Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'oft'.



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 83 results

  1. I have a query, which I hope someone can help me with. In the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, under Section 7.15 about 'Statute barred debts', there are numerous references to paragraphs and annexes in the DCG. I am nigh on certain that this pertains to the 'Debt Collection Guidelines' formerly issued by the now defunct OFT. Unfortunately, the old OFT website is now completely dead, so I can't check this out there. I have searched elsewhere online, but any copies I have found don't fit with the paragraph numbers quoted in the Consumer Credit Sourcebook. I am assuming that I just can't find the last version of the DCG the OFT issued; rather than it being a case of wrong paragraph numbers being listed. I have reason to want to see the last version of the DCG the OFT issued, so if anyone can point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
  2. The latest issue of Ombudsman News has advice and case study decisions which could be useful for anyone thinking of re-claiming mis-sold packaged bank account fees. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/112/112-packaged-accounts.html
  3. Got a case going with the dealer I purchased prestige second hand car from. 3 months after battling to resolve amicable, im considering rejecting under SOGA or pay for repairs then claim cost ans damages through small claims court. The car developed faults from day one. Some were repaired under warranty. Other issues I had to fork out for myself as they were deemed to fall outside warranty. New problems surfaced, all of which were again deemed outside warranty so they refused to repair. Fortunately I took down a timeline of every event, phone call, names of ppl I spoke to, etc... So Following the advice on here, the OFT guide on second hand vehicles and other consumer advice websites, I wrote a detailed letter to the finance company threatening to reject. All that information put together in a 3 page long letter didn't portray the dealer in a pleasant light so I wasn't surprised when the finance company wrote back saying the dealer would not accept rejection but willing to refund any costs for repair falling outside warranty. I wrote back accepting the proposal as long as they cover for all repairs (not just what they deemed to be liable for) and also expenses for fuel/toll charges (there were multiple trips to their own nominated garage that added mileage). They have since gone quiet (it's been 2 weeks). I suspect the dealer bit off more than they wanted with that proposal and now are having second thoughts after seeing the estimated bill i sent through with my response. I have now tried to resolve direct with the dealer and through the finance company. I have offered to accept their proposal, yet still I have nothing. The faults are still there 3 months on which I am sure falls outside of "reasonable time to remediate" (or some similar wording) that OFT's guidelines mention. My preference is to reject and be done with this cursed mobile. However I also do not want a car sitting on my drive for months and years, as some on here have indicated can be the case. The alternative is to pay for the repairs and claim it all back through small claims. I suspect they will defend on the basis of either not covered by warranty or that the issues were due to "wear and tear" therefore not existing at the time of purchase. I would of course argue they were either present or in developing stage at the time of purchase. What is my chances in court? The issues (all 3 manifested around 1 week into ownership, ~ 1500 miles in). 1. Squealing noise from off-side wheels - caused by severely worn rear brake disc and pads attributing to hand brake issues. Discs and pads replaced. 2. Knocking sound from the front axle - caused by damaged front lower arm 3. Grinding noise from the front wheels - caused severe rust on discs. suggested front disc and pads replacement These above was the findings of the garage the dealer designated for diagnosis when I reported the issues. I don't think one could argue driving 1500 miles would "cause" the issues to the discs/pads. That could aggravate and bring it over the edge but not be the "cause". Issue #1 for example, the pads were the thickness of a 2p coin when the garage inspected them (sensors didnt go off as the pads wore out unevenly and to make it worse, the car only has one set of pads connected to the sensors and even that was found to be disconnected). They were shocked that the car would even be on a forecourt for sale. the dealer responded with the usual "car passed an MOT last month therefore legal". I argue that the evidence shows the pads were end of life at the time of purchase and I should have been made aware something like, "mate the pads are almost worn out so you might consider replace", rather than "this car is in pristine condition". Same for issue #3, the rusting is well known to build up over time and requires attention to maintain in good shape. Despite advertising as "regularly maintained", the garage finds they were in an absolute state. This is a £25k car. how would you see this battle out in court if claiming costs for repair/damage?
