Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'fsa'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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


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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me

Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day

Cost Per Day


Found 52 results

  1. Hi Folks! In December 2011, GE took us to court as we fell behind with our secured loan with them. The judge ruled in our favour and suspended the order and we all agreed on a given repayment plan of £156 per month. I stuck at that for 9 months, with every month calling GE and paying the amount over the phone, October 2012 when starting a new contract job in London that involved long commuting and even working some Saturdays. I work in IT btw. I know it is not an excuse but the commute overwhelmed me in every sense, and I started to get ill too. I forgot to stick to my repayment. In December, I left that job after it was agreed that it would be better for my health (with the contracted party). I started a new job in January full time closer to home but the employer didn't manage to secure a big client so my wages was a stumbling block for them, so they gave me one week's notice and I lost the job within three weeks of starting. This is purely because they employed me in anticipation of securing a big contract. in Februray, 2013 I had a minor stroke, and was in hospital overnight. I recovered and found another local permanent job. In February, I made a lump sum payment of £500. Up until last week, no communications from GE. Last week thursday,they notified me that they have sought a warrant for possession of the property. On monday, I called GE, and I offered a lump sum payment of £2000 (Aussie tax refund which I got only few days ago ) and I said with the help of my new job, I can increase my monthly to £500 to help clear any backlog. The guy at the other end of the phone didn't even hear my offer and said he declined it! In the end he said come back and when you have a better offer. I came here for help on this forum and with the help of this forum and my sister who was a lawyer but now a mum for two little boys, I submitted on thursday a n244. I made the same offer in my appeal to set aside the judgement. However, I also called GE automated service and paid £2000 for which I should have it appearing on my statement tomorrow (Friday 19th). My hearing is on Monday at 10, while the eviction is set for 23 April at 12.30pm I can demonstrate that I can afford the new repayment but I am so worried. I messed up but I want to rectify but I am not being given the chance. GE want the whole money owed to them which £15k. They say that the £15k is the arrears but that is the full balance . I am confused with this? missed payments at £156 from October till February. I paid them £500 in February as soon as I could. Please help me get myself togeher again. I am still going to hospital appointments for various tests a the doctors trying to find out what caused my mini stroke. They did say that bad news can do this too. In the meantime, I have kept all from my wife as I don't want her to feel the pressure. At the last hearing, she was so scared of losing the home and because of me this might happen again. Please help. I need to go on Monday with some clear ideas, which I am hoping good folks can help me get. Thanks you for reading and helping PS: GE have added a large number of charges that I know some are unfair and they also charged me PPI, which is clearly marked on my contract! I will seek these back, soon as I have done with them. Please help. Thanks Another point: My telephone offer was for £2000 lump sum, and increase of monthly obligations from £156 to £500 and set up Direct Debit. The last point of direct debit was left out in the N244 which was done in a panicky state as I originally thought the eviction was for monday and wanted to hand in the n244 by end of wednesday! I have also made a hasty mistake too: My statement for n244 says offer of £2000 lump sum but have paid this by phone. Oh dear, what to do next? I know I need to stay calm, as my blood pressure was 152 in my last test at the hospital last week! I haven't slept since last week and hardly eaten but put on a brave face for my 14 year daughter and my wife. They hardly know anything. But it is getting me donw.
