Industry Thoughts

As the dust settles on an eventful election campaign and newly appointed Ministers find their feet, it’s only right that we should ask what next for fraud policy under the new Labour Government. If the 2010s were something of a ‘lost decade for the counter-fraud community, then the 2020s were the rebounder with the publication of the UK’s first ever Fraud Strategy in 2023. A little over a year later we have a commitment to a second one; the Labour Party’s manifesto promising to introduce “a new expanded fraud strategy to tackle the full range of threats, including online, public sector and serious fraud. We will work with technology platforms to stop their platforms being exploited by fraudsters”. While the cynics may be tempted to say that another strategy will be little more than a paper-based exercise with little impact outside Whitehall, this high-level political commitment is something the counter-fraud community should welcome. First, there are those that would argue that we’ve not actually had a national Fraud Strategy, but a consumer Fraud Strategy, given the lack of focus on fraud against business. The University of Portsmouth’s Annual Fraud Indicator 2023 estimated that around £150bn in fraud is committed against the private sector each year. It is therefore encouraging that the new Government has committed to expanding policy in this area. Second, despite some encouraging initiatives with social media and technology platforms in the Online Fraud Charter, it is still far from clear what these would even deliver in practice. There are encouraging signs that the new Government intends to do more in this space, with commitments to building both carrots and sticks into the relationship with the tech sector. The announcements made by Labour in opposition give hope that the new Government is committed to maintaining the upwards trajectory of fraud as a priority. Third, there is a specific focus on the need to get a grip on the scale of fraud against the public sector. In opposition, Labour committed to introducing an offence of ‘fraud against the public purse’ and to introducing a ‘Covid Corruption Commissioner’ to tackle procurement fraud and sector fraud running to up to £40bn – dialling up investment in this area could reap significant rewards. These are encouraging signs of new pace and ambition for fraud policy in the UK. But beyond these, where are the gaps that the incoming Government needs to fill? A good starting point is the Cifas Fraud Pledges 2024, launched in May of this year. Specifically, there are three things the new Government should do to really shift the dial in the fight against fraud. 1) Give fraud and economic crime the leadership and prominence they need and deserve. The Government could do this by creating a Minister for Economic Crime, reporting directly into the Prime Minister with responsibility for driving change and coherence across the system. With policy responsibility split across numerous government departments, without institutional change the response risks remaining sclerotic. 2) It is essential that the …

THE INCREASE IN CONSUMER-LED LITIGATION The past ten or so years have seen an explosion in consumer-led litigation. For example, the Supreme Court has considered the following: whether there is an unfair relationship where a lender keeps 71.% of a premium paid for a policy of payment protection insurance as a commission: Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Limited the meaning of concealment, and its impact on limitation, in the context of claims relating to the sale of payment protection insurance: Potter v Canada Square the limitation period for claims under the unfair relationship provisions: Smith & Burrell v Royal Bank of Scotland whether parking charges imposed on a customer for overstaying their allocated time were a penalty or unfair: Beavis v ParkingEye. THERE ARE MORE CASES TO COME And there are more important cases to come later in 2024 and early 2025 including: the pending appeal in the Court of Appeal on what duties (if any) are owed by motor dealers to customers where those dealers receive a commission from the lender for their introduction. the pending judicial review in the High Court on the Financial Ombudsman Service’s decision of a complaint made against a motor finance lender relating to the non-disclosure of commission and the commission arrangements. This involves issues over the application of CONC 4.5.2G and Principle 6 to discretionary commission models. the pending appeal to the High Court on (a) whether the County Court has exclusive jurisdiction to consider claims under the unfair relationship provisions and (b) whether it is permissible for one claim form to be used to bring a claim for a significant number of unconnected claimants seeking remedies under the unfair relationship provisions. THE EFFECT OF SUCH CASES ON REGULATION Firms will always encourage certainty. If the legal position is certain then it allows firms to budget, to plan, to grow and to seek investment. Uncertainty leads to instability. What is often said about the consumer credit regulatory system is that it has three different (and arguably competing) approaches: it has mandatory rules (for example, form and content requirements) with often significant sanctions for getting it wrong it is principle based (see the Principles for Businesses); and it is outcome based (see Consumer Duty). These three different approaches create uncertainty. But the developments from the Court can also introduce additional uncertainty and effectively introduce regulation which was not part of the framework. For example, Plevin effectively said that the lender should have told the customer about commission even though there was no legal requirement to do so. The unfair relationship provisions also provide broad grounds for challenging a relationship: the combined effect of Potter and Smith introduce further uncertainty (but firms can use delay as an argument why the relationship is not unfair, or why no remedy should be awarded). WHAT SHOULD FIRMS DO? The regulatory regime is both complex and uncertain. The increase in consumer-led litigation has simply increased that level of uncertainty and effectively acts as another form of regulation. Firms should …

The Supreme Court has given its eagerly awaited decision in the case of Philipps against Barclays Bank UK PLC. The litigation involved an “authorised push payment” (APP) fraud. In this type of dishonesty, the victim is persuaded to authorise their bank to send a payment to an account controlled by a fraudster. Many bank customers mistakenly think that a bank will always have a legal duty to refund them should this happen. However, the decision of this case illustrates that it will all depend on the circumstances surrounding the transfer. FACTS OF THE CASE Mrs Philipps instructed Barclays to transfer no less than £700,000 from her current account to bank accounts in the United Arab Emirates which were controlled by fraudsters. Attempts to have the funds returned to her were fruitless. THE LEGAL ARGUMENT Mrs Philipps argued that her bank were liable for the loss because they owed her a common law duty of care not to carry out her instructions if, as she alleged, the bank had reasonable grounds for believing that she was being defrauded. The Court of Appeal held that in principle Barclays did owe their customer a duty of care. Whether such a duty existed would depend upon the particular circumstances of the case which could only be determined if evidence was led. Reversing the Court of Appeal’s decision the Supreme Court held that even if the facts as stated were proved the bank did not owe such a duty. Mrs Philipps also advanced a contractual argument by focussing on the bank’s current account written terms and conditions as well as conditions implied by the common law. As far as the bank’s written terms were concerned, the Supreme Court held there was nothing in them to the effect that instructions should not be implemented where the bank had reasonable grounds for believing that their customer was being tricked into making such a transfer request. The court rejected her argument that no express term was needed. They did not agree that the bank’s duty was either recognised by common law or was contractually implied. In the court’s opinion such a duty would be beyond a bank’s usual obligation to its customer. On the contrary. In effect the court held that if a customer instructed a bank to make a payment transfer in the circumstances presented to them by Mrs Philipps then they would have a duty to implement the order. In so doing Barclays would be acting as Mrs Philipps’ agent and not have a duty to assess the transaction’s risk. The court differentiated Mrs Philiips’ position with the seminal 1992 Appeal Court’s decision in “Quincare”. In Quincare the bank’s branch had received instructions from the customer’s agent to make the transfer in circumstances where the bank had reasonable grounds for believing that the agent was defrauding their customer for the agent’s own benefit. In these circumstances the appeal court held that the bank should have not have acted on these orders because they would be unable …

The Consumer Credit Act of 1974 covers all credit agreements in the UK, from credit cards to personal loans. There are few households across the country that will not hold some form of agreement that falls under it. At the point of creation, to provide protection to consumers, the Act was and continues to be very prescriptive about what lenders can and cannot do. There are strict rules about consumer rights and what must be communicated with the customer. It still predates much of the current system of financial services regulation. Fifty years on from its introduction, the credit market has changed dramatically. The advent of online lending and the exit from the European Union mean some of the rules no longer make sense or just don’t work with new developments. It is not surprising then, that for some time, there have been calls for this somewhat outdated piece of legislation to be reviewed. Finally, in the winter of 2022 the Government issued a consultation, seeking views on how to reform the Act. The Government outlined its intentions, which seek to improve access to credit and increase consumer protection in a digital economy. A response to that consultation followed last summer including next steps. The plan is for much of the Act to be transferred over to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Handbook. The