  4. Just sending a removal of implied access letter to Moorshat after they turned up today at friends house. Luckily I was there and they got send packing after I laughed at the pathetic drip of a rep. Not sent a Removal of Rights letter for years. Are there any updated bits apart from the OFT bit?
  5. At first glance the letter I just received was a simply change of conditions to a basic Co-Op Cashminder account I've had for years. Then alarm bells started ringing. Back in 2006 the OFT decided that £12 was a MAXIMUM charge for standard bank charges like unpaid DD, overlimit and so on. The banks decided that £12 was the new rate, not a maximum, and have yet to prove the actual cost - hence people still reclaiming unlawful charges. Look at the copy letter and you'll see that the Co-Op intend to increase their unpaid item fee to £15. The seem to say that this is because the FCA is now responsible for consumer credit business, not the OFT. I don't go overdrawn and don't have any direct debits that would cause me personally to incur the revised fee, but how do they justify the price hike? The ruling obtained by the OFT is still in place - isn't it ? Or did I miss something... ? [ATTACH=CONFIG]51792[/ATTACH]
  6. Hi all, I'm about to prepare to submit a claim to Court in respect of Credit Card charges (over limit and late payment fees) incurred between 2001 and 2006. I have all my statements thanks to a Subject Access Request. NatWest have, obviously, refuted my claim thus far. However I'm particular interested in two paragraphs contained within their last letter to me on 3 July, which reads: "Following the publication of the OFT report in April 2006 Royal Bank of Scotland reduced its default charges to £12. Our charges of £12 are in line with the actual and estimated costs of default and with the general legal principles outlined by the Office of Fair Trading's April 2006 statement. It is under the above ruling that we would only review charges applied within the last 6 years, any charges applied prior to this would fall outside the statute of limitations as advised previously." I had already made reference to to the precedent set between KLEINWORT BENSON -v- LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL under section 32 © of the limitation act 1980 in my previous letter to NatWest. Is it worth following that up now with something to specifically address the two paragraphs above before moving on to Court action? Any suggestions and/or advice would be much appreciated
  7. Not sure if already posted but I believe this is good news for debtors all round http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2014/18-14
  8. The sometimes fraught relationship between leaseholders and their freeholders is going to be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). The enquiry will look at the way freeholders charge for the management and maintenance of leasehold homes in England and Wales. The OFT will look at the behaviour of council and housing association freeholders as well as private ones. The enquiry will report by the end of 2014. The OFT estimates that there are about five million people in England and Wales living in flats they own as leaseholders. That is where the flat is owned by someone with a lease, but the ownership of the building, whether a block of flats or a converted house, is in the hands of a separate freeholder. The leaseholders typically pay an annual service charge to their freeholder for the upkeep of the building. Rogue freeholders It has long been claimed that some freeholders, or the managing agents they employ, overcharge for the cost of cleaning, maintenance or repair. Rogue freeholders are frequently accused of: deliberately overcharging their leaseholders for the cost of maintaining their buildings, including overcharging for buildings' insurance demanding payment for work that is done badly, or even not at all colluding with the maintenance firms they employ, in which they may also have a financial stake, to inflate the real cost of the service charges that are levied on their leaseholders "Service charges for the maintenance of a building can be substantial and we want to make sure that leaseholders are getting a fair deal," said Rachel Merelie of the OFT. "We are concerned that management agents and freeholders may not be incentivised to keep maintenance costs down and that leaseholders may not receive value for money," she added. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26431561
  9. Dear All I've been reading the various forums regarding this company from afar for the last few days. I have two payday loans which have been passed to MMF on 13 February and so have a personal interest. To give some background, I worked for a debt management company for ten years and so have relatively strong knowledge of the tactics employed by DCAs. This company seems to have stooped to new levels in terms of blatant disregard for acceptable debt collection practises. This morning I emailed the OFT summarising the complaints highlighted in this forum in the various threads. I have asked them for advice on the best way to proceed with key questions as to whether it is 'safe' for me to (1) communicate with them and (2) send payments to them. To be very clear, I want to pay my debts back, but at an affordable rate and in the knowledge payments will reduce my debts. I expect this will be the same for most people who are experiencing problems with MMF. I will try to upload the email I sent to the OFT onto this thread for evidence of action - my simple request is that all of you people who are suffering at the hands of MMF take action and register the Complaint with the OFT - it is a numbers game, the more complaints they receive, the more they will listen! I would ask anyone who has made a complaint, or is considering doing so, to post on here.
