Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'fca'.



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
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • 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

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


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 58 results

  1. Hi everyone, Please can anyone advise how I might make contact with this firm (which I think has been "taken over") and claim for mis-sold PPI, as I took out a £14,000 loan from them a good few years back and was told I had to pay for PPI or the loan would not be granted (they said they wanted to be sure they would be repaid, whatever happened to me and/or my circumstances). Also, I was self-employed so probably couldn't have claimed, anyway. But I have no paperwork, anymore. Thank you. Jib
  2. "Rent-to-own" shops that sell appliances and furniture for small weekly payments but with a high interest rate face a price cap. However, the financial regulator will not rush to impose the same restrictions on bank overdrafts. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has spent nearly two years looking at the cost of high interest borrowing. It has now outlined a package of plans for rent-to-own, doorstep lending and catalogue shopping. High-cost credit is used by three million people in the UK. Single-parents aged 18 to 34 are three times more likely to have a high-cost loan - such as a payday loan, doorstep loan or pawnbroking loan - than the national average. "The proposals will benefit overdraft and high-cost credit users, re balancing in the favor of the customer," said FCA chief executive Andrew Bailey. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44307663
  3. Oh dont forget the £1.9 Million fine they've just been handed... Watch This Space As You Could Be Due A Refund Soon!!
  4. Feel its not far off , sickening, especially when its being used to manage essentials https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/18/britain-debt-timebomb-fca-chief-crisis
  5. Feel its not far off , sickening, especially when its being used to manage essentials https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/18/britain-debt-timebomb-fca-chief-crisis
  6. Dear All Almost two years ago received a claim from Restons for £2,500 but with no details. Filed defence requesting details of claim and made a CCA request. Cabot didn't come back until a week ago, with copies of some documents, containing terms and conditions, and copy of agreement, stating that they are now entitled to obtain Judgment. Have to see if it is genuine. I have noticed that they have not provided copy of Deed of assignment, I requested. Not sure if important? Also it appears that the authorisation of Cabot Financial has lapsed with the FCA, which is the name they've used on the Claim form. Does this mean that the claim is not valid and they have to reapply? Also, over half of the amount they are claiming consists of bank charges. Not sure if Default or Termination notices are relevant if they have bought any debts. Please help
  7. Good morning everyone! My partner has had recent contact from this shower, who are acting on behalf of HSBC. A while ago, my partner opened a bank account with HSBC. He admits to running into an overdraft of £200, and, because he panicked, has ignored a number of letters from them trying to resolve it. He realised he couldn't ignore it any longer when a text message came to my landline for him, and I happened to pick this up, and asked him about it. he did telephone them, and spoke to the ethereal "Chris", who said that, if he coughed up instantly (there's no way he can), he would only have to pay £240, and not the £308 that they'd quoted (£108 being the "penalty" for not paying back the original £200). He has never denied that he owes the £200, but trying to set up an arrangement to pay in instalments is proving difficult. He telephoned "Chris" again about a week after the original call, and got his ansaphone, on which he left a message asking to be called back. That hasn't happened, at least, we've not had a call from "Chris". Another text message came to my landline last Saturday morning, from the equally ethereal "Claire", saying that no payment had been received, and they couldn't hold off further action any longer. He immediately phoned the quoted number, and found that the office was closed, even though someone somewhere had triggered off the text message, and so he left another message, saying that he was going to be out of the country until 4th October (he's a continental coach driver, and often away for more than 7 days at a time), please would "Claire" phone him back then, as he wanted to make arrangements to pay. I am typing a letter for him to send to them, as I think we should now deal with this only in writing - I'm sick of having to deal with text messages, and tw*ts who don't phone back. I have already suggested that he offers to pay £10 per month - this is what I would like your views on. Should this be agreed, what would be the best way to make payment each month? Neither of us is keen on trying to set up a DD or SO - I've read too many horror stories on this site! I've offered to write a cheque for him each time, but he's worried that they'll then have MY details, too, and try other nefarious things. He likes the idea of a postal order. Your opinions would be very gratefully received. Thank you all in advance.
  8. http://news.sky.com/story/fca-says-750000-mortgage-customers-could-net-compensation-payout-10623570 I dont think this is or was a blunder - it was a deliberate action by the mortgage companies.