aim of this is to allow the regulator to quickly respond to emerging developments in the consumer credit market, rather than having to amend existing legislation which can be onerous and requires parliamentary time. And there are benefits that this style of reform would bring. Hopefully changes will mean that consumers are less confused by the information lenders must provide. We often hear reports of customers questioning why they have been contacted when they requested not to be or that they don’t understand the jargon they have received. The new system should also grant credit providers more flexibility. The regulatory burden might be reduced too and may lead to some cost savings. However, recent experiences in alternative credit, mean we as an association, have reservations about much of the Act transferring over to the FCA Handbook. There are concerns that this will leave future regulation further open to interpretation by the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in the future. Since responsibility for regulation transferred over to the FCA, and with that the removal of rule-based regulation, we have seen the publication of short principles that are then developed and interpreted by FCA officials. The results are not always consistent and interpretation from the FOS adds a further layer of complexity, especially when rules have been applied retrospectively in some cases. At a time when the Consumer Duty is also being introduced, providing a further regulatory tool for the FCA to use in their assessment of compliance, concerns us that it may become more difficult and confusing for firms to understand regulatory requirements – or for the regulator to quickly move the goal posts. The …

The government has recently announced that it will introduce legislation to reverse the Supreme Court decision in PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28. The PACCAR decision reverberated throughout the litigation funding industry when it was handed down, as it held that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) where the funder is to receive a percentage of the damages should be properly classified as agreements falling within the statutory definition of damages-based agreements (DBAs). As such, LFAs were required to satisfy the statutory conditions for DBAs under the DBA Regulations 2013 failing which they would be unenforceable. Many LFAs in existence at the time were non-compliant with the DBA Regulations 2013 and were therefore unenforceable and urgent steps had to be taken by the stakeholders involved to shore up the position, often by the introduction of a multiple of funding rather than a percentage of damages. Litigation funding is not only suitable for high value claims but can be used for smaller claims as part of a class action. Where the loss suffered by any single claimant is too small to make individual claims economically viable, pursuing claims on a collective basis brings economies of scale. The press release refers to the role litigation funding played in supporting the high profile group claim against the Post Office which in 2019 exposed the Horizon IT scandal, which saw 900 sub-postmasters prosecuted on the basis of information provided by the faulty Horizon accounting system. It has been reported that although litigation funding was vital to the bringing of the sub-postmasters’ claim, that its effect meant that the sub-postmasters each only received approximately £20,000 damages, a fraction of the total damages awarded. The stated aim of the proposed legislation is to make it easier for members of the public to secure the financial backing of third parties (litigation funders) when launching complex claims against corporations with sizeable legal teams which they could otherwise ill-afford. Currently we only have the wording of the press release itself to guide us as to what the proposed legislation is likely to contain and it is stated that it will restore the position that existed before the Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR last year, which may well mean that there is no requirement to comply with the DBA Regulations 2013 so that once the legislation is implemented, cases will be able to continue being funded as previously. No exact details of the legislation have been released as yet, only an indication that the legislation will be introduced shortly. The press release does state that the government is also considering options for a wider review of the sector and how third-party litigation funding is carried out more generally. This may involve consideration of whether there is a need for increased regulation or safeguards for people bringing claims to court perhaps limiting the amount funders are entitled to, particularly given the growth of the litigation funding sector over the past decade. Further details will be available …

