Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cpp'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Categories

  • The Youth Academy
    • The Youth Consumer Service
  • Miscellaneous

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Location

Found 30 results

  1. My wife and I work for the same company. She broke her foot in November tripping over one of the many spent firework rockets left lying around the work car park by the landlord. After a while she decided to go back to work with a surgical boot and crutches and I agreed with our building manager that if our car park was full I would park in the disabled spaces as our overspill car park is quarter of a mile away. Four spaces are marked up for my company and the other five aren't marked up for anybody. On the morning in question, our four were taken up so I parked in one of the others. I got a ticket from CPP who didn't even query with our reception desk (I've got a company sticker on my windscreen). My company contacted the landlord (who knew my wife had a broken foot) to ask what was going on just got a curt reply saying we shouldn't have been parked in disabled bays that are not ours. We thought it had been dealt with however. Then a PCN arrived so help appreciated folks. Redacted PCN attached. 1 Date of the infringement 28/11/17 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 29/12/17 3 Date received 03/01/18 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up you appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up 7 Who is the parking company? Car Parking Partnership (CPP) 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Birchwood Business Park, Warrington CPP PCN.pdf
  2. Good afternoon Everybody, I've been reading some of the very helpful replies to posts but unfortunately acted before reading:| Not a great start/ idea:madgrin: as Ive just identified myself for liability purposes. Please could some one tell me if this method is still the best/ current way and if I have got a correct understanding of the process so far:?: I did not realise you should wait between 28-56 days for NTK and this would cost them:oops: waiting for the POPLA code which is run by BPA. Appealing to who ?????? with the POPLA code number. Are we talking about appealing direct to CPP or Parking On Private Land Appeals with the POPLA code:?: Please Clarify:???: I received a parking ticket stuck on my windscreen in the first week of October 2015 asking for £100.00 if paid withing 14 days £40.00 from Liberty Printers AR and RF Reddin trading as CPP (Car Parking Parnership) a third party parking provider for a local UK hospital and used this template letter below replying in the same week. I have used before in a similar situation for an Asda car park which proved extremely successful. If memory serves me right I believe I obtained the from either Get out of Debt Free or The Consumer Action Group forums. Many Thanks for whoever posted it in the first place:-) Unfortunately I mistakenly typed in the wrong notice number in error :-xCPP have sent me a letter back in the second week of October 2015 and rightly so have said in their reply that they are unable to locate the parking charge with the information I provided to them. They have requested for me to confirm the reference number and are asking for my vehicle registration number. Of course they have my address from the letter below and I have no problem with giving them the correct notice number but am unsure about giving my vehicle reg as I thought I maybe giving them more than what's needed? In addition they enclosed an standard letter please see attached stating about contract with driver, enforceability of the charge and rejection of invalid invoice. Quoting previous court cases of prosecution as these quoted legislations were not applicable on private land. I believe some sort of scare tactic to make you think you stood no chance and to frightening you in to paying them. I hope their attachments can be read to shed some light on their bullyboy claims and does anyone please have a more effective up to date letter that I can fire off for my second letter. Or do I continue to play ball this time round extending on my first letter with the right notice number. Did try to upload their standard letter but because I am Newbe:!: without 10 post under my belt I am unable to upload images or include any links. My Letter Sent:!:in week one of October 2015 Car Parking Partnership (CPP) PO Box 635, Chorley, PR6 6NJ Re: Notice Number XXXXXXXXXXX To whom it may concern, Firstly your so called notice is nothing but an attempt to frighten people into paying your invalid charges. The so called notice is not legally binding as no contract agreed or implied has been entered into. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 5 (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. I would like to draw your attention to the following article and believe that as your company is a private company and is not associated with either the local council or police authority, your charge is invalid. (There was a hyperlink included to an appeal now .com) I have not and will never enter in to any contract agreed or implied with your company nor have I broken any law or statute. I have returned your notice clearly marked "No Contract Return To Sender" as I have no wish to enter into contract with your company. Further action on my part will incur charges which will be chargeable to your company. My charges will be invoiced at the following rates... Initial Charge of £250 then £150 each time I have to respond in relation to this matter. All legal expenses and costs will be charged in addition to the above charges. Pursuing this matter will trigger these charges and by doing so, your company agrees to these terms. I look forward to your response within 7 days. Regards
  3. Hi all, I received a ticket from Carparkingpartnership. I normally send them the standard letter at which point they scrap the fine. However this time they have rejected my appeal. Any help and guidance would be gratefully received
  4. Hi All Having spend a bit of time reading some threds this evening, I have been inspired to take on HSBC. When I opened a student account with them in September 1999, I was told I 'may as well' have a credit card - for emergencyies - and that their card protection came with it. I was told I should take it out as I could put all my other cards from other banks on it too. (I remember this bit clearly as my mother wasn't all too keen on sending me off to university with a credit card!!) The policy was annual and they write to tell me when they are taking the next payment. This is always something that I thought I needed as that was what I was told at the outset and I have never thought otherwise....until now! When completed my personal banking this evening, it would seem that I have had my HSBC account upgraded. Reading someone of the perks I get as standard made me think carefully about the annual policy and if there is anypoint to it. Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that I don't. I hope someone will be able to help with with a few questions. Is this the kind of thing that I can claim back? I feel I was mis-sold this policy and the fact that I was only 18 at the time of taking it out, they probably saw a young girl about to leave home for the first time!! What should I do next? I am happy to write to the bank, and have some idea of quotes and things I can put in the letter to let them know I am serious. Can anyone give me any more advice? Have I got a claim or not? Many thanks
  5. Last chance to claim mis-sold CPP card protection. Anyone who was mis-sold credit card & identity theft cover by banks and CPP should have been sent a claim forms to get their money back. If you've got a form, but haven't returned it, you should do so now. If you think you're eligible to get your money back, but haven't received a claim form or have lost it, it's still not too late to claim. But don't hang about, you only have until August 31st 2014 CPP Redress Scheme
  6. hi just wondering if any one has recievied any replies from ccp /or a refund after sending the claim form off . i sent my claim form of 3 day s after 10 feb 2014 but have received no reply as yet .
  7. ok firstly I did look around for already existing advice. If it is already here I apologise, Its cos I am an idiot and not just lazy So the claim forms have started hitting welcome mats around the country. What is the conventional thinking regarding section B "Why you want to be considered for compensation" ? Should the choices spelt out in the letter be the only reasons quoted or do Caggers suggest additional arguments too?
  8. Hi I had my CPP compensation claim form at home for few weeks now. I read it several times. I know it gives 2 examples on why the policy could have been mis-sold to me. I had all together 5 credit cards and loans. I stopped using all of them by September 2005 due to financial difficulties. I am currently paying the debt off on 4 of them. One was written off when I got my PPI claim. Unfortunately due to the long period of time which passed between me taking out these loans and current date I do not recall anything that happened whilst I was taking them. Which of these two examples should I use? I do not remember which of my creditors mis-sold me the policy. I do not have the policies. I do not want to write something incorrectly and then loose the compensation for some silly mistake. People here are usually great help. Can someone give me some advice, please? Thanks very much. evule1
  9. I have recieved my claim form but I cannot remember which of the two listed failings my policy covered. I am considering using both the listed failings and explaining that in either case the policy was mis-sold. I am seeking guidance because the MSE site states that only one of the listed failings can be used in the claim form. Any thoughts on this welcomed. The other issue I have is the declaration. The declaration states: I confirm the information I have given in this form is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I agree to release CPP, the Business Partners and the Business Partner Affiliates, each as defined in the scheme from any firther liability for any claims I may have against them for the types of mis-selling covered by this redress scheme as long as they comply with the payment terms under this redress scheme, as set out more fully in the scheme documents. I have no problem with the first sentence, it is the second paragraph that concerns me, as such I intend to cross out the bold section and replace it with 're-pay me all the monies I paid to them in full, plus interest at 8.0% p.a.' Any thoughts on this approach welcomed. Final questions; Can my claim be legally refused because a)I do not have a black ink pen to fill the form out with? b)I do not write in capital letters? Pedantic, I know, but still. If it's of any use, I think my plan was either Card Protection Plus or CPP Card Protection, as I remember being able to add all/any of my cards onto the policy. Thanks in advance.