  2. My first post and I going to let it all out. Please read. Not sure if there is a lesson to be learnt but I need guidance. In 2004 I took a mortgage with Northern Rock via an independent broker who I was working for as an employee. 3 months later I got into a dispute with my employer (I asked for payslips) who then decided that 100% of my previous years income was in fact all loans and that I was never employed. No one got pay slips and his family were all accountants. My employer stopped paying me and remarked my mortgage was fraudulent and that I would go to prison. Apparently I purposely took out a £1800 a month mortgage without any income. I then had solicitors appointed against me by him. He did this to other employees. 5 months after obtaining my mortgage I was unable to make any payments. I informed Northern Rock why, and told them why payments had ceased and that I was panic stricken that my mortgage could be fraudulent. They did nothing. So I went to the FSA. They visited my house and I showed them the evidence of my mortgage and the subsequent evidence that all my income was loans. The FSA said there is nothing they can do. I went to the Police who sent someone to meet me from their fraud division. Eventually the Police replied in a letter and said only my lender could make the complaint as they were the 'victim'. I sent the letter to Northern Rock and asked them to do it. They refused. This whole process I just mentioned took almost 1 year. My a+ credit rating was decimated. I was on medication for stress and anxiety plus having counselling. My health literally collapsed. My partner left me. I just did not know what to do and I curled up into a ball. My ex boss even had his solicitors write to me saying if I took another job it would be 'breach of contract'. I ended up on Incapacity Benefit (never been on benefits before) therefore my lender received interest payments from housing benefit. Because my lender did nothing and my mortgage circumstances were unresolved I deteriorated. I did not know what to do so I gave everything away and fled. I was homeless and looking back, mentally ill. This was early 2007. In late 2007 I went back to my house. It had been empty and was full of leaves but other than that nothing - it was like I never left. No locks changed; nothing. So I moved back in. Having no referencable background to get a job with I decided to start a business. It did well and eventually I began to make all-I-could-afford-payments each month to Northern Rock. Within 18 months I was making full 1800pm payments. Then the recession bit and I could not sustain the full payments. It didn't take long for me to end up back on meds again. Of course Northern Rock still did nothing about how my mortgage was obtained or the arrears. It was like they just ignored it. So after fighting the good fight I decided in October 2011 to hand the keys back. I had just become a father and decided I needed a conclusion to this. The arrears were over £100k so the house was in negative equity which was why I could not sell it privately. The house was sold I and ended up owing a shortfall of 126k. I have not acknowledged this debt or paid anything towards it. I feel Northern Rock (now NRAM) had a responsibility to me and to report a crime, they always choose not to. I campaigned for years for them to do so - even when I was making payments each month. I really suffered through all this - credit rating is still wrecked, I get chronic anxiety even now and I am still trapped by it all. I refuse to go bankrupt. Why should I? I did nothing wrong and did everything that could be reasonably expected of me to report it. Anyway, thank you for reading all this. My question is can I get this debt written off? My mortgage was for £315k, the house sold for £325k, the 126k that is outstanding is all interest. If anyone can help I would be grateful and can return the favour - today I am a self employed web designer and marketer. Btw, HMRC investigated both myself and my employer. My employer wound up his company so HMRC said it was not in the tax payers interest to pursue him. No company to pursue so no tribunal procedure either.
  3. Just wondering with the FSA being closed down and restarted as the FCA. How will this affect the way we use BCOBS when dealing with the banks?
  4. My situation: Defaulted on considerable debts last year built up to pay for disabled child's care after restructuring at work and an unexpected tax bill. Tax bill being paid in installments until end of next year, takes up all disposable income leaving I got quite depressed and couldn't handle it, but started trying last year and started making token payments to a number of people (once the tax bill is paid it will take ~4.5 years to pay off sizeable creditors). I also told everyone to please not apply for CCJs as a) I have no assets and b) I am an FSA registered person and it could cause me to lose my job For my MBNA card (sold to Varde investments/experto, ~25% of outstanding) I emailed them saying I owed the debt, wanted to pay and put forward payment plan (£1 a month until tax paid, then over 4.5 years balance) in August, also giving details of my new address which I moved to in May. They did not reply, but I got a letter from HL solictors threatening legal action in October (sent to my old address, on the final day of mail forwarding), so I mailed in a copy of my income/expenditure and a letter outlining my situation and offer. They acknowledged receipt of this mail at the end of October, but said they had not received the income/expenditure form and asked for it to be resent. They also acknowledged that they had updated my new address in their systems. I did not send in the income/expenditure/bank statements again as I got caught up in more corporate restructuring (financial sector these days ) Didn't hear anything back from them or about them until my compliance officer came to me a few months ago and asked about a CCJ on my file (!) This was lodged against my old address. I called them and asked for their help setting it aside, explaining the above and saying I'd be happy to do a Tomlin order as I could a) lose my job over this if not removed and b) not be able to move jobs, where I'd been offered two significantly higher paying jobs or get another job (and so probably have to go bankrupt - I am great at my career and rising fast in reputation) They asked for my income/expenditure and said I'd need to sign the tomlin order before it was set aside, as well as pay for the Tomlin order and set aside, so I emailed them in this time, I waited for a bit and then.. They called and said they'd refuse to set aside the CCJ as I had not been co-operative and it was not their fault I may lose my job They also said I did not have enough disposable income, despite me repeatedly stating that all of the disposable income I had was going to the tax man until the end of next year, for them to a Tomlin order. On the other side they said they would accept my payment offer subject to review every 6 months (£1 a month then 4.5 year payment), which confused me terribly, and said they'd send over bank details and they would push for enforcement if I didn't make the £1 payments. I was told by some that a set aside on account of wrong address is up to the judge's discretion, but when I called the national debt line they said as I didn't contest the amount it may not be agreed and I'd have to pay their legal fees? (something I can't do on my Advice of exactly what to do here would be exceptionally appreciated, I have just about pulled myself out of depression and am working hard, but this has put me on edge Sorry for the long post!