  10. Hopefully good news for Gym members at LA Fitness and Dave Whelan Sports (DWS) and those with other gyms whose Admin is handled by Harlands :- These gyms have agreed to make cancellations easier for folks when their circumstances change. See The OFT report here - http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2013/62-13 Extract from The OFT press release on 10th September :- The undertakings to the OFT from LA Fitness, DWS and Harlands Group include: * Extended rights for members to cancel their contracts early should their circumstances change in a way that makes attendance at the gym difficult or unaffordable - for example if they lose their job or suffer an injury * A commitment not to describe membership as being of a fixed duration, if the contract automatically continues on a rolling basis after the initial membership period has expired * Greater transparency about key membership features, including initial membership periods and cancellation rights, and for these to be provided upfront as part of the sales process. It will be interesting to see how well the gyms or gym admin Co's stick to the new undertakings. This is in addition to the agreement that The OFT reached earlier this year with Bannatyne Fitness Limited, David Lloyd Leisure Limited and Fitness First Clubs Limited, to change their contract terms. Time will tell ...............
  11. Hi, I've been getting spammed by text message and phonecall by Moorcroft. They didn't identify who they purchased the alleged debt from. They did leave a reference number in a text message, which allowed me to log into their website and submit a message along the lines of: "Your communication by text message and telephone will cease immediately, and you will contact me in writing. Failure to comply will put you in breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1999, and s.127 of the Communications Act 2003. Any future communications will be recorded and logged to be used in evidence." They responded by letter saying: "Thank you for your recent correspondence, I write to confirm we require a monthly repayment proposal you can afford and maintain, to enable us to assist you further." This seems to imply they won't stop texting and calling until I agree to hand over money to them.
  12. Hi all I decided to make a complaint to the Office of fair trade as I have learning difficulties and was constantly getting hounded by mmf asking for payment on a payday loan which I do not remember taking out so I told them I wished to see information re this so called loan including the original application and they have so far failed to provide it or information on the account it went in to I was then hounded with regular emails asking me to phone them which I told them no that they should make all contact with me by email as per oft guidance and that till I got this information I was not going to accept or acknowledge any responsobility for the debt and that it remained in legal dispute after a while they kept threatening me with a door step agent the first call I got was from an automated caller stating that the agent was in my area today and hoped to visit me in the next two hours should this not be convient for me or to save embarrasment I should press 1 to speak to someone in the office to re arrange appointment times. I then sent vback a rather angry email telling them that I told them in my last email if they continued to insist on sending someone to visit my home I would send them packing as oft rules state they may only visit my home if I wish to make an appointment for them to do so and reminded them that I had no wish to do so I also reminded them again asking them if they cannot read that if they send someone to my home or text my mobile or email me about sending someone to visit me this would be harrasment well they ignored it again This time I was told to save the embarrasment of the doorstep collector coming to my home please phone them on an 0844 number to arrange an alternative time to visit if I did not they would visit my home anyway. I then fired back an email to them informing them I had had enough and was making a formal and full complaint against them to the oft which I did I also reminded them thart I had asked them to provide me with information and what it was and that they failed to do so and until they provide me with this information and I am able to look at it and see if this is a debt I owed that the account remains in default I also fired of to them a Delicit of tresspass notice warning them if they send a debt collector to my door they will be commiting an offence of delicit of trespass under scottish law which is a case I can persue to prosecute the in the civil court for after this the company seems to have given up sending doorstep collection notices and the oft now has the details of my complaint on file I recieved a letter from the oft stating that if they get anymore complaints then they would need to look at these and assess this company for fitness to practise. As a resut I would ask anyone who has had a bad experience of MMF to make a formal complaint to the oft with the heading complaint and what the complaint might be about ie in my case harrasment complaints can be made directly to the oft at the following email address enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk the more complaints they get the more likely they will be to take action so please do send them complaints about mmf and then maybe we can teach mmf a lesson about abiding by the law. Robert