WHAT REGULATATIONS HAVE CHANGED FOR CONSUMER CREDIT FIRMS? Making smart financial decisions in an uncertain economic climate can be challenging for some borrowers and in its 2022 to 2025 strategy, the FCA recognised this challenge, stating: “Combined with greater vulnerability among consumers due to the pandemic, this (the rising cost of  living) may drive greater demand for a range of credit products.  Consumers will also increasingly  look for new ways to manage and make more of their money.” Consumer credit firms across the UK are facing new regulations and increased responsibility that mean they must do more to ensure that borrowers are offered the right products that offer fair value. Additionally, consumer credit firms must ensure that during the process of forbearance, when borrowers are unable to repay, that greater efforts are made to understand the borrower’s real financial situation and find a fair solution for both parties. These new Consumer Duty regulations, which apply to products and services across the sector, have established higher and clearer consumer protection standards across consumer credit and the wider financial services sector. They seek to ensure that borrowers receive ‘good outcomes’ and that firms provide evidence that these outcomes are being met. Essentially, it requires firms to put their borrowers’ needs first and be aware of any vulnerability and affordability issues at every stage of the borrowing journey. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO CONSUMER CREDIT FIRMS? Protecting borrowers from losing life-changing amounts of money and making sure clients can afford their financial commitments must be a priority. Not least because the FCA is threatening “severe penalties” for firms that are non-compliant: ‘Firms which don’t meet our minimum standards put consumers at risk. They also undermine trust in financial services and markets. We will act faster, challenging  ourselves and testing the limits of our powers, to remove these firms from the market. Doing this will support us in reducing and preventing harm, creating a better functioning market.’ Consumer Duty has significant loan forbearance implications for consumer credit firms. This is considered particularly important to the regulators, with the Bank of England’s financial policy committee (FPC) reporting an increase in borrowers falling into arrears, and the number of borrowers falling behind on their debts expected to increase. To mitigate this, the FCA has emphasised the importance of lenders providing appropriate support – treating borrowers in financial trouble with extra care to ensure that those who are already vulnerable do not get a worse outcome. According to one FCA report: over half of borrowers have suffered a negative life event through no fault of their own and were facing financial difficulties as a result a significant proportion also had physical or mental health issues, which needed to be taken into consideration when seeking support on their financial difficulties 59% of borrowers in financial distress had missed one or more payments on credit products (including mortgages) in the last six months 40% of borrowers in financial difficulty had a negative or indifferent experience with their lender. SO, WHAT …

INTRODUCTION There is often a difficult question where consumers under hire purchase or conditional sale agreements continue to use a vehicle after rejecting it. On 31 January 2024, the Court of Session allowed the consumer’s appeal in King v Black Horse Limited & Another [2024] CSIH 3 and decided it is possible for a consumer to continue to use the vehicle after rejecting it. THE FACTS The facts are pretty common. Alan King (the consumer) entered into a hire purchase agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the agreement) with Black Horse Limited (the lender) for a motor vehicle (the vehicle). The lender bought the vehicle from a dealer, Park’s Ayr Limited. The consumer had issues with the vehicle’s diesel particulate filter. The agreement was subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA). The consumer purported to reject the vehicle claiming it was not of satisfactory quality when supplied (in breach of Section 9(1)). The consumer purported to exercise his final right to reject (rather than a short-term right to reject). THE EARLIER DECISIONS In the lower courts, the Court decided that the consumer could not continue to use the vehicle after he had rejected it. The Court said the principle in Ransan v Mitchell (1845) 7 D 813 continued to apply after the CRA’s introduction. The consumer appealed. THE APPEAL COURT’S DECISION The Court decided (whilst leaving the door open to ‘personal bar’ arguments) that: The proper approach to interpreting the CRA was to look at the words of the statute. The aim of the EU Consumer Rights Directive (the CRD) was “enhanced consumer protection”. It was possible to introduce greater levels of protection, and the UK decided to do so. The scheme of the CRA “differs in substantial ways from the protection previously offered to consumers”. For example, once the consumer rejects a vehicle then they are entitled to treat the contract as at an end even if the trader refuses to accept the rejection. But after rejecting a vehicle, the “consumer is under an obligation to make the goods available for collection”. The continued use “is not incompatible with that obligation”. The refund must be paid “without unreasonable delay and in any event within 14 days of the trader agreeing that the customer is entitled to a refund” and this “surely indicates that there must be anticipated a period of post-rejection use”. The fact that there is no mention of immediately stopping using the vehicle following rejection in Section 24(5) of the CRA indicates it is not a requirement. The trader may make a deduction for the use of the vehicle “in the period since they were delivered” under Section 24(8) of the CRA. This suggests the deduction is from the period of delivery to refund (not to rejection). If a vehicle’s use after rejection meant they lost their right to a refund, “there would be no need to qualify the trader’s right to reduce a refund” as the consumer would not be due any …