  9. The PPI mis-selling scandal has dogged the banking world for a long time now, and bothered everyone with a variety of spam messages and mithering claims companies. Now, it looks like we might have another mis-selling scandal, thanks to the insurance world. The FCA think that insurance agents have potentially mis-sold policies to consumers, as well as falsifying documents, faking signatures, and sold products to people that will never, ever pay out. The Financial Conduct Authority has been looking into all this, and said that their study of 15 insurance firms and the agents found widespread examples of poor practice. They've also found companies that have failed to discipline an agent after they'd spotted their mis-selling deeds, and their falsification of customer documentation. Other discoveries showed agents selling travel insurance to people with medical conditions, which aren't covered by the policy they ended up with. As such, the FCA have given the insurance world a chance to sort themselves out, and ordered 'Section 166 reviews' on two companies, which means tha they'll have to pay for an independent firm to come in and review the way they do things. Another two companies have been told to stop all sales activities. Sadly the FCA haven't named anyone in all this. "General insurance is a large and important sector and we are concerned about the potential for customer detriment arising from the lack of oversight of appointed representatives," Jonathan Davidson, FCA director of supervision, said in a statement. "All principal firms need to consider these findings and look again at their practices." We wouldn't be surprised if there's compensation coming the way of people who have been mis-sold, in yet another headache for the UK's financial sector. http://www.bitterwallet.com/insurance/fca-find-mis-selling-in-insurance-92730
  10. A total of 1.4 million people in the UK have only made the minimum repayments on their credit cards for three years in a row, the City regulator has said. The profits made from these customers mean credit card firms do little to address persistent debt, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said. Nearly half of them have borrowed more than 90% of their credit limit consistently for three years. Lenders have now agreed to help with warnings about growing debt. In its final report on the UK credit card market, the regulator said: "Credit cards are suited to short term borrowing and can be an expensive way to borrow large amounts over a long period. We are concerned about the volume of borrowing behaviour that does not fit this pattern. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36892843
  11. In February... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/active-securities-secures-full-fca-authorisation-569623481.html Yet... My complaint with the FOS - They completely ignored.. so it has to go to an adjudicator. How do they gain this status if they ignore the FOS? How is responsiveness to the FOS not a requirement?
  12. Budget 2016: FCA to regulate claims management companies The government has moved to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) responsible for regulating claims management companies. Announced as part of today's Budget measures, the Treasury said it would introduce a ‘tougher’ regulatory regime for claims management firms. This followed a review of the claims management industry which recommended a cap on the amount such firms can charge. ‘The government is clamping down on the rogue claims management companies that provide bad service and bombard customers with nuisance calls,’ it said. ‘The new regime will be tougher and will ensure claims management company managers can be held personally accountable for the actions of their businesses.’ The Treasury said the FCA would be put in charge of the new regulation. ‘In order to ensure that the new regulatory regime is implemented effectively, the government intends to transfer responsibility for regulating claims management companies.’ The move to regulate claims management firms follows a National Audit Office report into financial mis-selling redress, which discovered claims management firms made between £3.5 billion and £5 billion from the total £22 billion paid out to victims of payment protection insurance mis-selling. City Wire High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1cadccd4-eb8f-11e5-bb79-2303682345c8.html#ixzz439YM4YFJ The prominence of CMCs has risen in recent years with scandals such as payment protection insurance, where banks have provisioned a total of £30bn for compensation, making it the UK’s costliest instance of mis-selling. CMCs are estimated to have received as much as £5bn of the overall £22.2bn paid out by banks in PPI compensation between 2011 and 2015, according to a recent report by the National Audit Office. Financial Times
  13. Another one falls... CashEuroNet Who operates Quickquid and Pounds2Pocket is to offer redress... Remember folks... Read closely... Loans AFTER 1st April 2014 affected... HERE
  14. Directors of the City regulator will hold crunch talks later about the imposition of a deadline which would draw a line under the £25bn payment protection insurance mis-selling scandal. Sky News has learnt that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will discuss the merits of a so-called time-bar exercise as part of a scheduled board meeting. The board meeting will come ‎four months after the watchdog raised the spectre of a fresh deluge of compensation claims as a consequence of a landmark legal ruling at the Supreme Court last year. Bank executives have warned that the implications of a case brought by Susan Plevin - which centred on a company's failure to disclose to her a large commission payment on her PPI policy - could be catastrophic for the industry. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/watchdog-crunch-talks-25bn-ppi-cut-off-213150769--finance.html#6cfwso4
  15. I run a small company; I took Barclay's Bank to court as a Micro Enterprise. Under the FCA Banking: Conduct of business source book (BCOBS or COBS), the BCOBS states that a business with a turnover of under 2,000,000 Euros and fewer than 10 staff is classified as a consumer and to my understanding of the BCOBS has the same rights as such. Initially I was awarded judgement (by default) as Barclay’s didn’t respond to the court in time. But they had it over turned arguing that although we may be a Micro Enterprise, we did not have the same rights as a consumer and thus had no case, therefore the court argued Barclay's would have a strong likelihood of defending the case. As from last week they have 28 days to prepare their fuller defense. Can anyone shed any light on this, do I have consumer rights in this case, has anyone had a similar experience?