  5. The FSA has finalised new rules to regulate Libor and other financial benchmarks in the wake of last year’s rate rigging scandal. Libor will be regulated from 1 April when the Financial Conduct Authority comes into force. Under the final rules, published today, the Libor administrator will need to corroborate submissions and monitor suspicious activity. Firms submitting Libor data must outline a clear conflict of interest policy with appropriate systems and controls.The FSA believes this will result in clear, robust rules which will give firms and their employees comfort that the regulatory regime clarifies what is expected of them. The FCA will also introduce two new significant influence controlled functions under the approved persons regime for the administrator and submitting firms. FCA chief executive designate Martin Wheatley says: “Confidence and trust are critical to financial markets. That trust has been eroded by the Libor scandal and the recent enforcement action against several banks. These new rules today should help restore that faith and bring integrity back to Libor.” In the last year, the Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS and Barclays have faced billions of pounds worth of global fines after their traders were found to have fixed rates. Last month, an internal review into the FSA’s handling of Libor rigging found failings in its approach. The Wheatley review, published in September 2012, outlined 10 recommendations to improve the Libor system. The new rules were passed into law under the Financial Services Act 2012. They include the appointment of a new Libor administrator to replace the British Bankers’ Association. Last month, the Government appointed the Hogg Tendering Advisory committee for Libor to choose a new administrator that will report back later this year. Link: http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/latest-news/fsa-finalises-new-libor-rules/1068422.article
  6. Few will mourn the passing of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) which closed it's doors on 31st March. It will be mainly remembered as the watchdog that didn't bark. It was seen as reluctant to take action against individuals involved in breaking the rules, be they big or small. It was critcised as too slow, too reactive, too dedicated to its rule book. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/24/farewell-fsa-bleak-legacy-light-touch-regulator The Financial Conduct Authority replaces the FSA and new authority has promised "a renewed focus on consumers" as well as "strong enforcement action" when it encounters market abuse. The FCA has also claimed it "will be much more proactive, acting earlier and more decisively than the FSA". Hopefully the FCA's statements will be backed up by strong action, sooner rather than later. http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/five-questions-about-the-fca-8554716.html
  7. How do I access the FSA handbook online? I am particularly interested in the sections relating to self-employment which I believe are pages 138-149. This is in relation to my PPI complaint which has been rejected by FOS. OK found the sticky with instructions suvin
  8. The Financial Services Authority has fined Prudential up to £30m and censured its chief executive Tidjane Thiam. The penalty, first revealed in The Daily Telegraph, relates to the insurer’s failure to have followed the correct protocol in notifying the City regulator ahead of its abortive $35.5bn (£23.4bn) bid for Asian rival AIA in 2010. The FSA said in a statement: "Prudential failed to deal with the FSA in an open and cooperative manner when it was seeking to acquire AIA in early 2010, because it did not inform the FSA of the proposed acquisition until after it had been leaked to the media on 27 February 2010." The insurer is thought to have agreed the fine as a settlement after a lengthy stand-off with the regulator. Talks between the two sides are understood to have been going on for more than a year, with the FSA initially demanding a fine of as much as £80m and a further £400,000 penalty for Mr Thiam. The size of the FSA fine is expected to raise eyebrows in the City. A penalty of £30m would be one of the biggest the regulator has levied - topping the £29.7m handed to UBS in November last year for failing to prevent “large-scale unauthorised trading” by rogue trader Kweku Adoboli. The FSA said: "The failure to inform the FSA was significant because it resulted in the FSA having to consider highly complex issues within a compressed timescale before making a decision as to whether to suspend Prudential’s shares. More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/insurance/9956392/FSA-fines-Prudential-30m-and-censures-chief-Tidjane-Thiam-over-AIA-deal.html