  10. Just by chance I checked my credit card statement and noticed that a company called CPP had taken a payment. I had no idea who they were as this is a 0% card which I dont make purchases on. The short story is that I contacted HSBC who told me to call CPP. After lodging a complaint as I didnt know who CPP were and asking them to cancel the policy I received a letter today saying I should contact Barclaycard as it was them who apparently sold me the policy and to assess if I am due a refund. Apparently I agreed to this policy in 2010, I have no recollection of CPP or any type of card protection as I know it isnt needed. At this time I was at a previous address and CPP stated that they had sent me a renewal each year but to my old address and it was my duty to inform them if I moved. I have no idea how I could inform them if I didnt know that I had a policy or even if I did I would have thought it was through Barclaycard and not CPP. Now if I did purchase this through Barclaycard and they used CPP for the product surely it would have been Barclaycard who should have informed CPP of the address change when I moved to my current address as I wouldnt have known that it was CPP providing the service. Im now prepared for a to and fro between the two
  11. Hi everyone, When I took out a Vanquis card a while ago I was talked into taking on the now worthless CPP protection. With all the ruling from that the CPP customers are getting their money back and not hearing from CPP I wrote to Vanquis asking my money back as it was them who sold it. They wrote back saying no the policy wasn't miss-sold etc and they wasn't going to give me money back. So have sent another letter and see what happens. Has anyone else had any luck with them? JJ
  12. Hi, I sent a Claim to CAP1 regarding PPI and CPP. They have upheld the PPI but have totally ignored the CPP. According to the Information available so far, I should have received a letter by now but this has not happened. How best should Progress this... CPP began in April 2003 (after cancelling PPI) until finally cancelled in March 2006 Thanks G
  13. here is a full copy of the paperwork they are sending out more to follow. dx siteteam
  14. Good evening fellow members. Before the official claim process started I wrote to CPP claiming misselling and asking for a refund of all the premiums paid. I have recently received a cheque for £ 47.00 in the post. I have been paying the CPP credit cards loss insurance cover since 21st August 1992 and I was expected to receive - in due time - a refund backdated to that year. Instead they claim that compensation is due to me in respect of premiums paid between Jan 2004 and Jan 2005 only as prior to then CPP was not subject to an agreed industry standard . They inform that this is only phase one of the claim settlement and that phase two, pertaining to the period 2005-2013, will follow . Should I not have the right to for money back from the very beginning ? Regards
  15. I had SARed Barclaycard about PPI and discovered I was paying card protection way back in 2003. I then wrote to Barclaycard demanding a refund of all monies paid. I have received a letter from them today saying they have passed the complaint on the CPP (even though it was them that sold the policy) and Cpp will be in touch in due course, and if I want to complain to the FOS I can consider the letter as their final letter on the matter. The obvious question therefore is....... if CPP decide I have been mis-sold CPP, do I still get my interest at 20 odd % and what way does it work reference over limit charges etc. that I may have incurred as a result of these charges?
  16. Not to sure if I am in the right place. Recieved a letter in the post today from a company called CPP stating that I had brought a card/or indentity protection policy from them and i may be entitled to compensation. I bank with nat west but i can not remember having this policy. It gives me their reference number and my policy number It give details of why they are writing to me I.E the FCA as told them to. more details will follow in the next 12 weeks. as anybody else as had a letter like this and does anyone know the back ground behind it because I really can not remember having this policy. The letter also states that any monies from as far back as 2005 will be involved. I have got three years worth of bank statements and i cannot find any payments to these people. would it be better to wait and see what they say or should try to find out more details from nat west
  17. More than seven million people are in line to share a £1.3 billion compensation pot after Britain's biggest banks yesterday agreed to foot the bill for years of mis-selling credit card insurance cover. But millions more could miss out as regulators admitted the redress scheme linked to the CPP company at the centre of the scandal will not include customers who bought - and cancelled - their policy before 2005. Anyone who cancelled their policy before that time, when the regulator took responsibility for the market, will have to apply directly to CPP or their bank or credit card company. Those who bought or renewed a policy after 2005 will be written to directly. One industry source said: "If you're post 05 it seems like a sensible system, but you're pre 05 it could be a painstaking operation. "If a bank rejects your claim, you're left with the Ombudsman, and they are under all sorts of pressure tackling PPI as it is." More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10260687/Millions-to-get-CPP-compensation-but-millions-may-miss-out.html
  18. Great news I just noticed over on MSE that doesn't seem to have been posted here. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2013/04/card-protection-and-id-protection-mis-selling-now-banks-will-have-to-refund-victims The gist of this is that the FCA have now decided that the financial institutions who got people signed up for CPP are also responsible for mis-selling and will have to refund their customers. The article says "Those mis-sold are entitled to whatever they paid out." but doesn't mention statutory interest or any interest that may have been charged on what was paid out. Does anyone know how that works?
  19. Hi I've had a Barclay's Credit Card which I was paying £29 - £35 per year for card protection. After reading up about it and finding that this insurance policy wasn't needed because you are covered by the bank anyway, I was thinking of reclaiming. I cancelled my policy in 2010 as I just couldn't afford to pay it any more. After looking through some old documents the only thing I can find is a letter from CPP (York) in 2010 saying that my policy has now been cancelled. I've also found a renewal notice letter from Barclaycard but it has Sentinel Gold (2008) on it. If I was to reclaim who do I get in touch with? Thank you in advance.
  20. Hello All, Has anyone had dealings with the above Ins Co, they apparently sell "Life Assistance Products" and in Particular Identity Protection,Fraud Protection Services, in relation to plastic cards, mobile phones and Identities. CPP Identity Alert is arranged by Card Protection Plan Ltd and underwritten by Homecare Insurance Ltd. There is an Identity Protection Policy issued with this product and a yearly fee of circa £80 ish. Also included is a premium of circa £16 to the Company, CPP for it's intermediary services. The fee is the difference between the premium and the total amount you pay in the United Kingdom, where Insurance Premium Tax is Payable, this is included in the fee and the premium. My question is, will this company and the products it sells be subject to the same procedures, rules and regs etc, as the PPI./LPI claims for mis-selling?? This has just come to my attention from a family friend who has just received the renewal notice and thinks maybe there could be mis-selling. All advice/ information will as usual be gratefully received. "EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"
  21. I opened a credit card with The Associates some 10 years or so ago. Subsequently they were taken over by Citi Financial and more recently by OPUS. I have contacted CPP to request a fee reclaim but they told me that it was nothing to do with them as I was referred to them by The Associates! They are no longer in existence so I contacted OPUS to reclaim and they said it ws nothing to do with them and I was to contact CPP! I'm being passed pillar to post here - has anyone got any ideas as to who should take ownership of my request/claim?? Thanks in advance.
