CCTA’s thoughts on current claims management activity and the impact it is having on the industry

Published 05 September 2018

The recent news that payday loan company, Wonga, has sought a £10million bailout is an ominous reminder of the challenges currently facing the consumer credit industry as regulators, consumer groups, and claims management companies focus their attentions on high cost short term credit providers. The latest document to come from the Financial Conduct Authority details the regulators’ Creditworthiness Policy Statement and while it does promisingly recognise the need to keep the regulations proportionate, the approach may come as too little, too late for some lenders. Over-regulation presents its own challenges, but many in the consumer credit industry are experiencing the same issues faced by Wonga, as they are having to deal with a significant spike in claims being directed towards the Financial Ombudsman Service, driven principally by claims management company activity. While many cases may be genuine, the credit industry’s chief bugbear is the behaviour of sham Claims Management Companies (CMCs) that are using industrialised processes to send thousands of bogus compensation claims into FOS.  They use pro forma, template complaints letters, without conducting any due diligence or fact-checking in advance. It is alleged in many instances, that consumers will not even know a claim is being made on their behalf. Such disingenuous behaviour is clearly not limited to the credit industry as the Solicitors Regulation Authority updated its warning notice on 9th August 2018[1] with advice to law firms who act in personal injury cases, particularly holiday sickness claims.  The notice, which sets out the expected standards, notes the SRA are investigating firms involved in holiday claims, with potentially improper links with claims management companies. They are also seeing firms pursuing claims without the proper instructions of claimants. Failure to complete due diligence may explain why the proportion of claims brought against credit companies by CMCs rose from 9% in 2016/17 to 22% in 2017/18. Anecdotally, those numbers will spike even more alarmingly this year as the window for PPI claims starts to close and CMC’s are turning their attention to other avenues of opportunity such as payday loans.  The recent comments by Wonga[2] that the company has seen an increase in claims relating to legacy loans is echoed by many but is a particular blow to some SME credit businesses as every single complaint taken on by FOS costs an SME business £550 regardless of whether the claim is legitimate or not.  Consequently it is important that the industry has confidence that the regulator can and does identify any malign activities of the claims management industry who send thousands of vexatious complaints to an over-stretched Ombudsman in the hope that they won’t be rooted out. The need for trust in FOS is doubly important because it is being given new powers as it extends its remit to handling complaints from larger SMEs in the aftermath of banking scandals such as RBS / GRG and interest rate swaps. Likewise, on 1st April 2019, the FCA becomes the regulator for all CMC’s . We await the results of this with …

CCTA responds to the announcement Wonga has stopped taking loan applications

Published 30 August 2018

The following is the CCTA view on access to credit and the impact of aggressive regulation,  and over zealous and sometimes vexatious redress claims made by the Claims Management Companies. These and other factors are the cause of the ongoing operating problems being experienced by Wonga. Access to responsible credit is required by the majority of consumers, to address short and longer term needs. As is much publicised the just about managing ( JAM’s ) consumers exist in most socio economic groups, with many families making ends meet until there is a crisis that needs a financial fix. Unauthorised bank overdrafts cost more than many high cost credit loans, so short term credit products like Wonga provided the financial breathing space consumers required. A strong consumer lobby and political muscle produced severe FCA regulation that collapsed the business model for certain short term loan products – but not unauthorised Bank overdrafts. Added to this Claims Management Companies leapt on the back of the change in regulation and targeted short term lending as a potential area for mass claims based on affordability issues. The Industry is currently coping with a dual problem of excessive vexatious claims and the FOS acting as a regulator, rather than an impartial ombudsman service. If the current scenario is allowed to continue consumers will be forced to find different routes to obtain financial assistance which may include the usage of illegal lenders, with the potential threat that comes with it. More than likely friends & family will be used, which is the fastest growing sector for access to credit. Borrowing from friends & family brings with it a degree of psychological pressure and potential family breakdown. Politically there is little if no capital for politicians to suggest that a price for risk model works well for the consumer and business.

CCTA responds to FCA Creditworthiness Policy Statement

Published 01 August 2018

Exchanges between the regulator and SME lenders can sound like a stuck record at times, with lenders complaining the FCA is over-regulating and forcing them out of business. However, this time we’re very happy to applaud the FCA for recognising the need to keep the regulations proportionate. The level of fact-finding and future scenario-modelling for a personal loan of £500 cannot be the same as for a loan of £500,000. The costs of the fact-finding alone would dwarf the size of the actual loan. Hence, the FCA needs to strike a balance if it wants specialist SME lenders to stay in the market and non-prime consumers to be able to access specialist loans designed around their particular needs. The devil is in the detail, of course, and lenders will need to look at the technical changes being made to the FCA Rulebook. But, on the basis of what we’ve read so far, we’re encouraged the FCA sees a role for our sector in the credit marketplace and recognises the need to keep the level of regulation at a manageable level.

CCTA comments on Treasury Select Committee’s Household Finances Report

Published 26 July 2018

Greg Stevens, Chief Executive of the CCTA, said: “We welcome the Treasury Select Committee’s recognition that credit plays an ‘essential’ role in many people’s lives, and has been critical in helping households weather the financial crisis and the aftermath.   “Nonetheless, we are concerned with the Committee’s calls for the FCA to consider wider caps on credit, which will be both counterproductive and harm consumers. This conclusion appears to be based on evidence that the high-cost short-term price cap was almost exclusively beneficial to consumers, and that there was no trade-off between regulating these products and denying access to credit for those who need it.   “But there is clear evidence that this is not the case. FCA statistics show there was a doubling in borrowing from home credit and rent-to-own businesses in the two years following the introduction of the payday cap. The cap forced consumers into other products that were available to them, rather than surviving without this essential line of financial support.   “The Treasury estimates there are 300,000 people using illegal lenders and others put the number much higher. The FCA says 3.1 million are borrowing from ‘friends and family’, for many a euphemism for illegal lenders. The lesson is clear: cap legal sources and borrowers find second choices — these might be regulated, equally they might not.   “A cautious approach is needed, and while they may look great on paper, they are counterproductive in practice — and will cause more consumer harm.”

The FOS review was only skin deep. It doesn’t tackle the concerns of SMEs

Published 18 July 2018

Richard Lloyd’s review of the FOS does not go far enough. There are crucial omissions that need to be addressed before trust in FOS can be rebuilt, argues Greg Stevens. This afternoon, the fearsome Treasury Select Committee will meet to discuss criticisms of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The criticisms were first revealed in a Channel 4 Dispatches programme in March. The programme makers used secret filming to reveal serious shortcomings in the way FOS trains its staff and adjudicates on consumer complaints about financial services companies. FOS strenuously denied that the findings were representative of its usual practices. But under pressure from the Treasury Committee chair, Nicky Morgan MP, it agreed to an independent FOS review. Former Which? Chief executive, Richard Lloyd, was duly appointed as reviewer. Nicky Morgan insisted both Lloyd and FOS should appear before her committee within three months. FOS review is lenient Reading Richard Lloyd’s report and re-watching the programme, it is hard not to conclude that the reviewer has been lenient. The soft language of the report contrasts sharply with harsh criticisms in the programme transcript. At one point a senior Manager says “We rushed through complicated financial issues and processes. I often didn’t know what I was doing.” Another says “I’m not proud to admit it but I’ve done it myself – just taken a chance and just slung stuff through, with any old decision.” The transcript reveals a similarly dire picture with regard to staff training. One mentor says “Some people have been thrown in with no training at all.” A trainer responds “There were people there who had no idea, no idea about any products, anything, anything about complaints at all.” But while the reviewer might have gone in lightly, his report does recommend reform to pretty much every area of the FOS — from its casework handling, to staff training, quality assurance, management capability, culture and morale, governance, etc. It is hard to think of an area that is not singled out for reform. FOS review: trust of consumers is essential There is no question that the FOS is an essential part of the regulatory architecture for financial services. It is vital that consumers should have recourse to a free, fair and speedy redress process. It is also undeniable that the FOS has experienced unprecedented organisational pressures as a result of PPI. But, equally, it is essential that the FOS and its decisions should command the trust of both consumers and the financial services companies being complained about. Unless its decisions can be deemed to be fair, trust evaporates. In view of this, Richard Lloyd’s FOS review does not go far enough. There are crucial omissions that need to be addressed before trust in FOS can be rebuilt. The credit industry’s chief bugbear is the behaviour of sham Claims Management Companies (CMCs) that are using industrialised processes to send thousands of bogus compensation claims into FOS. They use pro forma, template complaints letters without conducting any due diligence or fact-checking …

CCTA commentary on the report of the independent review of the Financial Ombudsman Service

Published 12 July 2018

The findings of Richard Lloyd’s report are helpful as far they go, but a more comprehensive review is needed. The credit industry will recognise the shortcomings his report identifies, just as they recognised the criticisms revealed in the Dispatches Programme — primarily the lack of staff expertise and inconsistency in decision-making.   FOS is clearly under organisational pressure from the volume of PPI mis-selling claims it has to handle, but that’s of little comfort to credit and other financial services businesses who suffer as a result.   The most important finding is the call for ‘a new strategic plan’ covering pretty much every part of the organisation. Our clear view is that the production of the new plan should be a preceded by a root and branch review of FOS by the National Audit Office. There hasn’t been one for 8 years and the complaints and claims industry has changed beyond recognition.   Richard Lloyd looked into a narrow subset of issues related to a 30-minute documentary. There is a much longer list of grievances that need closer attention. Chief among these are the malign activities of the claims management industry that send thousands of vexatious complaints at an over-stretched Ombudsman in the knowledge that they won’t be rooted out. Greg Stevens CEO CCTA 12th July 2018

How far are the services of Post Office outlets providing a satisfactory experience for the bank branch customer?

Published 12 July 2018

In the past 25 years, the UK has seen the closure of nearly 10,000 bank branches – over half of all branches – as more and more customers gravitate towards online banking in a tech-savvy world of contactless cards and virtual cheque payments. Having said that, there are still many customers, particularly the elderly, who prefer a face-to-face service and the chance to talk to people; to get financial advice, to access their money physically, and to have the security of seeing their bank transaction being processed. Consequently when a bank closure occurs, especially if this is in a rural location, members of the community may struggle. So, it is important that the replacement Post Office service provides the same level of service and products as those offered by the departing bank. According to the consumer group, Which?, there are about 60 bank branches closing every month. This means that 2,868 branches will have closed between 2015 and the end of 2018, with the number accelerating this year.  Banks are eager to substitute the face-to-face relationship with a range of digital on-the-go capabilities. (Business Insider previously reporting that from 2012 to 2017 consumer usage of banking apps had massively increased to 356%.) When the banks have come under fire for the closures, they cite low customer numbers and commercial loss as major contributing factors to the closures, choosing instead to offer day-to-day banking services through 11,500 Post Office branches. RBS has been heavily criticised for its closure programme in Scotland but boss, Ross McEwan, has remarked that the Post Office network is the “best solution to community banking.” But post offices premises can often be unsuitably located in shops and newsagents. Unite recognised this recently proclaiming;”Post offices are closing at an alarming rate or being relocated in the back of a shop with a much reduced counter service which is not equipped to deal with the volumes of business cash or the community’s banking needs”. A lack of a visible presence on the high street also means many customers, especially SME’s, may be unaware that the post office provides a banking service. As a consequence of this an Action Plan was launched in 2018 by the finance industry and the Post Office to raise awareness of banking services available at Post Office branches amongst local communities with lower bank branch coverage.  The five point plan had been devised following a request from John Glen, Economic Secretary to raise the limited awareness of the banking services available at Post Offices. The Minister had previously attended a Backbench Business Committee debate to hear MP’s describe the effect of community bank closures on their constituencies.  During the debate MP’s noted that the Post Office provides a valuable service but, “its ongoing restructuring process has seen too many branches close in recent years and we do not know what the future holds”. The Post Office is also limited by its maximum cash deposit limit of £2,000 which could prove restrictive for local business. Open …

CCTA welcomes recognition from FCA of the positives of home credit

Published 14 June 2018

On 13th June the Treasury Select Committee heard from Andrew Bailey, Chief Executive, Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as the Committee provided broad parliamentary scrutiny of the FCA’s work. As anticipated, the Committee discussed High Cost Short Term Credit, where Mr Bailey re-iterated the findings of the FCA’s recent HCC review. During the Committee, we were very pleased to hear Mr Bailey resisting calls for blanket rate caps. The CCTA and its members were also delighted that he acknowledged the importance of maintaining access to credit for the millions of consumers who cannot access mainstream credit. He was very clear: caps have consequences. Whilst the FCA has increased the regulatory burden on lenders and plans to do so again in the near future, it is apparent that they do appreciate the value of credit to society. Whilst we were disappointed with aspects of last weeks announcements, the CCTA were pleased to see the FCA take a somewhat balanced approach to their High Cost Credit Review. At today’s Select Committee hearing this was made more apparent as Mr. Bailey was the voice of reason. It is easy to rabble-rouse against lenders and demand the supply of credit be more restricted. What is apparently harder to is read up on the facts and understand the negative impacts this would have on millions of families around the country. There was also rare but welcome recognition of the positives of home collected credit. The debt campaigners are angry not to have won a cap on home credit, but Bailey rejected demands to reconsider. He understands that the borrower-lender relationship sets home credit apart from other models. This is a small but welcome step forward. On alternative credit options, Mr Bailey acknowledged that outside of Northern Ireland Credit Unions are underdeveloped in the UK, but importantly, that “they are not, on their own, the only solution” and that it would be a “great loss, if we cut off people from credit.” Indeed, there has not yet been a single, viable, alternative credit solution that meets the needs of millions of lower-income consumers for access to credit. It is easy to argue that the FCA’s review does not go far enough in its proposed restrictions on lending – but what is more difficult, is to find an alternative that hasn’t already been tried, tested and proven to flounder. Greg Stevens CEO, CCTA 14th July 2018