  9. The FSA and the Bank of England have outlined a series of regulatory changes designed to make it easier for new banks to set up in the UK. The changes have been the result of a review into the banking sector looking at the barriers new entrants face. Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Kramer, who is a former vice-president of Citibank in Chicago and an ex-MP, said today’s changes are a “game changer”. She says: “For 100 years the regulator has rejected almost every new bank, leaving us with a banking system dominated by just four institutions, many of whom have abused that power by failing to serve the customer.” Both regulators have today set out changes to regulatory requirements and the authorisation processes which it says will ease the pressures on start-up banks. In terms of the prudential regime, start-up banks will be subject to reduced liquidity and capital buffer requirements. The additional capital requirements, known as add-ons and scalars, which were previously applied to new entrants to reflect uncertainty are being scrapped.Start-up banks will be required to hold a 4.5 per cent minimum Core Tier 1 capital requirements rather than the 7 per cent to 9.5 per cent requirement asked of existing banks. All new banks will benefit from a recent reduction in liquidity requirements and there will no longer be an automatic new bank liquidity premium. FSA chairman Adair Turner says: “This has been a comprehensive review and we have made some bold changes, ones that respond to the difficulties faced by applicant firms. We believe the changes will make a significant difference to the ease with which new firms can enter the UK banking system and, as a result, enable an increased competitive challenge to existing banks.” In terms of the authorisation process, start-ups which have completed the application will have the assessment by the Prudential Regulatory Authority and Financial Conduct Authority completed within six months. Significant levels of up-front support will also be provided during the pre-application stage. Applicants which are unable to meet the six-month timetable for the authorisation process, either because they cannot fund the up-front investment required or due to longer lead times for raising capital, will have access to an alternative route. This three-stage route to authorisation will offer the same pre-application support but with a shorter application which focuses on essential elements. The FCA recognises business case, capital, liquidity, and key senior appointments as essential elements. The authorisation granted will come with a restriction that will enable the firm to then mobilise the remaining requirements such as capital, personnel, IT and other infrastructure. The changes which have not yet been implemented will come into effect from 1 April when the PRA and the FCA both come into existence. Link: http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/latest-news/fsa-and-boe-relax-the-barriers-to-entry-for-new-banks/1068482.article
  10. My partner took out a secured loan with PPI seven years ago. He has always been self employed and the PPI does not cover self employed people. The loan is with GE Money but apparently was sold by Capital One Home Owner Loans Ltd. GE have advised that Capital One Home Owner Loans Ltd are no longer trading and we need to contact the administrators?! My partner has to continue paying the PPI plus interest as it was added to his loan as an upfront fee. I know I am able to forward a claim for mis sold PPI through FSCS but they have advised they require Capital One Home Owner Loans Ltd address and FSA number. Has anybody got this information as my partner was never sent any policy details?
  11. Chancellor George Osborne has confirmed money raised through FSA fines will be donated to the armed forces. Speaking in his Budget announcement today, Osborne said money from regulatory fines including Libor will be used to fund combat stress help initiatives and Christmas boxes given to armed troops serving abroad for the next two years. Osborne said: “Those in the financial sector who have demonstrated the very worst of values are paying to support those in the armed forces who are demonstrating the very best of values.” In October, prime minister David Cameron said the Government will use £35m raised through FSA fines to support the armed forces. Cameron said it is not fair that money goes back into the banking industry in the form of fee reductions. Link: http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/budget-2013/budget-13-osborne-confirms-fsa-fines-to-go-to-military/1068073.article
  12. The FSA has set out how the Financial Conduct Authority will decide whether it is fair to publish an early warning notice about a firm or individual who is subject to an ongoing enforcement investigation. The FSA has today published a consultation paper on the FCA’s policy for publishing warning notices. The publication stage of possible regulatory action was brought forward in 2010 from when an enforcement case was concluded to the decision notice stage, after the firm or individual has had an opportunity to respond to the warning notice. Under the new regulatory structure, the FCA will have powers to publish at the earlier warning notice stage. The power will only apply to disciplinary procedures such as proposals to fine, suspend or censure a firm or individual, and will not apply to plans to ban an individual or withdraw or cancel permissions. Decisions to publish a warning notice will be taken by the Regulatory Decisions Committee, which acts as an independent body and as the first part of the regulator’s appeals process. The consultation sets out the FCA will not publish a warning notice if it would be unfair to the person whom the regulator is looking to take action against; prejudicial to the interests of consumers; or detrimental to the stability of the financial system. The FSA proposes the FCA will publish that it is taking action, but will not specify the level of any proposed fine. Those who want to argue against publication on the grounds of unfairness would have to prove publication could materially affect their health, result in a disproportionate loss of income or livelihood, prejudice criminal proceedings to which they are a party or give rise to some other equal degree of harm. The FSA says: “The principal purpose of the power is to promote early transparency of enforcement proceedings. Its introduction marks a real departure from the previous regulatory regime and is a bold move towards more transparent and open regulation. “Both the financial services industry and consumers will be able to understand the types of behaviour the FCA considers acceptable at an earlier stage, which in turn will strengthen the FCA’s continuing enforcement strategy of credible deterrence.” Link: http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/latest-news/fsa-sets-out-when-early-warning-notices-will-be-published/1067947.article
