IA.Daily_RL.EU.A.U&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=IA.DCM.Editors_Updates

 

"Ban follows enforcement action in 2013 and Halpin, Bowyer and Clare have been barred from senior roles at FCA regulated firms.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has fined three former senior executives of Swinton Group a combined total of £928,000 and banned them from performing various roles at financial services firms.

The FCA's action follows previous enforcement action taken against Swinton in 2013 when the company was fined £7.4m after it adopted an aggressive sales strategy that resulted in mis-sales of monthly add-on insurance policies.

A culture of pushing for high sales and increased profit without regard for customers had developed at Swinton according to the regulator.

Peter Halpin, former chief executive of Swinton, was fined £412,700 and is banned from acting as chief executive of a financial services firm.

Anthony Clare, the former finance director, was fined £208,600 and is banned from performing significant influence functions at financial services firms.

And the same ban has also been placed on Nicholas Bowyer, former marketing director, who was fined £306,700.

Competence

All three have been banned on the basis of showing a lack of competence in their respective former roles.

Tracey McDermott, director of enforcement and financial crime at the FCA, said: "A culture was allowed to develop within Swinton that pushed for high sales and increased profit without regard to the impact on the firm's customers.

"We expect firms to put customers at the heart of their business. These three directors should have recognised the risk to customers and redressed the balance so that the drive to maximise profits did not jeopardise the fair treatment of customers.

"Those with significant influence within firms are responsible for setting the tone and the culture; they set the example that others will follow.

Action

"Today's enforcement action should serve as a timely reminder to those at the very top of firms that the FCA is determined to hold individuals to account where they fall short of the standard we require."

A statement from Halpin reads: "I sincerely regret any possible unintended detriment suffered by customers.

"I acted in good faith at all times and it is of some significant comfort that the Regulator did not impugn my integrity, nor find that my conduct was improperly motivated by incentive arrangements".

Swinton was also fined £770,000 in 2009 for failures in its sales of PPI"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...