From time to time, I like to pick up on key regulatory matters that affect CCTA members and our sectors. I think we can all agree that there has been a lot going on in Q1 2024, from a regulatory perspective. First, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced a review into motor finance commissions and applying temporary measures for complaint handling timeframes in the sector. This was then followed by a warning to firms on anti-money laundering concerns, a review of firms’ treatment of vulnerable customers, another ‘Dear CEO’ letter and, finally, a joint warning from regulators around concerns about debt collection practices. It is the last of these points that I would like to cover. I am sure many of you will be aware that the FCA, along with other industry regulators (Ofgem, Ofcom, Ofwat) recently issued a joint letter addressing concerns, in their respective industries, about firms’ debt collection practices. Jointly, these regulators have said that consumer harms in debt collection practices result from consumers being inundated with communications when they are in financial difficulty, those communications having intimidating or threatening tones and their debt advisors/organisations having unnecessary barriers when engaging with creditors on behalf of the customer. Contributing on behalf of the FCA, Sheldon Mills highlighted the concerns within the financial services sector. This part of the letter states that the FCA has concerns in several areas, which include, inadequate consideration for customers with characteristics of vulnerability, the perceived intimidating and unsupportive nature of communications, inappropriately testing around communications and the CONC requirements around contacting consumers at unreasonable times and intervals. The letter fails to clarify the communications that their concerns relate to. As you will all know, there are statutory communications that creditors must issue in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements. These are documents such as Default Notices and Notice of Sums in Arrears (NOSIAs). The legal requirements in respect of such statutory communications are prescribed in legislation, therefore, creditors cannot amend the frequency and tone of these communications. Timescales for issuing them and the wording contained within these are mandated. What these regulators are therefore referring to is the communication with consumers beyond these required communications, such as additional letters, telephone calls, emails, texts/SMS, and visits (if applicable). The quicker and easier you make it for consumers and their representatives to address debt and vulnerability matters, the less time and effort you will put into managing and maintaining those accounts going forward. The letter also includes communications sent out by any outsourced debt collection services providers that a firm may use. Remember, firms have a duty to ensure that their suppliers are also meeting regulator expectations. Consequently, it is a good reminder to go back and revisit some of these aspects. Considering this letter, firms should now be asking themselves a few specific questions. I know many firms will have reviewed their communications under the Consumer Duty implementation phase, but have you reviewed the frequency of your communications? The tone? And have you tested …

In January 2021, the FCA banned discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), removing the incentive for brokers to charge customers a higher interest rate for their motor finance. A continued rise in the number of complaints from customers about DCAs in place prior to the ban and the recent decisions by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) which found in favour of complainants has highlighted concerns for the sector. Anticipating a significant increase in complaints to firms and the FOS, the FCA intervened in January 2024, appointing a skilled person to review historical sales of motor finance agreements across several firms involving DCAs. The FCA aims to communicate a decision on next steps by the end of September 2024, and whilst the review remains ongoing, it is likely firms will continue to receive an increased level of complaints. Similarly, the high-cost short-term credit sector (HCSTC) experienced challenges associated with a rise in complaints relating to historical unaffordable lending practices which led to several firms exiting the market or undertaking a formal restructuring procedure to deal with redress liabilities. Whilst firms contemplate what, if any, impact the review and increased complaints will have on their business, there are several useful takeaways from the HCSTC