OFT reply about Marlin

[Pinky69]

Have received this in reply to my complaint about Marlin on Dispatches:

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act)

Thank you for your email following the Dispatches programme about debt collection practices, which was aired on Channel Four on 20 July 2009.

 

We have noted your comments both in relation to the Dispatches programme and Marlin Financial Services.

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) established a licensing system to protect the interests of consumers in the credit area. If a business wishes to undertake the collection of debts that arise from consumer credit agreements then the Act states that they are required to hold a consumer credit licence; this is issued by the OFT. Under the Act, the OFT has a duty to consider the fitness of all traders who hold consumer credit licences.

 

As you may be aware, in July 2003 the OFT issued guidance aimed at consumer credit licence holders involved in debt collection. This outlines the type of business practices we consider unfair and therefore incompatible with fitness to hold a licence. Consumer complaints are vital to the OFT in its role of monitoring a trader’s fitness to hold a credit licence and assist in providing the evidence base we require to take enforcement action. We investigate complaints or other adverse information and where appropriate take proportionate enforcement action against licensed traders to protect the collective interest of consumers. This may include taking steps remove a licence, where we consider the trader to be unfit to hold one, or to impose requirements in order to improve the trader’s conduct. The OFT will therefore look into the allegations in the programme alongside any other complaints we may receive.

 

It may also be helpful if I outline the enforcement process the OFT must follow. The OFT does not have the power to impose a financial penalty where we are dissatisfied with a trader’s conduct unless the trader has failed to comply with requirements imposed. Failure to comply with requirements may also result in revocation of the licence. More information about our enforcement powers can be found via the following link: The Office of Fair Trading: Requirements and penalties

Decisions to refuse or revoke a consumer credit licence or to impose requirements or a financial penalty are made by an independent adjudicating officer acting for and on behalf of the OFT. Before a decision is made, the adjudicating officer issues a notice to the trader. The trader is given the opportunity to make representations to the adjudicating officer. In the event that the decision is adverse, the trader then has the right of appeal against the determination to the Consumer Credit Appeals Tribunal.

As I am sure you can appreciate there are restrictions imposed on the OFT which prohibit us from disclosing details of any action we may take against a licensed trader (Part 9 of the Enterprise Act). This means that we are unable to inform members of the public whether we are taking any direct action against particular traders. However, the outcome of formal action, including the imposing of requirements and financial penalties, is made available on the OFT’s public register (via the OFT’s web-site: www.oft.gov.uk).

With regard to different brand or trading names, a consumer credit licensee may use any trading name which appears on its licence. There may be nothing wrong with using different internal branding, say for in-house solicitors, for example, but the OFT considers it unfair if correspondence does not identify who the correspondence is from and why the debt is being dealt with by them. It is vitally important that a debtor has clarity about who is chasing the debt and why. The OFT would also consider whether any trading names/branding were being used in a threatening or misleading manner.

 

Finally, the OFT responded to specific questions from C4 about its enforcement action in the debt collection sector and provided the following figures which show formal action taken since publication of the debt collection guidance in 2003:

 

32 formal actions which resulted in:

8 licences being surrendered (the company voluntarily decided to give up their licence - but the OFT enforcement team would have submitted a case to the independent adjudicator before this happened)

4 undertakings given

4 adverse decisions (licences refused or removed)

1 adverse decision (refused to add debt collection to licence)

3 favourable decisions (licences retained)

1 licence application withdrawn

7 cases where requirements imposed

4 cases still to be decided.

I also attach links to the press releases about the requirements imposed on 1st Credit Limited and two other major players in the debt collection sector, Mackenzie Hall Limited and Link Financial Limited.

www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/20-09

www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/44-09

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT warns debt sector about tracing tactics

 

More recently the OFT has issued a notice that it is minded to impose requirements on Aktiv Kapital (UK) Limited and associated company Thames Credit Limited. This action is subject to the independent adjudication process explained above. I enclose copies of the respective public register notes for these licensees.

 

Thank you again for writing to us.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Seems to me very little action in 6 years - we have to keep complaining at every opportunity.

 

[babybear39]

Have received this in reply to my complaint about Marlin on Dispatches:

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act)

 

Thank you for your email following the Dispatches programme about debt collection practices, which was aired on Channel Four on 20 July 2009.

 

We have noted your comments both in relation to the Dispatches programme and Marlin Financial Services.

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) established a licensing system to protect the interests of consumers in the credit area. If a business wishes to undertake the collection of debts that arise from consumer credit agreements then the Act states that they are required to hold a consumer credit licence; this is issued by the OFT. Under the Act, the OFT has a duty to consider the fitness of all traders who hold consumer credit licences.