  22. Have mentioned this before. Following an investigation by the FSA CPP were fined a total of £10.5m CPP was applied to both Associates cards and later Citi branded cards. It seems that CPP have a liability themselves for some agreements,while Citicard themselves have a Liability for others. If you have tried seeking a refund from CPP directly,they may refer you to Citicard,who will send you a letter saying they are investigating. I waited almost 6 months for Citicard to complete their inquiries which then saw them sending a cheque for 1 years CPP membership with no interest added. Their letter stated that this was in full and final settlement. I have demanded to be given a breakdown of what the payment covers and have preliminary accepted their cheque as part payment in settlement. It is therefore important that if you are contacting Citi or CPP in respect of card protection/Identity protection insurance,that you demand full information in respect of any payments they may send to you in settlement,so you are able to evaluate if you have been refunded in full with interest. We have obtained a dedicated address for the department dealing with these claims which is; Complaints Handling Team Citicard PO BOX 53680 London SE5 5PY email citicardsman.customerfeedback@citigroup.com Please share your experiences and progress with claims in your own threads. Here is the statement put out in November by the FSA We have fined Card Protection Plan (CPP) £10.5 million for mis-selling insurance which covered customers against the risk of fraud on lost or stolen credit and debit cards and against the risk of identity theft. CPP has agreed to pay an estimated £14.5 million compensation to affected customers. Find out what this means for you. CPP sold credit and debit Card Protection and Identity Protection both directly to customers and through high street banks. Between January 2005 and March 2011, these products might have been sold inappropriately. For example, we found that customers were told that they would receive up to £100,000 worth of insurance cover against fraudulent transactions with Card Protection insurance. This was often not needed as customers are usually covered by their bank. Furthermore, during the sale of Identity Protection, CPP sometimes exaggerated the risks and consequences of identity theft. Compensation for customers Customers don’t need to do anything at this stage, CPP will contact those who may have been affected and, following a review, will pay compensation to customers where appropriate. However, in the meantime, you can write directly to the firm. CPP has agreed to stop new sales of products (apart from where the insurance is sold as part of a package) and to stop trying to persuade customers who call to cancel their policies to keep them. You do not generally need insurance for fraudulent transactions on lost or stolen credit and debit cards because you are not legally responsible for unauthorised card payments – apart from in exceptional circumstances. Know your rights See more about unauthorised transactions in our Bank accounts: Know your rights guide (pdf) or see our Bank accounts: Know your rights page.
  23. Banks are facing another mis-selling scandal that could cost the industry £200m in compensation payments. The UK’s high street banks are in talks with the Financial Services Authority after one of the industry’s main suppliers of credit card insurance was fined a record £10.5m and told to pay what could be £14.5m in redress to its customers. The compensation relates to 300,000 customers sold insurance by Credit Card Protection. However a much larger number of credit card holders, around 4.1m were sold the CPP product by their banks. If each of the banks’ customers were to get the same level of redress, around £48, the industry could be facing a £200m bill. CPP’s business partners include Royal Bank of Scotland, Standard Chartered, Yorkshire Bank, Barclays and HSBC. It is not certain that all the banks will be involved in compensation talks with the FSA. CCP agreed the fine and compensation agreement following an 18-month investigation by the Financial Services Authority. The fine relates to “widespread mis-selling of CPP's two main [credit card insurance] products” between January 2005 and March 2011. More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9682373/Banks-face-new-200m-mis-selling-scandal-after-CPP-fine.html
  24. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20338335
  25. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has issued its joint largest retail fine of £10.5 million to Card Protection Plan Limited (CPP) for mis-selling insurance products. CPP has also agreed to pay redress and estimates that around £14.5 million will need to be paid to affected customers, but this could change depending on how many customers respond to CPP's contact exercise. CPP has estimated that the total costs of the FSA's investigation will be £33.4 million which includes the fine, redress and the costs associated with the investigation. The fine is for all types of sale made by CPP while the focus of the redress exercise is CPP's direct sales. The FSA found widespread mis-selling of CPP's two main UK products between January 2005 and March 2011. CPP failed to treat its customers fairly and did not provide clear information to its customers: CPP sold its Card Protection product by emphasising that customers would benefit from up to £100,000 worth of insurance cover - when this was not needed because customers were already covered by their banks; and CPP overstated the risks and consequences of identity theft during sales of its Identity Protection product. CPP sold Card Protection and Identity Protection through its own sales channels, or through a partner, such as a high street bank, which introduced its customers to CPP. Card Protection cost about £35 a year while Identity Protection cost about £84 a year. In total, CPP sold 4.4 million policies and generated £354.5 million in gross profit. In the period