FCA takes a cautious approach to consumer credit intervention

Published 31 May 2018

In the FCA’s report published today on the outcome of its high-cost credit review, the FCA is quite rightly taking a cautious approach, which is to be welcomed. The focus on overdrafts is welcome too: this is where the bulk of high cost borrowing takes place. Providing credit to low income consumers will always be an emotive topic. You can’t simply wish-away the costs of servicing this customer group. The FCA gets this and it is taking its time to get the balance right. We are 100% committed to working with them to make sure consumers can get access to the credit they need on the best possible terms.  On rate caps We are pleased the FCA has listened on caps – they look great on paper but they are counterproductive in practice. We’re not surprised they have committed to considering one for the rent-to-own sector: they were under intense pressure from the debt campaigns to bring one in. We’ll have to see where the review gets to, but we’re pleased the FCA will be undertaking a proper cost-benefit analysis. On doorstep lending We welcome the cautious approach to doorstep lending. When we had this exact same debate 15 years ago, the country’s most respected researchers went away to design an ideal product for low income households and they came up with home credit. It is designed around customers’ needs. Any sensible measures to improve sales practices are welcome, but moves to change a model that customers like and value would be counter productive.  On the waterbed effect We are pleased that the FCA is finally acknowledging that there is a ‘waterbed effect’ when you introduce rate caps. FCA Director of Strategy, Christopher Woolard, acknowledged as much on the radio this morning. Previously the FCA insisted there was no waterbed effect when it capped payday lending in 2015. Now it admits it has to ‘encourage more alternatives’ to absorb the spike in demand that caps cause. The evidence is clear from its own statistics. There was a doubling in borrowing from home credit and rent-to-own businesses in the two years following the introduction of the payday cap. The Treasury estimates there are 300,000 people using illegal lenders, others put the number much higher. The FCA says 3.1 million are borrowing from ‘friends and family’, for many a euphemism for illegal lenders. The lesson is clear: cap legal sources and borrowers find second choices — these might be regulated, equally they might not. Greg Stevens CEO, CCTA 31st May 2018      

Lenders who operate in the shadows

Published 16 May 2018

When the Treasury announced that £5.67 million of funding will be provided to Britain’s Illegal Money Lending Teams (IMLT) and bodies in Northern Ireland to tackle illegal lending, this was of course met with a welcome response, representing a 16% increase compared to the previous year. This sum will be used to crack down on so-called ‘nasty lenders’ while also encouraging people in England who are deemed to be at risk of being targeted to join credit unions, as well as supporting a new project in Northern Ireland to raise awareness of the dangers of loan sharks. England’s Illegal Money Lending Teams (ILMT) has already made over 380 prosecutions leading to 328 years’ worth of sentences since it was established in 2004, so the additional funding will provide further support for investigations into unscrupulous, unregulated practices. Unlike regulated lenders, illegal lenders are not transparent and are often initially viewed as family or friends to the victim yet they leave no paper trail and often resort to threats, intimation or even violence.  Victims of loan sharks are often too scared to report any incidents meaning the number of lenders operating in the shadows is difficult to quantify. A press release from the Treasury attempted to quantify this at over 300,000 people in debt to illegal money lenders in Britain.  However, in 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority published a report detailing consumer experiences of illegal lending in the UK which said they were unable to establish hard evidence of the number of consumers involved in unauthorised lenders, so the figure could potentially be substantially more. The spectre of illegal lenders perhaps takes on more significance when set against a background of stagnant wages, rising living costs, ‘just about managing families’ and a reduction in the availability of consumer credit. It means many vulnerable borrowers may resort to using the local “friendly lender” who has always been part of the community culture – aka the dangerous, illegal loan shark. The FCA’s Financial Lives Survey (2017) also found that of those surveyed, 7% of UK adults were borrowing from friends and family, or had done so in the previous 12 months, while 0.2%, (just under 100,000 UK adults) had used an unregistered lender in the last year.  Yet once a loan is given, many victims will find it impossible to repay as “the lenders seek them out, put them in their debt and seek to keep them there – providing the lender with an ongoing income stream.” Last week the Illegal Money Lending Team issued a press release encouraging community groups to bid for grants up to £5,000 for projects which will raise awareness of illegal lending.  The funds have been made available from monies confiscated from convicted loan sharks through the Proceeds of Crime Act (2002) and the overall aim of this national scheme is to see the illegal earnings being used wisely to benefit key areas and reinvest the money back into local communities. The scheme is to be applauded as the …