 

As you may be aware, in July 2003 the OFT issued guidance aimed at consumer credit licence holders involved in debt collection. This outlines the type of business practices we consider unfair and therefore incompatible with fitness to hold a licence. Consumer complaints are vital to the OFT in its role of monitoring a trader’s fitness to hold a credit licence and assist in providing the evidence base we require to take enforcement action. We investigate complaints or other adverse information and where appropriate take proportionate enforcement action against licensed traders to protect the collective interest of consumers. This may include taking steps remove a licence, where we consider the trader to be unfit to hold one, or to impose requirements in order to improve the trader’s conduct. The OFT will therefore look into the allegations in the programme alongside any other complaints we may receive.

 

It may also be helpful if I outline the enforcement process the OFT must follow. The OFT does not have the power to impose a financial penalty where we are dissatisfied with a trader’s conduct unless the trader has failed to comply with requirements imposed. Failure to comply with requirements may also result in revocation of the licence. More information about our enforcement powers can be found via the following link: The Office of Fair Trading: Requirements and penalties

 

Decisions to refuse or revoke a consumer credit licence or to impose requirements or a financial penalty are made by an independent adjudicating officer acting for and on behalf of the OFT. Before a decision is made, the adjudicating officer issues a notice to the trader. The trader is given the opportunity to make representations to the adjudicating officer. In the event that the decision is adverse, the trader then has the right of appeal against the determination to the Consumer Credit Appeals Tribunal.

 

As I am sure you can appreciate there are restrictions imposed on the OFT which prohibit us from disclosing details of any action we may take against a licensed trader (Part 9 of the Enterprise Act). This means that we are unable to inform members of the public whether we are taking any direct action against particular traders. However, the outcome of formal action, including the imposing of requirements and financial penalties, is made available on the OFT’s public register (via the OFT’s web-site: www.oft.gov.uk).

 

With regard to different brand or trading names, a consumer credit licensee may use any trading name which appears on its licence. There may be nothing wrong with using different internal branding, say for in-house solicitors, for example, but the OFT considers it unfair if correspondence does not identify who the correspondence is from and why the debt is being dealt with by them. It is vitally important that a debtor has clarity about who is chasing the debt and why. The OFT would also consider whether any trading names/branding were being used in a threatening or misleading manner.

 

Finally, the OFT responded to specific questions from C4 about its enforcement action in the debt collection sector and provided the following figures which show formal action taken since publication of the debt collection guidance in 2003:

 

32 formal actions which resulted in:

8 licences being surrendered (the company voluntarily decided to give up their licence - but the OFT enforcement team would have submitted a case to the independent adjudicator before this happened)

4 undertakings given

4 adverse decisions (licences refused or removed)

1 adverse decision (refused to add debt collection to licence)

3 favourable decisions (licences retained)

1 licence application withdrawn

7 cases where requirements imposed

4 cases still to be decided.

I also attach links to the press releases about the requirements imposed on 1st Credit Limited and two other major players in the debt collection sector, Mackenzie Hall Limited and Link Financial Limited.

www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/20-09

www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/44-09

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT warns debt sector about tracing tactics

 

More recently the OFT has issued a notice that it is minded to impose requirements on Aktiv Kapital (UK) Limited and associated company Thames Credit Limited. This action is subject to the independent adjudication process explained above. I enclose copies of the respective public register notes for these licensees.

 

Thank you again for writing to us.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Seems to me very little action in 6 years - we have to keep complaining at every opportunity.

 

 

Thanks for making a thread of this Pinky

 

I think it goes a small bit of the way the OFT need to go to punish AK and TC for the death of Beryl Brazier. Shame it's taken so long...

[PGH7447]

oo snap

 

got the same reply at 2:28 today:mad:

 

so glad they took the time to compose a generic email to everyone

[Pinky69]

Well at least they told us what they are doing - which is next to b all in my opinion. That's why it's so important to keep the complaints rolling in.

[PGH7447]

my reply to them

 

Thank you for replying so promptly, but I am afraid I have already read the contents of this email on a consumer site, so it would appear that a generic email has been produced to fob off the public, with regards to the actual intent of the OFt to Police these companies

 

Not very suprised.

[yourbank]

my reply to them

 

Thank you for replying so promptly, but I am afraid I have already read the contents of this email on a consumer site, so it would appear that a generic email has been produced to fob off the public, with regards to the actual intent of the OFt to Police these companies

 

Not very suprised.

 

Have you read the link within that letter?

The Office of Fair Trading: Requirements and penalties

 

Link to guidance on fitness and requirements.

 

Interesting document to be honest when you read it.

[lickthewallfatboy]

as suspected

 

a complete waste of time

 

thanks OFT

[babybear39]

At least they've got AK and TC against the wall

[fermi]

At least they've got AK and TC against the wall

 

They should have been up against the wall and shot when the Beryl Brazier case came to light, but what happened?

 

Zilch.

 

It has got to the point when "requirements" do not send an adequate message. Only genuine sanctions that hit the bosses of these firms in the pockets where it hurts will do any good. I don't honestly see that happening though.

[drob]

I also contacted the OFT in light of the Dispatches programme .............. guess what??? Yep, exactly the same reply as everybody else.

[angry cat]

The OFT may sometimes show their teeth; tiny teeth.