  13. http://oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2013/60-13 'The OFT welcomes Amazon’s decision to end its price parity policy, which restricts its sellers from offering lower prices on other online sales channels, across its Marketplace in the European Union from 30 August 2013..... The OFT continues to monitor the online retail sector and may use its power to investigate such price parity policies at any time. Throughout its investigation, the OFT has co-operated closely with the German Federal Cartel Office, which has been running a parallel investigation into Amazon’s policy, and has recently made a related announcement.' etc
  14. Hello, I have a general question about debt collection standards by electricity providers... The OFT provides guidance on debt collection which seems to only relate to debts collected under the Consumer Credit Act. Debts arising from the supply of electricity seem to be exempt from the act. So my question is, does anyone know whether there are any other acts of law or authoritative guidance regarding debt collection standards for electricity accounts? Kindest Regards FFP
  15. Six High Street furniture and carpet retailers have been accused of misleading their customers with fake prices. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) said the stores had all advertised price cuts which were not genuine. In particular, they advertised reductions from previously higher prices, which tricked customers into thinking they were getting a bargain. Carpetright and the ScS chain are among the six being investigated. During its inquiries, the OFT said it found systematic examples of inflated "reference pricing". That is where a retailer claims the price "was" £500, for example, and is "now" £300. But the OFT said that in some cases, the stores under investigation had not sold a single product at the previous higher price. On average, it found that 95% of sales were at the lower, or "now" price, suggesting the original prices were not genuine. It also said the problem was "endemic" within the industry. Carpetright said it would co-operate fully with the OFT, but insisted there was no suggestion that it had broken competition law. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23797882
  16. Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere but during a boring moment, I visited the OFT main site and found this. http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/unfairterms/ And this link to the quick guide http://www.oft.gov.uk/sitepack/layouts/UTCCR/download-items/OFT1486.pdf While I appreciate the guidance is aimed at businesses, it can do no harm for consumers to be aware of it.
  17. Hi All I took out a Halifax Clarity Card as it often appears in moneysaving expert top picks for using abroad. Every holiday, I took my card and withdrew cash, repaying on return. I must say that the product is excellent and the rates and exchange rate are great. In January, I did a big trip and took over £1000 over ten days. Halifax dropped my credit limit to just above my balance. They wouldn't tell me why and eventually my credit limit was restored to a third of what it was. They did this on the last day of my trip and I was just lucky I didn't need any more cash. In April, I was again on holiday in the UK and withdrew cash. They dropped my limit. They were quicker at restoring it this time but again it was to the lower level. I spoke to a friend who works in the industry and they immediately stated 'That will be your Delphi score'. Apparently, there is a computer algorithm built into credit scoring that works out your likelyhood to default and one of the risk indicators is choosing to withdraw cash from a credit card. I contacted the Ombudsman and OFT. I highlighted that removing cash - fee free and at their best exchange rate was surely a benefit of the card and I did not see why I should be penalised fo this. The Ombudsman was useless, stating that it was part of credit scoring so they could not comment. The OFT stated that they did not deal with individual cases. My friend also told me that it would affect not just my profile with Halifax, but with everyone. I then applied for a number of financial products to compare the rates I got compared to last year. I would add that my financial peosition is stronger this year, with no other adverse information and reducing loan balance paid on time. Last year I was offered 0.3% BELOW Tesco's headline rate, this year I got offered 9.9% when the rates were 6.1%. Sainsbury's 9.9% compared to 6.4%. Zopa accepted for a loan, this year declined. I have noddle for accessing my credit report and I noted that theit guidemark score of me went from 5/5 to 3/5. I suggested to Halifax that they might want to consider reporting the product on credit files as a revolving loan to avoid this problem. They weren't interested, although they did acknowledge that it was likely that their computer kept lowering my limit because I was removing cash from the card, calling this an unexpected side effect. They also suggested that I don't remove cash, but were unable to say why they made it a benefit of the card but did not tell customers that it would ruin their credit score. As there is no charge for cash withdrawals and it is at the same interest rate, the card is clearly making withdrawals on a close par to transactions (minus the interest free period). I write all this as the OFT will look into it if it has affected more than just me. Maybe you have had a similar experience? If so please contact the OFT and Ombudsman to try and get this unfair practice changed. Thanks Saru