  16. Has anyone seen this: https://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/requirement-notices/preferred-mortgages-limited-vreq I have a Preferred account and have been in constant battle over fees. I received a letter today to say they are refunding overcharged fees from 2009 - 2012 and they have entered into an agreement with FCA to refund overcharged fees plus 8% interest. The fees in the scheme include: Arrears management fees, Litigation management fees and Repossession Management fees.
  17. As any sensible person will know, the Freeman movement are stating that using WeRe cheques are legal tender. Errm! Nope The Financial Conduct Authority have taken an interest in this and have published a statement. http://www.fca.org.uk/news/consumer-notice-were-bank If that doesn't convince you to stay away, you had better start investing in tinfoil hats
  18. 'The (mill) wheels... grind slow, but they grind exceeding small.' I noticed the thread HFO/OFT Minded to Revoke thread had its last post eight months ago, so I'm putting this in a new thread - I hope admin will move it if they see fit. With help from many CAGgers, specifically DonkeyB (good luck in the Rugby World Cup:oops:) we were part of a process that ended in a thorough, days' long interview with the OFT to do with being hounded by HFO using draconian and humiliating practices on a debt we didn't owe them. We were asked but due to ill health were unable to be witnesses. It gives me great pleasure to share the mucho satisfactory letter received today: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Sir/Madam HFO Services Limited, Roxburghe (UK) Limited, HFO Capital Limited and Alasdair Turnbull ('The Appellants') v The Financial Conduct Authority Further to our recent correspondence, I write to update you on developments in the above proceedings. Following settlement discussions, the Appellants have agreed to exit the consumer credit market and to write off any outstanding consumer credit debts which they own. The FCA has agreed to the quashing of the determination made by the Office of Trading on 27 January 2014. It follows that the Tribunal proceedings have concluded and therefore there will not be a Tribunal hearing in this atter. A statement reflecting this outcome will be published on our website soon. We are grateful to you for all your assistance in this matter. ============================================ Alice in Limboland! It couldn't happen to a nicer bloke. Thank you again for all your help.
  19. Morning All, Not totally sure if have posted in the correct place so apologies if not. Thought I'd share with you an extract from correspondence received direct from the FCA today: General information on the Consumer Credit Act Copy of credit agreement Under section 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act, a lender is required, at the request of a borrower, to provide a copy of the executed credit agreement and information in relation to outstanding amounts within the 12 working days of receiving the request. If the lender fails to comply with this request, it is not entitled to enforce the credit agreement until the request is fully complied with. While the credit agreement remains unenforceable, the lender is still entitled to take a number of actions, including demand repayment of the debt. To meet the requirements of these sections, the lender is not required to provide an exact copy, photocopy or microfiche copy of the signed original. This is reflected in the CCA which requires the copy of the credit agreement provided under sections 77 and 78 to be a “true copy”. Under the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983, a “true copy of the credit agreement may omit the signature and date of the credit agreement. The “true copy” of the executed credit agreement may be reconstituted from sources other than the actual signed credit agreement following Carey v HSBC [2009]. However, if the lender provides a reconstituted copy of the credit agreement, it should explain to the borrower that this is what it has done. The Purposes of these sections The purpose of sections 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is to provide a borrower with the relevant information about his or her contract, in particular the contract terms and the current state of the account. Parliament appears to have recognised that consumers may lose documentation, or may not keep clear records of payments, and may be unable to ascertain accurately what their contractual rights and obligations are, or how much has been paid and what is still owed. This is particularly important if there is a dispute over what is owed, or an alleged default. In those cases, preventing a creditor or owner from enforcing the contract until clarification is provided is an important and reasonable protection for the consumer. At the same time, it’s important to remember that the purpose of this legal provision is to provide information to the consumer; it is not to provide a method for consumers to avoid paying their debts. Unenforceability is merely the sanction where there is a continuing failure on the lender's part to provide the information.