  13. FSA/PN/021/2013 06 Mar 2013 The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has published its consultation on how it plans to introduce a strong and flexible regime to regulate consumer credit. The regime is tailored to address the risks that face consumers without putting undue burdens on firms. The Government announced earlier today that it would transfer responsibility for regulating consumer credit from the Office for Fair Trading (OFT) to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) by 1 April 2014. The Government has also published a consultation on the legislative changes needed to transfer responsibility to the FCA. The FSA’s consultation sets out the overall approach and framework for the regime that will be administered by its successor body the FCA. The framework will enable the FCA to deliver better outcomes for consumers than the existing regime with the following tools: •Increased flexibility e.g. rule making powers, including product banning; •More resource; •The ability to tac kle problems earlier through access to more information about firms, the scope to take a market-wide approach by requiring action from all firms in a sector and proactive supervision of higher risk firms; •There will be more scrutiny of higher-risk firms before they are allowed to operate in the market and significantly more scrutiny of the integrity and competence of the individuals in key positions in all firms; •The FCA will have the power to require firms to reimburse consumers when they have lost out due to a firm’s actions; and •The FCA will be able to apply its full enforcement powers including banning firms and individuals and imposing fines. Martin Wheatley, FCA CEO designate, said: “Consumer credit inhabits every corner of our day to day financial lives. It is a broad church spanning everything from overdrafts to hire purchase to credit cards to debt advice, provided by tens of thousands of firms of all shapes and sizes. “We will focus our efforts on the areas of highest risk, and ensure we use our resources sensibly and proportionately. The work we have done with consumer groups and trade bodies has helped us reach this point and will continue to help us make the transition as smooth as possible. “This regime is a sensible approach to everyday finances. It will give consumers the protection they expect without placing an undue burden on the firms that service them.” The new regime will be designed to focus resource on higher risk firms, such as pay day lenders, pawnbrokers, credit reference agencies and debt collection. Lower risk firms will not have to meet such onerous standards and will pay lower fees. These firms include not-for-profit debt counselling, businesses providing lending as a side activity (e.g. a sports club that allows its members to pay by instalment). It also includes credit broking, such as where retailers and motor dealers introduce customers to lenders. There is a short timetable to the transfer and the FSA is keen to make the transition as straightforward as possible. This means that there will be a phased approach to the transfer, with an interim period starting in April 2014 and moving to full implementation by April 2016. •From Autumn 2013, existing OFT licence holders can apply for interim permission so that they can continue to operate; •They will have to provide limited information and pay a one off fee; •Existing OFT licences will lapse on 31 March 2014 and FCA interim permissions will begin from 1 April 2014; •The interim permission regime will end in 2016 and firms need to be fully authorised by that time. Notes for editors 1.The Consultation Paper can be found on the FSA website. 2.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. 3.The FSA will be replaced by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority in 2013 as required by the Financial Services Act 2012. Link: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/2013/021.shtml Link to publication: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/cp/cp13-07.pdf