Provident Financial is back ‘on the up’

Published 09 May 2018

It is excellent news that Provident Financial has turned the corner and normal service has been restored to satisfy their customers’ needs. This comes at the same time as RBS announces that it is shutting another 162 Branches across the UK on the wider assumption that consumers will go online. There will be many more small towns and villages where banking services will have to be provided by the post office, which in many circumstances does not provide the service the customer would like. Home collected credit providers, and other community lenders in various sectors, have provided a service over countless years, and for many, they provide a local service and excellent customer care. Access to responsible and affordable credit that is priced for risk, provides a financially smoothing effect for many consumers especially in the JAM category, and across all socio-economic groups. The forthcoming FCA Report on High Cost Credit will hopefully reiterate the importance of smoothing and the ‘water bed effect’ as previously stated by Andrew Bailey CEO FCA. Consumers and the Industry will be looking for comfort that smoothing does not disappear by regulatory default, through pandering too much to consumer activists’ (sometimes) unrealistic concerns. Greg Stevens CEO, CCTA 9th May 2018

A Mixed Bag of Concerns

Published 28 April 2018

The reported recovery in real wage growth has failed to promote optimism among households. The consumer confidence barometer by GfK, (Times 27th April) – the bellwether indicator which is tracked by the Bank of England and others – fell from minus 7 in March to minus 9 this month. It has now been negative for 28 months in a row. GfK’s survey revealed a steep decline in consumer confidence towards financial situations for the past 12 months, and the year ahead. The above indicative figures arrived shortly after another bleak survey for retailers. The CBI distributive trades survey of 100 retailers showed sales volumes recovered weakly from the atrocious weather in March. The balance rose from minus 5 to minus 2, but fell a long way short of economists’ forecasts for plus 5. CBI’s survey revealed a steep decline in consumer confidence towards financial situations for the past 12 months, and suggests the same for the year ahead. To amplify the potential problems ahead, Britain’s growth rate weakened to 0.1% in the first three months  of 2018, the lowest quarterly reading in more than five years, according to preliminary figures published today by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). The ONS stated that aforesaid weather in March had some impact on construction and some areas of retail, but the overall effect on GDP was limited. Rob Kent-Smith (ONS) stated: “Our initial estimate shows the UK economy growing at its slowest pace in more than 5 years, with weaker manufacturing growth, subdued consumer-facing industries and construction output falling significantly.” Figures published by UK Finance on 25th April showed a 10% drop in mortgage approvals in March compared to the previous year, citing declining consumer confidence. In London market the hotbed of property price increases is stalling, and asking prices not being achieved. There is still slight growth in the provinces but there are early signs it is stalling as well. The Bank of England has raised concerns over the risks posed by equity release mortgage books after its analysis found borrowers aged between 55 and 64 now make up 15% of the market, double the level in 2015. Householders who have a nest egg in their property are accessing their equity, sometimes unwisely with little regard to the future. This is happening as homes have become less affordable in the past year as house prices have risen faster than wages. ONS figures released on 25th April state that full-time workers spent around 7.8 times their annual salary on buying a home in England & Wales in 2017, a significant increase of 2.4% since 2016. The economy is still extremely bumpy and there will be peaks and troughs over the coming 12 months. However the underlying trend is difficult times ahead for consumers, and with a potential slow down in house prices, equity values falling, and banks being more prudent and raising their credit granting cut-offs, the ‘Just About Managing’ (JAMs) consumers will find loans difficult to get. Politically this could be …