sector which highlight matters firms should be considering. FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL RESILIENCE Financial and operational resilience is key. Firms should be conducting detailed scenario analysis, with cash flow and liquidity modelling, in a range of severe but plausible scenarios enabling management to understand what the business can withstand, both financially and operationally. This will provide greater visibility of areas of potential stress or vulnerability within the business and clarity on triggers that may lead to underperformance, such as a sudden increase in compensation levels or operational costs related to assessing complaints. WIND-DOWN PLAN Firms should ensure they have a well-documented wind-down plan which considers the extent to which the firm may be affected by historical DCAs, including how a remediation exercise and associated liabilities may impact the operational and financial performance of the business. A robust and deliverable wind-down plan can act as a tool to build stakeholder confidence at a time of uncertainty. It can also assist management and advisers in developing contingency plans in a more efficient and cost-effective manner. REMEDIATION EXERCISE Should a firm need to undertake a remediation exercise, consideration will need to be given to these key elements. Whilst not an exhaustive list, it gives some indication as to how complex and expansive a remediation exercise can be: Governance framework This is vital to aid decision making and co-ordinate a successful remediation exercise. What will the MI reporting suite look like and how timely will it be? How will appropriate oversight be given to any outsourced processes? Population identification What steps have been taken to identify the population impacted and its various cohorts? Are there any gaps in data or dependency on legacy systems? Have historical debt sales included impacted consumers? Are there contractual claw-back provisions that need to be considered? Review methodology Does the …

Historically, the automotive finance sector was anchored in face-to-face transactions and physical verifications. However, as digital transitions became more prevalent, the door for cyber fraud and manipulation inadvertently opened wider. The evolution of digital tools has made falsification more sophisticated, with the latest battle surrounding fraudulent bank statement submissions during car finance applications. RISING FRAUD CASES ON CAR FINANCE APPLICATIONS Over the last few years, Marsh Finance has noted a worrying upswing in fraudulent activities, specifically concerning bank statements in car finance applications. The integrity of financial documentation has always been paramount, but with fraudulent cases on the rise, the industry must be more vigilant than ever. IS THE RISING COST OF LIVING TO BLAME FOR THIS RISE IN FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY? Several factors might be driving this surge in fraudulent activity. A significant one is the rising cost of living. As living expenses outpace wage growth, some individuals feel pressured to misrepresent their financial position to secure vehicle finance. While this is no excuse for fraud, understanding the underlying motives can help formulate strategies to address the root cause. COMMON FRAUD TRENDS: DOCTORED BANK STATEMENTS Many of these fraudulent cases involve doctored bank statements. Whether through sophisticated digital manipulations or rudimentary paper alterations, applicants are presenting false records to enhance their financial standing. Such manipulations may range from inflating balances, removing evidence of financial hardship, or even entirely fabricated statements. SPOTTING A FRAUDULENT BANK STATEMENT Inconsistent formatting: Mismatched fonts, varying font sizes, or irregular spacing. Rounded figures: Real bank statements often show exact amounts, not rounded numbers. Missing transactions: Suspicious gaps in transaction history. Logos and branding: An outdated or pixelated bank logo may hint at tampering. Emerging technologies, such as AI-driven document verification systems, can play a pivotal role in detecting discrepancies in bank statements. By leveraging pattern recognition, anomaly detection, and machine learning, businesses can quickly identify and flag suspicious documents for review. REPORTING CAR FINANCE APPLICATION FRAUD TO CIFAS CIFAS (Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System) is a not-for-profit organisation that aims to reduce financial crime. If you suspect fraudulent activity: gather all evidence related to the suspected fraud report the matter directly to CIFAS through their official channels notify the relevant law enforcement agencies. Motor finance CCTA members play a pivotal role in creating a safer automotive finance ecosystem by reporting these incidents. OPEN BANKING: THE FUTURE OF SECURE ASSESSMENTS Open Banking offers a more transparent, direct, and safer alternative to reviewing bank statements. By allowing regulated businesses to access financial data directly from banks (with the customer’s consent), the chances of encountering fraudulent statements drop dramatically. Get a clearer view of an applicant’s finances whilst streamlining the application process.