  20. Since 1988 we have been victims of fraud by a Building Society – now part of a major bank. In 2006 we exposed part of the fraud ourselves; the FOS upheld our complaint; on the same day the Building Society registered their displeasure by surcharging us an amount equal to twice the refund ordered by the FOS. Evidence discovered subsequently via the FOS (using the Freedom of Information Act) showed there had been other infractions by the Building Society. The City of London Police declared there have been fraud; we now have a case number. They asked us to forward details to the Financial Conduct Authority. Our mortgage was redeemed precisely on the prescribed date but, unknown to us at the time, the amount was split by the Building Society and used for other purposes. By way of explanation to the FOS, the Building Society claimed that an endowment policy had been inadequate. However, there had been no endowment policy used in the settlement. That had been the third piece of false evidence they had submitted to the Ombudsman. A surcharge valued at 10% of the mortgage was made against us by the Building Society soon after. There had been other such sanctions by the BS totalling over half the capital amount of the mortgage. At the time of our invoking the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Bank seemed to be aware there had been earlier transgressions by the Building Society, for some pieces of information had been redacted. We have notified the ICO. Our numerous letters to the Building Society asking them to address these issues have been ignored for the past 7 years, They have however continued to charge us £40 routinely, now amounting to over £11,000, all of which is based upon a fake debt, contrived by the Building Society. Action Fraud have explained they are too busy to progress our case. The FCA do not deal with individual cases. I, at the age of 77, do not have the funds to confront a major bank at court. We have been given to understand that the Statute of Limitations (the 6 year limit) which is available to defendants at the FOS, should not be available in cases of criminality, and so our case was not suitable for the FOS to deal with, either in 2008 or again now. 1. Is there anyone who finds this at all familiar? 2. Does anyone have a useful suggestion on which way I should turn next for help? For reasons of brevity there is much I have not explained here, but I have compiled a chronological and more comprehensive account, cross referenced to a compendium of evidence.
  21. Prior to taking over the regulation of consumer credit in April 2014 we undertook extensive work to understand this market. The results of this indicated that debt management was one of the highest risk activities. We wanted to improve the outcomes for customers and therefore began thematic work which assessed the quality of advice provided by debt management firms. In September 2014, our other supervisory work in the debt management sector demonstrated significant non-compliance with our consumer credit rules. Following a series of targeted visits to firms, we advised that many debt management firms needed to ‘raise their game’. Our thematic review assesses the level of compliance with our existing rules – most of which are based on the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) former Debt Management Guidance. It does not establish any new standards or expectations. http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/thematic-reviews/tr15-8 It is very good to see that the 'free' services offered were substantially better than the fee charging ones. It is only 40 pages long and is quite easy to read.
  22. The Financial Conduct Authority today announced plans to ban opt-out selling in financial services markets. Opt-out selling is the practice of defaulting consumers into buying a product which they then have to opt out of, for example by using pre-ticked boxes to sell the consumer add-on insurance. http://www.fca.org.uk/news/fca-proposes-an-end-to-opt-out-selling-of-insurance-add-ons FCA to ban pre-ticked 'add-on' insurance sales http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/mar/25/fca-to-ban-pre-ticked-add-on-insurance-sales
  23. The failings also relate to Yorkshire Bank, which is a sister business of Clydesdale within parent company National Australia Bank The banks are now reviewing all PPI complaints handled prior to last August and have offered redress to any customers impacted by the failings.
  24. Hi Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) 'Occasional paper' on vulnerability - recent document & worth a read IMO http://www.fca.org.uk/static/documents/occasional-papers/occasional-paper-8.pdf W
×
×
  • Create New...