But, to date they have not bitten (small firms non financial industry, excluded).

 

What about the UCPD and;

the CPUTR's;

when are these going to be enforced?

 

Or, do we really have to go to Brussels, in order that, they are enforced?

 

Quote by Which?:

 

Consumers are not the PM's priority;

Why Not?

 

AC

[Toulose LeDebt]

Just flicked through the 21 part application form for a CCL. Disheartening really, the application criteria is so lax even I could get one.

[Kraken1]

I'm with YB. Interesting. I think it does answer some questions, and if they are to be believed Dispatches were a little economical with the truth with all that 'oft has not commented' stuff.

 

I can't believe that posters are complaining that they got a standard reply:rolleyes: I suppose it depends on what you want them doing, doesn't it? Writing bespoke responses to essentially the same letter or regulating folk.

 

As for waste of time - what response did you expect to get?

 

It has got to the point when "requirements" do not send an adequate message. Only genuine sanctions that hit the bosses of these firms in the pockets where it hurts will do any good. I don't honestly see that happening though.

 

Debt recovery agency 1st Credit loses clients after OFT rebuke - Times Online

 

We are hard people to please, no? A year ago we'd have been over the moon with anything happening and now AK, TC, 1st Credit, MH, Link are all in the firing line, and as I posted on another thread, it looks like before they do anything big they need to do requirements first.

[lickthewallfatboy]

whenever they start dishing out £50,000 fines and revocation of licences,then I'll be happy

 

until then,it seems the whole OFT/DCA thing is a bit too cosy and nicey nicey for my liking

 

I don't think "hard to please" has anything to do with it......all we want is for the OFT to grow a set of knackers and apply the rules like they're supposed to

[PGH7447]

.

 

As for waste of time - what response did you expect to get?

 

 

 

.

 

That they would look into the conduct of the people shown on that programme or is that too much to ask:!:

[Kraken1]

I suppose I'm just patient. It all looks like it is going in the right direction and it seems you need requirements first. Requirements also alert us that we need to complain about them doubly hard...

 

Also, reading between the lines, it seems to me that they might be doing something. 1st credit is already under the microscope and the letter did say

The OFT will therefore look into the allegations in the programme alongside any other complaints we may receive.

. This, and the lightning fast response seems like a coded message to me...

[make them aktiv runners]

More recently the OFT has issued a notice that it is minded to impose requirements on Aktiv Kapital (UK) Limited and associated company Thames Credit Limited.

Thames credit limited = renewal of license 16.9.09.

Thames credit limited appear to have been trading under AK license for last 12 months as just Thames credit.

Wonder why?

PS. Thames credit the trading name is not listed on OFT register under AK.

[pookeymonkey]

More recently the OFT has issued a notice that it is minded to impose requirements on Aktiv Kapital (UK) Limited and associated company Thames Credit Limited.

 

Oh dear this could be embarrassing!!!

 

Credit Today online

 

Just in case the link doesn't work this is the news item -

 

News

 

Debt buyer backs CT Awards - 16/07/2009

 

 

Debt purchaser Aktiv Kapital is to become overall sponsor of the 2010 Credit Today Awards at the Grosvenor House Hotel in London.

 

The Awards ceremony is the biggest night in the industry’s calendar, attracting around 1,400 of the most senior people in the sector. This year was the tenth anniversary of the scheme, which has gone from strength to strength. Hosted by Mock the Week comedian Dara O’Briain, the awards secured record entries and more than 70 companies were shortlisted for the gongs. Winners included: HSBC, British Gas, Lloyds Banking Group, Barclays, nPower, Orange and Bupa Wellness.

 

Aktiv UK country manager David Sheridan said: "In this demanding environment, Aktiv Kapital is very pleased to confirm its commitment to celebrating industry and individual success by sponsoring the 2010 Credit Today Awards."

 

Kamala Panday, publisher of Credit Today, added: "It is fantastic to have the support of Aktiv Kapital for the 2010 event. Aktiv has a strong international brand and has a long association with Credit Today. As a listed company, it offers a high level of transparency – a benefit in these times when the focus on the industry is intense. We look forward to working with Aktiv on the event."

 

Pookey

[PGH7447]

"Oh dear this could be embarrassing!!!"

 

well they have to try their hand at other things so event organising could be the ticket, seeing has how they are useless at being a DCA:)

[cashins]

Winners included: HSBC, British Gas, Lloyds Banking Group, Barclays, nPower, Orange and Bupa Wellness.

 

 

Take it they got the 'best harressment' award:eek:

 

David

[lickthewallfatboy]

Aktiv has a strong international brand

 

yeah......ask Beryl Brazier's family:mad:

[Undercover-Elsa]

Whatever next?

Maybe a DCAID concert to raise funds for their flagging industry?

Headliners could be DIRE STRAITS

[PGH7447]

Headliners could be DIRE STRAITS :grin: - singing Money for Nothing

[Undercover-Elsa]

[babybear39]

Greetings from the garden...The cheekiness thread is out there now if you hadn't noticed