  14. Consumer credit firms must apply for interim permission to trade from their new regulator from the fourth quarter of this year, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has warned. Regulation of consumer credit transfers from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which replaces the FSA in April 2014, if the current timetable is followed. But the FSA’s head of consumer credit, Will Amos, said firms must start applying for interim permission to trade as early as the fourth quarter of 2013. New regulatory fees are not yet confirmed but Amos said sole traders would face a charge of around £150, while larger firms would pay around £300 for interim permission. Speaking at Credit Today’s annual Credit Summit in London, he said: “We are looking to start that around Q4 2013, so there is ample time for firms to get permission. “We will take action against firms which do not comply with interim permission. It is our intention that firms then apply for full authorisation by April 2016.” Larger firms which pose higher risk, including companies involved in debt collection or payday lending, will be among the first to be licensed by the new body. And Amos re-iterated a warning that regulatory fees were also likely to increase, with the FCA considering authorisation fees on top of annual fees. Unlike the OFT model – where firms of any size pay a flat fee for a licence – the FCA is likely to charge higher fees to larger firms. All these decisions are currently subject to a hefty consultation released by the FSA last week. Separately, the FSA is considering whether the largest debt management firms should be subjected to client asset rules, which would protect client assets if the company fell into financial difficulty. Such a move would subject the debt management industry to similar regulatory rules that apply to investment businesses. “We are also looking at a compliance function for debt management firms,” Amos added.“People who are advising consumers on debt management would not have to be pre-authorised but we are looking at a function where individuals such as the chief executive would be responsible for the advice the firm is giving.” Link: http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/14956/online-news/fsa-to-authorise-credit-firms-from-2013
  15. Quick Question: Does it state anywhere in the new FSA Guidelines that in order to consider a Full and final Settlement figure, that a DCA needs to see a completed Income and Expenditure Form, in order that they can assess whether we can afford the sum proposed. Cheers in Advance
  16. Metro Bank founder and former chairman Anthony Thomson has called for the FSA to go further in its plans to remove barriers to new entrants in the banking sector. Speaking at a Westminster Business policy forum on retail banking today, Thomson said the FSA must do more to reform its capital rules for new banks. The FSA is publishing a paper on removing barriers to entry in the coming weeks. Last week, FSA chairman Lord Turner said it will include plans to cut capital requirements for new entrants in half. Currently new banks are forced to hold 9 per cent capital against their predicted assets after three years. If a bank estimates it will have £1bn of assets after three years, it must hold £90m in capital from its first day of operation despite the assets not yet being accumulated. Thomson said: “It is incredibly capital inefficient. Why would you put your money into a business that has to hold £90m in reserves against no business? “I know Lord Turner said he wants to reduce the capital to 4.5 per cent from 9 per cent, but it is still far too much money. It is not the quantum but the proportion of your balance sheet and if you have no balance sheet it is still far too much money, whether its 4.5 per cent or 9 per cent. “What the FSA needs to do is look at how much capital banks need in the first year, then they can hold more capital in the second year, and so on.” In 2010, Metro Bank was the first firm to gain a UK banking licence in more than 100 years. Thomson left the bank last year as it made plans to launch on the stock market.Thomson described Metro Bank’s authorisation process, which took two years, as “very, very long” and “Kafkaesque”. He recommended reductions in authorisation times, greater access to the payments system and better bank infrastructure as ways to encourage new entrants. Link: http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/latest-news/metro-bank-founder-fsa-must-further-relax-rules-for-new-bank-entrants/1067345.article
  17. Read more http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/2012/111.shtml
  18. Two satellite insurance companies shut down by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for trading as unauthorised businesses lost their appeal at the Supreme Court today. The companies made millions of pounds selling Sky TV customers insurance cover for satellite television equipment without being authorised by the Financial Services Authority. In return for an insurance premium of between £6.49 and £11.49 per month, the firms promised customers unlimited callouts covering all parts and labour costs. Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (DSWC) made approximately £10m in profit in 2010 and Satellite Services (Satellite) turned over £2.1m worth of business in the same period. More : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/9867900/FSA-wins-court-battle-with-rogue-Sky-box-insurers.html
  19. Just found this whilst browsing the web Mortgages - Legal Mortgage Deed Related information Challenging unfair terms in financial contracts Reporting unfair contract terms Changes made to contract terms See how to protect your finances Related links Consumer Direct Complaints about personal loans, hire purchase, credit cards and other credit products Financial Ombudsman Service The independent service for resolving disputes between consumers and financial firms London Scottish Mortgages We reviewed two terms in this contract. Term 1 What did we think was unfair? A term appeared to give the firm extensive freedom to impose charges on customers. It also said that customers would pay the cost of any enforcement proceedings. Why did we think it was unfair? The term appeared to allow unreasonable freedom to impose charges. It also appeared to make customers pay for