In October 2022, the FCA launched their Discussion Paper assessing the potential competition impacts of Big Tech entry and expansion in retail financial services (DP 22/5). Various views were invited from stakeholders, culminating in a Call for Input ending in January 2024. Essentially, this call for input wanted to focus on the competition impacts that may arise from Big Tech firms’ data advantages potentially combining with customer financial data sources. Over the past few years, technology has advanced to such an extent that we can now run our lives through our mobile phones, from online banking to downloading the comparison site apps to find the best insurance deal. In the FCA’s Call for Input in November 2023, Chapter 4 looked at potential competition impacts they wanted to explore. The FCA gave an example in that Big Tech firms with access to browsing data may be aware of the financial products that someone is searching for – particularly if they have this information in real time. They may understand an individual’s financial needs better through their users’ activity on social media and e-commerce platforms. As a result, Big Tech firms may be able to engage in sophisticated re-targeting using display and search advertising. Consumer Duty asks firms to look at their communications with customers. Challenges to this can be Google and the character requirements within GoogleAds. Would there still be a level playing field if Big Tech could use sophisticated methods? Apps allow customers to manage their account and potentially interact with you on the go. In an ideal world, lenders may want to allow loan applications through an app, but does current tech allow this? Short term lenders live with the FCA’s Price Cap on Credit but are you aware that if you have a product that offers personal loans through the Apple app then they limit you to a maximum APR of 36% (including costs and fees) with a repay in full date of over 60 days? Who made them a regulator? The FCA suggest that Big Tech capabilities may assist with creditworthiness decisions by having an algorithm that analyses purchase history from their e-commerce platform against consumer behaviours and therefore the likelihood of repaying loans. They recognise concern that firms may not be able to compete on acquisition and retainment, that Big Tech could price discriminate and stifle financial services innovation. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill should be enacted this year and Competition Law will be updated, including the CMA’s new powers to fine businesses akin to the ICOs based on turnover. Will this be a chance to be tough on Big Tech?

In a bid to fortify its internal wellbeing framework, coeo UK has launched its highly anticipated 2024 staff wellbeing workshop programme. This initiative aims to build upon the notable successes achieved in the past twelve months, underscoring the company’s commitment to prioritising employee welfare and fostering a supportive workplace culture. Teaming up with former international rugby player turned mental health presenter, Robbie Hunter-Paul, coeo UK kicked off the programme with the inaugural workshop titled ‘An Introduction to Wellbeing’. This session marks the beginning of an empowering journey for staff members as they embark on constructing their own wellbeing toolkit. Speaking on the significance of the initiative, coeo UK CEO Tim Anson emphasised the paramount importance of prioritising employee wellbeing, particularly in an industry characterised by demanding interactions and emotionally taxing situations. Anson highlighted the essential role of supporting the mental and emotional health of employees in maintaining morale, enhancing productivity, and cultivating an empathetic organisational culture. The workshop programme encompasses five comprehensive sessions covering four core pillars of wellbeing, with a dedicated focus on stress management. Hunter-Paul provided insights into the workshop sessions, detailing how they address various aspects of wellbeing. From reframing perceptions around mental health to exploring stress management techniques, mindfulness practices, the importance of quality sleep, and the role of exercise and nutrition, the programme offers a holistic approach to promoting staff wellbeing. Hunter-Paul further emphasised the programme’s broader impact, noting that it is part of a series of staff wellbeing activities being delivered by coeo UK. Leveraging a partnership with Health Assured, the programme provides staff with access to detailed information and professional support, ensuring comprehensive coverage of all wellbeing areas addressed in the workshops. Additionally, a portion of the programme will be delivered off-site, enabling broader participation and engagement among staff member groups or sports teams. Anson reiterated the transformative potential of investing in wellbeing initiatives, citing their positive impact on productivity, customer engagement, and overall success. He underscored the ethical importance of prioritising employee welfare, particularly in an environment marked by increasing regulation and scrutiny. With the launch of its comprehensive staff wellbeing programme, coeo UK sets a new standard in fostering a healthy and supportive workplace culture, reaffirming its commitment to empowering its workforce.