  18. Hi has anyone heard of this company before? I have googled them and found nada which is quite odd. This is in respect of a debt they have purchased from someone else and I have just got a solicitors letter about it, but I have had no contact from Cogent at all and need to get in touch with them. Any ideas? Thanks
  19. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has launched a study into the ‘quick house sale’ market due to concerns that homeowners are receiving much less than the value of their property. The regulator has asked more than 50 quick house sale firms to provide information on their business models and practices. It has also called on those people who have used these businesses to contact the OFT about their experiences. Quick house sale providers offer to buy a property or find a third party buyer quickly, usually at a discount from the full market value. But the OFT has voiced its concerns about the risks to people in financial difficulty, such as those in debt or individuals facing repossession. It outlined several practices that would give rise to concern, including unclear fee structures, where firms impose an unexpected fee following an initial valuation as a condition of progressing the service. The OFT will also be looking out for instances where companies reduce the price offered at the last minute after someone is financially committed to the transaction, or where they make misleading claims about the value of a property or the level of discount applied at sale. Cavendish Elithorn, senior director for goods and consumer at the OFT, acknowledged that quick house sale businesses can be a useful service for homeowners who need to unlock cash in a hurry. He added: “However, they are often used by consumers in vulnerable situations and therefore we are concerned about the risk of consumers being misled and losing out on large sums of money. “We want to hear from anyone who has used a quick house sale provider, whether they have had a good or bad experience with the business.” Consumers at risk include those who want to sell their house quickly following a relationship breakdown, or the elderly who may need the money to pay for care. The OFT will also welcome evidence from valuation experts, estate agents, debt advisors and homeowners. Christopher Woolard, director of policy, risk and research at the Financial Conduct Authority, said: “Consumers facing repossession of their home are in a very vulnerable position and it is important that they are not pressured into making poor decisions. “This market study is an important piece of work that will explore current practices in the market and, where necessary, make recommendations to improve outcomes for these vulnerable consumers.” More: http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/15084/online-news/quick-house-sale-market-comes-under-oft-spotlight OFT: http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2013/35-13
  20. The OFT has launched an investigation into whether children are being unfairly pressured or encouraged to pay for additional content in 'free' web and app-based games, including upgraded membership or virtual currency such as coins, gems or fruit. Typically, players can access only portions of these games for free, with new levels or features, such as faster game play, costing money. As part of the investigation, the OFT has written to companies offering free web or app-based games, seeking information on in-game marketing to children. The OFT is also asking for parents and consumer groups to contact it with information about potentially misleading or commercially aggressive practices they are aware of in relation to these games. The OFT investigation is exploring whether these games are misleading, commercially aggressive or otherwise unfair. In particular, the OFT is looking into whether these games include 'direct exhortations' to children - a strong encouragement to make a purchase, or to do something that will necessitate making a purchase, or to persuade their parents or other adults to make a purchase for them. This is unlawful under the Consumer Protection (from Unfair Trading) Regulations 2008. http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2013/33-13#.UWfnv6yh79s
  21. Hey guys n gals. Does anyone else find that the CCregister isn't working? I've tried several searches on several browsers (mac and windows) and they all get stuck at 'waiting....'. The link I used is this one: http://www.oft.gov.uk/ConsumerCreditRegister Cheers A
  22. I have a repayment plan with Wonga. I pay £45 per month. I have paid three installments via standing order. There should technically be no problems as they have agreed it, and I am paying it with no problems. However they refuse to confirm they have rec'd the payments (I mailed to check the bank details from wonga as they are different to any I've ever seen posted in this forum) and they point blank have refused to let me know despite the (12) emails I have sent - they simply reply with the generic mail " please call us" Finally this morning they say they haven't had any payments and 'please call us". I am adamant to keep this to email - yet despite supposedly not getting payment, nor updating my online balance, they haven't chased up the debt in way - no calls, no nothing just responses to MY emails. This si since September. Can someone please tell me how to deal with this They did confirm the bank details eventually - but not my payments(obviously I have proof as they are all on my bank statements)