enforcement proceedings even if they began because of the firm’s negligence, or the firm lost those proceedings. What has the firm done? The firm agreed to make the term more reasonable and reduce its freedom to impose charges on customers. Also, the firm will not pass on the costs of enforcement proceedings unless they are rightfully started. Old term 'You must pay on a full and unqualified indemnity basis all fees, expenses, taxes, liabilities and legal and other costs... in: (a) the preparation, completion, registration, administration, protection and enforcement (including the costs of any proceedings) of this mortgage…' New term 'You must pay on a full and unqualified indemnity basis all fees, expenses, taxes, liabilities and legal and other costs …reasonably incurred by the Lender in: (a) the preparation, completion, registration, administration, protection and rightful enforcement (including the costs of any proceedings) of this Mortgage…' Term 2 What did we think was unfair? In the mortgage terms and conditions there was a term stating that early repayment charges may be payable. There was no such term in the Legal Mortgage Deed. Why did we think it was unfair? Customers reading the Legal Mortgage Deed might think early repayment charges do not apply. What has the firm done? The Legal Mortgage Deed now includes a cross-referencing clause so customers know that terms covering early repayment charges are in the mortgage terms and conditions. New term 'Should you wish to pay the Secured Amounts early, the Lender has the right to make an early settlement charge. The charges that will apply are set out in the Offer and the terms that will apply in relation to early settlement are set out in clause 6 of the Loan Terms and Conditions.'
  20. Conservative MP Mark Garnier has blasted the FSA for “massive failings” in dealing with senior executives at banks involved in misselling scandals. Garnier, who is a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, is part of a panel looking into misselling and is arguing for tougher sanctions for senior staff. He says: “The question I want to dig into is whether the senior people at an organisation can put up what amounts to a responsibility firewall around themselves. If you hire the three monkeys to hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, then it is fine. “It is a massive failing by the regulator to say that if a senior employee did not know what was going on then they are not responsible. My view is that if they are setting the tone from the top and it is the wrong tone then they have a responsibility. The argument that it was on their watch but they were not watching simply does not cut any ice.” More: http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/insurance/tory-mp-slams-fsa-for-failing-to-tackle-misselling/1064387.article
  21. The banking industry and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) are in talks to set a deadline for customers being able to make claims for the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9805068/Banks-and-FSA-to-put-deadline-on-PPI-claims.html
  22. What the hell is going on. . . . ? Hector Sants, the former Financial Services Authority chief executive criticised over regulatory failures during the financial crisis, has been knighted in the New Year Honours list. More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9770062/Honours-list-Former-FSA-chief-Hector-Sants-knighted-despite-regulatory-failures.html
  23. After Swiss bank UBS agree to pay £940m in fines to settle charges of manipulating Libor, Damian Reece, The Telegraph's Head of Business, says the scale of undetected wrongdoing is "shocking". Swiss banking giant UBS has agreed to pay £940m to regulators in order to settle charges of manipulating Libor interest rates, fraud and paying bribes to brokers. UBS' 1.4bn Swiss franc (£940m) fine includes a £160m payment to the Financial Services Authority, the largest penalty ever levied by the British watchdog, and $1.2bn paid to US authorities. The penalty is the second-largest fine paid by a bank and is more than three times the £290m fine levied on Barclays in June for attempting to rig the Libor benchmark rate used to price financial contracts around the world. The FSA said at least 45 people were involved in or were aware of the rigging and that the breaches occurred over a five-year period between January 2005 and December 2010. The watchdog described the misconduct as "extensive and widespread", with at least 2,000 requests for inappropriate submissions documented and "unquantifiable" number of oral requests. Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libor-scandal/9755469/Scale-of-UBS-Libor-abuse-shows-why-FSA-is-being-dismantled.html
  24. Damian Reece, The Telegraph's Head of Business, says the scale of fines awarded to banks will have an impact on their ability to lend money to consumers. UBS has swallowed a £940m fine after a global probe revealed its staff orchestrated the manipulation of benchmark interest rates. The extent of the wrongdoing was highlighted in a series of emails released by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which showed how traders and brokers conspired to rig the rate and referred to each other in congratulatory terms. In this video, Telegraph Head of Business Damian Reece explains the impact that FSA fines will have on consumers. Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/9755502/Libor-scandal-FSA-fines-will-make-it-harder-for-banks-to-lend-to-consumers.html
  • Create New...