in question, 18.7 million policies were renewed which generated an income of £656.5 million. Following FSA intervention in early 2011 CPP has improved its renewal process and extended the cooling off period during which customers can change their minds about buying the product from 14 days to 60 days. CPP agreed with the FSA requirements to stop new sales of products (apart from where the insurance is sold as part of a package) and to stop trying to keep customers who call to cancel their policies. The FSA has required CPP to appoint an external 'skilled person' to monitor and report on its claims and complaints handling. The FSA found that CPP's sales process focussed on sales, revenue and commercial objectives at the expense of treating customers fairly. The FSA's investigation revealed that: CPP sales agents were encouraged to be overly persistent in persuading potential customers to purchase the products even after they had made it clear that they did not wish to buy them; CPP gave its sales agents targets for successfully dissuading customers who contacted CPP to cancel their policies; CPP did not prevent sales agents telling customers to buy the products on the basis that customers could cancel them during the cooling-off period; and CPP renewed and took payments from customers without reminding them when it did not have current addresses and could not send renewal documentation. Customers generally do not need insurance for fraudulent transactions on lost or stolen credit and debit cards because they are not liable for unauthorised card payments - apart from in exceptional circumstances. However CPP continued to sell Card Protection by emphasising this insurance aspect of the product. CPP also failed to control its affairs responsibly and effectively. This is because it was aware that significant issues about its sales and compliance processes had been raised by the FSA but it failed to take sufficient action to deal with them. Tracey McDermott, the FSA's director of enforcement and financial crime, said "This is a serious case, one that has warranted our joint largest retail conduct fine and generated a sizeable bill for consumer redress. "While CPP's products were relatively inexpensive, they were sold widely and CPP encouraged its sales agents to be overly persistent. This exposed a very large number of customers to the unacceptable risk of buying products they did not want or need. Further, we had already warned the firm that it might be misleading customers about a feature of Card Protection from which customers were unlikely to benefit, but insufficient action was taken to rectify this. "We have highlighted before our concerns about low cost insurance that offers little or no value to the customer. This case shows the action we will take if our warnings are not heeded". CPP agreed to settle at an early stage entitling it to a 30% discount on its fine. Without the discount, the fine would have been £15 million. CPP has agreed to provide an undertaking about a contract term it used which was unfair. This unfair term allowed CPP to take customer payments from another card covered by Card Protection in the event that payment could not be taken from the original card. The purpose of having multiple cards registered was to ensure that all cards were covered by the protection, but CPP used it to take payment from customers. Notes for editors The Final Notice for CPP. Formal requirements imposed on CPP by agreement with the FSA are set out in CPP's entry on the FSA Register, which can be found here. CPP may in future apply to the FSA to have these restrictions lifted subject to satisfying the FSA as to the appropriateness of its funding structure, governance arrangements and control environment. CPP announced in September 2012 that it continues to have constructive discussions with the FSA about customer redress and that these discussions have included certain of CPP Group's larger business partners. CPP has announced that these discussions include consideration of the use of a Solvent Scheme of Arrangement as a vehicle for providing redress. For confidentiality reasons, the FSA cannot comment further on any ongoing discussions about redress with other parties, but will announce further details, if appropriate, in future. From 14 January 2005 to March 2011, CPP sold 4.4 million Card Protection and Identity Protection policies and received £188.3 million in customer payments (a proportion of which it paid to its business partners for an introduction fee) for those new sales. CPP renewed 18.7 million Card Protection and Identity Protection policies and received £656.5 million in customer payments (a proportion of which it paid to its business partners for an introduction fee) for those renewals. CPP generated gross profits of £354.5 million and net profits of £79.1 million Some business partners 'introduced' their customers to CPP by affixing a sticker to the new credit or debit cards sent to their customers. The sticker prompted the customer to call a number (which was actually CPP's) either to activate the card or to confirm that the customer had received the card. When the customer did ring the number, CPP also used the opportunity to offer Card Protection and/or Identity Protection to the customer. The FSA has previously warned about low cost insurance products in its 2012/13 Business Plan, its 2012 Retail Conduct Risk Outlook and in a speech by Martin Wheatley to the Association of British Insurers in September 2012. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; fighting financial crime; and contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system. The FSA will be replaced by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority in 2013. The Financial Services Bill currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny is expected to receive Royal Assent in late 2012 or early 2013, subject to the parliamentary timetable. Link: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/2012/102.shtml
×
×
  • Create New...