  23. 'The OFT today issued decisions finding that Mercedes-Benz and five of its commercial vehicles dealers infringed competition law and has imposed fines totalling over £2.8 million. Each of the five decisions relates to separate infringements that took place over different periods between March 2007 and January 2010, involving different parties. The nature of the infringements varies but all contain at least some element of market sharing, price co-ordination or the exchange of commercially sensitive information.' http://oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2013/30-13
  24. 23/13 19 March 2013 Online payday lender, MCO Capital Limited ('MCO'), has had its consumer credit licence revoked by the OFT and from today is no longer permitted to make regulated loans to UK consumers. Today's news follows the recent OFT payday lending review report, which uncovered evidence of widespread unfair business practices in the sector. In August 2012, the OFT found that MCO had failed to put in place adequate identity checks for loan applicants. It is thought that this failure led to MCO being targeted by fraudsters who used the personal details of over 7,000 individuals to apply successfully for loans totalling millions of pounds. The OFT also found that MCO had engaged in unfair business practices by writing to people who it was aware may not have taken out loans, asking unequivocally for repayment. MCO ignored OFT requests to stop this practice. Additionally, the OFT found that MCO lacked the necessary skills, knowledge and experience to run a consumer credit business. For all these reasons, the OFT decided to revoke MCO's consumer credit licence. MCO appealed the OFT's decision, but with effect from today withdrew its appeal. MCO is continuing to appeal the OFT's decision to impose a financial penalty of £544,505 for breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. David Fisher, OFT Director of Credit, said: 'Removing MCO's licence is a timely reminder that payday and other lenders risk losing their licences if they engage in unfair business practices. The way MCO chased consumers for debts they did not owe was unacceptable and caused unnecessary distress to many people.' Consumers who are pursued by a lender for a debt they do not owe should write to the lender and, where appropriate, the debt collection agency, making it clear why payment is being refused. Further information on what consumers can do is available in this Consumer Fact Sheet and Advice Guide, produced by the Credit Services Association. NOTES 1.The Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires most businesses that lend money to consumers or offer goods or services on credit or engage in certain ancillary credit activities to be licensed by the OFT. A licence is not required to provide certain types of credit such as that to high net worth individuals in specified circumstances. 2.The OFT has a statutory duty under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to administer the consumer credit licensing regime, and must be satisfied that a licensee is fit to hold a consumer credit licence. 3.Trading without a licence in such cases is a criminal offence and can result in a fine and/or imprisonment. 4.The First-tier Tribunal (Consumer Credit) forms part of the General Regulatory Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. It is administered by the Tribunals Service, an agency of the Ministry of Justice. The role of the First-tier Tribunal (Consumer Credit) is to hear and decide appeals against decisions of the Office of Fair Trading relating to: Licensing decisions of the Office of Fair Trading made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the imposition of requirements or a civil penalty on licensees under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the refusal to register, cancellation of registration, or imposition of a penalty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. 5.See press release OFT revokes payday lender's licence and imposes penalty of over half a million pounds (9 August 2012) when the OFT originally announced the action against MCO. 6.The findings of the OFT's review of the payday lending sector can be found in its final report. Link: http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2013/23-13 .
  25. The consumer regulator, which is closely watching payday lending practices, has revoked the lending licence of MCO Capital, which traded as Help Loan. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) today stepped up its action to curb rogue payday lenders by banning MCO Capital, which traded online as Help Loan. The regulator revoked the company's consumer credit licence after it failed to improve its "unfair business practices", which included chasing non-customers for debts they had not taken. Last August, the OFT found that MCO was failing to make identity checks on applicants, which led to it being targeted by fraudsters who used the personal details of more than 7,000 individuals to apply successfully for loans totalling millions of pounds. The company was also accused of writing to people who it was aware may not have taken out loans, asking "unequivocally" for repayment. MCO ignored OFT requests to stop this practice. The watchdog also said MCO lacked the "necessary skills, knowledge and experience to run a consumer credit business". Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/loans/9939967/OFT-bans-payday-lender-that-chased-wrong-borrowers.html
×
×
  • Create New...