To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps is he taking to limit enforcement action by debt collection agencies during the COVID019 pandemic.”
HM Treasury’s response is:
“The Government’s priority is to support as many people as possible who have had extreme disruption to their lives as a result of COVID-19. Debt collection firms are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
The FCA has announced a series of measures to provide consumers with temporary relief if they are facing payment difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes requiring firms to provide consumers with 0% interest on the first £500 of an arranged overdraft for three months and allowing consumers either a 3-month payment holiday or to make nominal payments towards credit cards, store cards, catalogue credit and certain personal loan agreements.”
On 7 May 2020, the UK Financial Conduct Authority updated its webpage for firms dealing with complaints during COVID-19. The webpage suggests firms should “take all reasonable steps to ensure as much complaint handling as possible continues through staff working from home, where this can be done fairly and effectively“. But the FCA warns claims management companies should allow firms “a reasonable amount of extra time, beyond 8 weeks, to give a final response before referring complaints to the Ombudsman Service“.
On 10 May 2020, and after the Prime Minister’s statement made to the nation at 7pm, the UK Financial Conduct Authority published an update saying firms should continue to following the Government’s advice until told otherwise.
If you’ve spoken to me over the last few weeks, you’ll know much of my working life has been spent thinking about concessions, unilateral variations and modifying agreements (exciting, no?). And some may say that modifying agreements are a little bit like lockdown: you know it’s for the best but it isn’t half frustrating trying to make it work (or maybe I’ve just got lockdown fever…).
I’ve been supporting the Finance & Leasing Association and its lobbying of HM Treasury to help make the modifying agreement provisions easier for lenders to comply with. There’s really good reasons why this should happen (and I’ve just written an update on my commentary on CONC for Issue 111 of Butterworths Financial Regulation Service dealing with this); at the very least, concessions don’t create the best of customer journeys.
The FLA asked me last week whether I could put together some infographics (it seems the recent ones on the FCA’s temporary guidance have gone down well) to help lobby HMT. Now they’ve gone into HMT, I thought I’d share them (and there are four).
Here’s the first: a typical customer journey through a modifying agreement where it will be sent to the customer by post:
And here’s the second: a typical customer journey through a modifying agreement where it will be sent to the customer online:
Here’s the third: some thoughts on the legal requirements for modifying agreements (and the slide is just scratching the surface – there are wonderfully complicated issues including whether there’s a right to cancel under the Financial Services (Distance Marketing) Regulations 2004 or whether a creditworthiness assessment needs to be made under CONC 5.2A):
And here’s the fourth (and final) one: a possible solution for firms if HMT allows a modifying agreement ‘lite’ approach (as I’ve called it; can’t wait for the royalties to roll in….):
It goes without saying that the ‘lite’ approach is plainly easier: the customer knows where she stands instantly and the document provides a clear and simple explanation of the modified agreement’s terms.
Surely HMT cannot say no? Or can they? Time will tell.
The ASA said “the average consumer would understand the term “pre-approved” in the ad to mean that they were guaranteed to get any loan or product subsequently shown to them as pre-approved when using ClearScore’s services. We noted that the pre-approved offers would be dependent on personal eligibility, subject to the customer providing the correct financial information to ClearScore, and subject to a lender’s own checks. However, there was no information in the ad to indicate that further checks would be made following a pre-approved offer, which could result in the application being declined. Because the claim “pre-approved”, in the context of the ad, was likely to be understood to mean that customers who received “pre-approved” offers would be guaranteed to get those offers, when that was not the case, we concluded that the ad breached the Code”.
The ASA told ClearScore to make sure its advertising complied with CONC and to make it clear that pre-approved offers are subject to additional checks by the lender before approval.
– states firms have paid over £38bn of redress to customers; and
– brings an end to the FCA’s project work on PPI (but it will continue to monitor how firms are dealing with complaints submitted before the 29 August 2019 deadline).
After the UK Financial Conduct Authority introduced temporary guidance to consumer credit firms dealing with certain customers needing COVID-19 related payment holidays on 14 April 2020 (for more, see our earlier post), I’ve produced a one page summary of tips for consumer communications:
