From policy to practice
Addressing the challenge of supporting vulnerable customers

Published 08 April 2025

Ensuring customers have an appropriate degree of protection is central to the FCAs mission. Under the Vulnerable Customer Guidance (FG21/1), the FCA expects vulnerable customers to receive outcomes equal to the treatment of other customers. Treatment must be consistent and fair across the end-to-end product and customer lifecycle. The FCA’s focus on vulnerability continues to sharpen. In March 2024, they commenced a two-stage review into how firms are supporting vulnerable customers. Last month Graeme Reynolds (Director of Consumers and Competition) outlined that some firms have failed to think about vulnerability proactively and need to act imminently. With findings from the review due to be shared by the end of 2024, this couldn’t be more clear. Under Consumer Duty, the FCA expects firms to: ensure colleagues have the right skills and capability to recognise and respond to the needs of vulnerable customers understand and respond to customer needs throughout product design, flexible customer service and communications monitor whether they are responding to the needs of customers with characteristics of vulnerability, making improvements where this is not happening. Challenges faced by firms Based on our research and working with firms across the market, firms face a number of challenges in supporting vulnerable customers, including: Identification difficulties: Vulnerable customers may not self-identify, and hidden vulnerabilities can be challenging to recognise. Communication barriers: Complex language, inaccessible formats, and digital exclusion can hinder communication and service access. Inadequate staff training: Lack of awareness and inconsistent handling can lead to inappropriate responses and missed signs of vulnerability. Insufficiently tailored products and services: Rigid processes, unsuitable products, and inflexible payment options can exacerbate customer difficulties. Data privacy concerns: Balancing requirements for customer information with data privacy. Operational challenges: Resource constraints, lack of coordination, and inadequate monitoring. Overcoming challenges To overcome these challenges, ensuring vulnerable customers receive meaningful support, and good outcomes, consideration should be given to: Robust Vulnerable Customer Operating Model: Encompassing identification, customer interaction, product design, governance, and continuous improvement. Staff training: Equipping colleagues with the skills to effectively recognise and respond to customer vulnerabilities. Inclusive products and services: Adapting products, services, and communication methods to meet the diverse needs of vulnerable customers. Technology: Utilising analytics, machine learning, AI, and digital accessibility tools to enhance identification, communication, and support delivery. Customer-centric approach: Prioritising fair treatment of vulnerable customers through dedicated support services, accessible communication channels, and tailored solutions. Effectively supporting vulnerable customers can enhance reputation, drive business growth and innovation, improve risk management and foster a purpose-driven culture. For more information, download our ‘Supporting Customers in Vulnerable Circumstances’ white paper.

The wind of change
Harnessing data to support financially vulnerable customers

Published 08 April 2025

Amid continued economic uncertainty and an unexpected inflation rise to 3.9% in January, many UK residents are turning to borrowing to help manage their money and make ends meet. In fact, our research found that one in five UK adults – approximately 11 million people – now consider themselves financially vulnerable and at risk of harm due to their personal circumstances, including poor health, life changes like new caring responsibilities, or difficulty handling financial or emotional stress. For the financially vulnerable, economic shocks, such as an unexpected bill or a small dip in income, can have a significant impact on not only their financial health, but also on their wellbeing. With nearly seven in ten financially vulnerable people feeling stressed when dealing with their finances, it can be harder for these consumers to make informed financial decisions, putting them at greater risk of fraud and scams. Credit is often a lifeline for vulnerable consumers to meet shortfalls in their finances. However, many can’t access the credit products they need – with low credit scores being cited as the most common reason that people had their credit application turned down. This is where fintechs and financial service providers have a critical role to play. The industry needs to shift from a one-size-fits-all approach to lending, to one that recognises and adapts to the challenges vulnerable consumers face. Lenders should harness data to offer financially vulnerable customers the care and support they need to make informed credit decisions and improve their financial wellbeing. We’re already seeing some innovation in this space, with fintechs developing tools that provide personalised financial insights, helping people take control of their money. Leveraging vulnerability and affordability insights can enable lenders to provide access to lower-cost credit and preventing borrowers from falling into problem debt. We are the first credit reference agency to partner with the Vulnerability Registration Service, giving our clients access to an independent register of vulnerable individuals. This enables them to identify vulnerabilities and make informed decisions in accordance with regulatory guidance. Ultimately, a fair and inclusive financial system is one that balances credit access with consumer care and protection. Through responsible lending and access to credit products tailored to the needs of financially vulnerable consumers, the industry can foster greater financial inclusion to ensure each consumer is reliably and safely represented in the marketplace. At the same time, businesses can empower consumers to avoid unmanageable debt and build financial resilience.

HM Treasury publishes action plan on regulation – aims to support growth

Published 18 March 2025

Yesterday, the Chancellor met top regulator bosses in Downing Street to discuss an action plan on regulation. The review aims to cut the administrative cost of regulation, make Britain the best place to do business and drive economic growth. We applaud the ambition and the speed at which the Government has been moving. Action plan on regulation The plan aims to overhaul the regulatory system so that it: supports growth. Provide a regulatory system that not only protects consumers and supports competition, but also encourages new investment, innovation, and growth. is targeted and proportionate. The government should regulate only where necessary and allow space for discretion and good behaviour. is transparent and predictable. To foster the certainty essential for investment, it is vital that the regulatory regime is stable, predictable and consistent. adapts to keep pace with innovation. Our approach to regulation must allow the UK to take advantage of new technologies and innovations. We welcome these aims. Recently, we wrote about the importance of the smaller non-bank lenders we represent. A big part of their challenge is regulatory. We have long discussed the need to reduce the regulatory burden on firms, but we are increasingly also discussing the importance of certainty. Yes, as the Government has identified, compliance costs have increased considerably over recent years. We have long said that regulators’ cost-benefit work can be disappointing. It can lack an understanding of actual costs and seem to be built with banks in mind. Late last year, we wrote in the media about new proposals from the Financial Conduct Authority to ask lenders to provide detailed information about every transaction they carry out. This follows a vast amount of work to implement the Consumer Duty. The burden is real and pressing. Certainty is just as important as the burden. However, certainty is equally vital. It is key to have confidence that you understand the regulator’s expectations. It allows you to grow and develop without second-guessing everything you do. Let’s be very clear. This is not about deregulation. In many areas, certainty is about providing more direction, not less. It has essential knock-on impacts. Certainty gives firms confidence that they are compliant, but it is also vital in attracting the investment they need for growth. Certainty also ensures access to credit for individuals who struggle to borrow elsewhere, as firms can continue to offer services to these consumers rather than stepping back out of fear. The action plan also includes some specific measures for financial services. The Treasury will also explore ways to streamline financial services regulators’ ‘have regards’ to improve predictability and business confidence. Regulators will now also be subject to performance reviews twice a year. They will be judged against a set of targets agreed with the businesses they affect, such as how quickly they decide on planning applications and new licenses for companies and products. It would be good to see the FCA supporting new entrants into the alternative credit sector. Examining the role of the Financial Ombudsman …

Call for Input on mass redress – an opportunity for change

Published 06 February 2025

Last week we submitted our response to the Call for Input on modernising the redress system. We took this as an opportunity to raise a couple of wider key topics that we were keen to include around the complaints process. One of these is dialogue with the industry around complaints, to improve outcomes for all concerned – firms, the Ombudsman, and ultimately, the consumer. While we believe there are some tangible changes that can be made to the process (which we raise within our submission) there is a need for a more significant change within the FOS, and how it interacts with the industry and other stakeholders. We believe that the FOS can significantly improve the current framework for managing matters with wider implications by developing a new culture, fostering greater transparency, collaboration, and efficiency. The Wider Implications Framework’s (WIF) role could be enhanced to better manage systemic issues and prevent escalation. Early identification of risks through the WIF would also reduce the likelihood of costly mass redress events and encourage proactive handling of systemic issues to deliver consistent and timely redress for consumers. So, we are calling for regular feedback loops and consultation mechanisms to be established to identify emerging trends collaboratively. This could include real-time communication channels and the establishment of stakeholder forums. Through this firms, consumer representatives and trade bodies could directly engage with the regulators. This would strengthen relationships between regulators, industry, and consumer groups. It would provide valuable insights to inform regulatory actions. There is an opportunity to enhance transparency, involving those outside the regulatory family also. Another area we have identified is the issue of time limits and the ambiguity that surrounds them. We strongly believe the FCA and FOS should review the current time limits for referring complaints to provide greater certainty for firms while maintaining fair consumer protections. The current rules—particularly the “three-year from the date of knowledge” provision introduce significant ambiguity, leaving firms vulnerable to open-ended liability and increasing the risk of inconsistent outcomes. To address this, we propose a few changes. We recommend introducing an absolute longstop from the event date, giving rise to the complaint. This would provide firms with a clear liability endpoint, while ensuring consumers have ample time to bring complaints. The “date you knew” rule should also be clarified. The three-year rule is subjective and inconsistently applied. We have seen the FOS place an unreasonable burden on firms to prove when consumers become aware of their right to complain. There should be a clear burden of proof that balances fairness between firms and consumers, ensuring firms are not unfairly burdened. We believe that this will help market integrity and competitiveness. In creating a predictable regulatory environment, it would encourage investment and innovation that has been so hard to achieve in alternative lending given their recent experience of the complaints system. These are two examples of areas that could be improved both to better handle mass redress events but also the wider complaints framework so it functions …

The importance of smaller lenders

Published 23 January 2025

The news that Santander may leave the UK market has grabbed the headlines. There has been, and we are sure there will continue to be, a lot of discussion about the regulatory burden. The costs mentioned are significant, often more like telephone numbers. The risk is that we focus on those big numbers and the big brands. However, elsewhere, some lenders face burdens that are certainly smaller numbers but can significantly impact that firm. Last year, firms moved to implement the Consumer Duty, introducing new systems and structures. Over recent months, we have seen movement on new data systems required by the FCA. There are plans for a new governance body for credit information funded primarily by lenders. All of this adds up and makes it more challenging to operate. We would suggest that smaller independent lenders frequently provide agility, innovation, and customisation to meet the needs of UK families. We mustn’t lose sight of their health. Filling the gaps Filling that gap has always been an idea that is close to the CCTA. We were formed in 1891 by a small group of retailers and lenders that saw the need for new regulated credit products. Smaller lenders have always looked for the gaps as the banks focus on smoothing their processes. Many large banks focus on high-volume, standardised lending products, prioritising economies of scale. Unfortunately, this approach often leaves certain groups with non-standard credit histories or special borrowing requirements without access to financial support. Doing so, they help ensure financial inclusion, enabling consumers and small businesses to access credit that might otherwise be unavailable. This is particularly important in the consumer credit sector, where access to affordable lending can make a critical difference in people’s lives. Driving innovation and competition Smaller lenders are often at the forefront of innovation in financial services. Unencumbered by the bureaucratic layers that can stifle creativity in larger institutions, they are more nimble in adapting to emerging technologies and market trends. Many have pioneered advancements in digital lending platforms, open banking, and data-driven credit assessments, setting new standards for efficiency and customer experience. Moreover, smaller lenders foster competition within the financial services industry. Their presence challenges the dominance of larger players, encouraging a broader range of products and services at more competitive rates. This dynamic benefits consumers, ensuring they can access choices that better suit their needs. Supporting local economies The impact of smaller lenders extends beyond their immediate customers to the communities they serve. Unlike global banking giants, many smaller lenders have strong ties to their local areas, which enables them to understand and respond to the unique challenges and opportunities within those communities. Smaller lenders often take the time to build relationships and trust within their communities, creating a ripple effect of economic resilience and opportunity. That includes CDFIs and credit unions, alongside commercial branch-based lenders. This localised approach is particularly evident in areas where access to finance is limited due to geographic or socioeconomic factors. We have seen the loss of …

An update on motor finance

Published 19 December 2024

As many of you will know, the motor finance world was hit hard in October with the Court of Appeal judgment in the Johnson v FirstRand Bank Limited, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Limited and Hopcraft v Close Brothers cases. The Court of Appeal decided it was unlawful for motor finance brokers to receive a commission from the lender providing motor finance without getting the customer’s informed consent to the payment. This decision surprised many because this case marks a significant shift in how Courts view lenders’ duties toward consumers in cases involving commission payments. Firms were tasked with making changes to their processes very quickly. This decision came on the back of what has already been a very busy year for motor finance providers. In January this year, the FCA launched a review of historical motor finance Discretionary Commission Arrangements (DCAs). The review seeks to understand if there was widespread misconduct related to DCAs before the 2021 ban, if consumers have lost out and, if so, the best way to make sure appropriate compensation is paid in an orderly, consistent and efficient way. Alongside the review, motor finance firms were given more time to provide final responses to complaints about motor finance where a DCA was involved, and consumers more time to refer their complaints to the FOS. This was to prevent inconsistent and inefficient outcomes for consumers and knock-on effects on firms and the market while the FCA reviewed the issue and determined the best way forward. In September, the FCA further extended this until 4 December 2025. Before deciding its next steps, the FCA wanted to take account of relevant court decisions. These included the judicial review by Barclays Partner Finance of a Financial Ombudsman decision relating to a DCA in a motor finance agreement and the recent Court of Appeal judgment mentioned above. Last week we got the news that the Supreme Court will hear an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment. This will likely take place between January and mid-April next year. While the Supreme Court will hear an appeal, firms must still comply with the law as it stands when arranging new motor finance agreements. There was further movement today when the FCA confirmed that it will extend the time firms have to respond to complaints about motor finance agreements, not involving a DCA. Firms now have until after 4 December 2025 to provide a final response to non-DCAs, in line with the extension already provided for complaints involving DCAs. The regulator has also provided guidance for firms when communicating with affected customers. If you are reviewing your approach, we suggest this as an essential checklist of issues. So, it has undoubtedly been a tumultuous year for the sector. Firms should be focusing on ensuring that they are communicating with customers in the right way, whilst also preparing for the continuation of the FCA’s review. The FCA plans to set out next steps in May 2025, but this will be somewhat dependent on the progress of the appeal to the Supreme Court and the …

Building trust in the lending process
The role of transparency and decision systems

Published 28 November 2024

In the competitive landscape of alternative lending, trust is not merely an asset; it is a necessity. As consumers increasingly seek clarity and fairness, lenders must step up their game, creating a transparent environment where borrowers feel informed and secure in their decisions. The key to achieving this lies in the integration of effective decision systems that prioritise transparency, ultimately fostering stronger relationships between lenders and borrowers. Transparency in lending means more than just clear communication; it involves a commitment to openness about policies, decision-making criteria, and the inherent risks of borrowing. Transparency in lending … involves a commitment to openness about policies, decision-making criteria, and the inherent risks of borrowing. For consumers, understanding loan terms, approval factors, and potential costs is crucial for making informed financial choices. When lenders fail to communicate transparently, it can lead to confusion, dissatisfaction, and distrust, damaging customer relationships. Enter decision systems, which are significantly transforming how lenders interact with borrowers. By leveraging data analytics and automation, these systems establish clear, objective criteria for evaluating loan applications. Envision a world where consumers fully understand the factors that influence their loan approvals, providing them with clarity and confidence in their financial decisions. This transparency not only alleviates uncertainty but also fosters a sense of control throughout the lending process. 1. Standardised Criteria With decision systems, lenders can develop standardised criteria for assessing borrower eligibility. When borrowers understand the elements that influence their applications, they feel informed about their chances of approval and the rationale behind decisions, reducing anxiety and uncertainty. 2. Real-Time Feedback Decision systems also offer real-time feedback during the application process. This means borrowers receive immediate updates about their application status, required documentation, and potential hurdles. Such proactive communication instils a sense of involvement and reassurance, making borrowers feel valued and informed. 3. Data Transparency These systems also provide insights into how and what types of data are used for evaluations and the weight assigned to each factor. This transparency builds confidence in the system and demonstrates a commitment to ethical lending practices. But it’s not just about technology; it’s about ethics. Trust is built on a foundation of ethical behaviour and lenders must prioritise responsible practices to cultivate lasting relationships with borrowers. Decision systems that emphasise transparency align closely with these values, creating accountability within organisations. Clear documentation and decision-making processes help ensure fair treatment of applications, mitigating the risk of bias. Incorporating feedback mechanisms allows lenders to listen to their borrowers, fostering a culture of continuous improvement. This dialogue enables lenders to refine their processes based on real experiences, further enhancing trust. Call to action The call to action is clear: embrace transparency through effective decision systems. By committing to open communication, standardised criteria, and ethical practices, lenders can create an environment of trust that benefits everyone involved. Together we can build a lending market where consumers feel empowered to make informed financial choices, ensuring a brighter future for borrowers and lenders alike.

Movement on access to credit

Published 08 November 2024

Access to credit has always been central to the work of the CCTA since it was founded over 130 years ago. We have a long-standing project to protect access to responsible credit for customers that often struggle to borrow elsewhere. In recent months, we have seen a greater interest in access to credit and financial inclusion from a range of external stakeholders which as been encouraging. Firstly, we have seen this from the new Labour Government. Prior to the announcement of the General Election, the Labour Party outlined its commitment to a National Financial Inclusion Strategy, should it gain power. This was reinforced by Tulip Siddiq MP, the Economic Secretary, at the party conference which took place in September. The Secretary said that the strategy will be designed and implemented by a committee chaired by a treasury minister with representation across government, regulators, and industry. Through writing to the Secretary, and in our regular discussions with HM Treasury officials, we have expressed our desire to play a role in the process. We believe the experience our members have of lending to those currently will be vital to the development of the strategy. Over the last few years, we have tried to draw attention to the significant reduction in the supply of regulated credit for those consumers who cannot access the prime credit market. Well-regulated alternative credit can play a role in meeting unmet demand within the wider consumer credit market. Though we support Credit Unions and CDFIs—indeed, they form part of the CCTA membership—these organisations alone cannot fill the gap that has been left. We believe a blend of commercial and not-for-profit providers is needed to solve the current problems and address the use of loan sharks. This is the message we have been trying to convey in recent meetings. Our conference also was an opportunity to hear from other stakeholders about their work in this area. Fair4all Finance talked about their desire to work with the private sector on new products, referencing the c.2 billion of estimated current unmet, but potentially commercially viable, credit quoted recently by L.E.K. Consulting. Discussions continue with members of the CCTA about potential partnerships. We were also lucky enough to have Chris Pond, Chair of the Financial Inclusion Commission speak. Unsurprisingly, they are supportive of the new Strategy promised by the Government. The Commission has released new research carried out by the Centre on Household Assets and Savings Management (CHASM) at Birmingham University, which highlights the harms financial exclusion continues to cause in communities across the UK. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. We have also seen the regulator take a greater interest in access to credit in recent times. The FCA has been keen to engage with the sector on the issue and we have taken the opportunity to raise the role the industry can play in improving access to credit, as part of wider discussions on growth and innovation. Financial exclusion is costly to the country. The credit products offered by …

CCTA Annual Conference 2024

Published 10 October 2024

Last week we held our annual conference at the Radisson Blu, Manchester airport. In keeping with recent tradition, we held our member dinner the night before the conference. Our dinner provided the opportunity for attendees to catch up with colleagues from across the sector and discuss relevant issues in a relaxed setting. Conference kicked off the next morning with our Chair, Mark Fiander welcoming delegates to this year’s event. Jason Wassell, CEO, then provided an update on the work of the association and covered some of the topics that would be discussed during the day. We also got a presentation on our learning and development portal, CCTA Academy, from Naveed Asif. Walker Morris presented on the current regulatory structure and questioned where ultimate authority might lie. A thought-provoking session. We were then joined by a knowledgeable range of panellists for our session on access to credit. Fair4all Finance talked about their recent research in this area, while the FCA said there is a place for high-cost credit within responsible lending. Chris Pond from the Financial Inclusion Commission talked about their campaign for the FCA to have regard for financial inclusion. It was widely agreed that the commercial sector has a role to play in ensuring access. That session was followed by Robert McKechnie of Equifax UK delivering a keynote presentation on what the CRA sector is currently seeing in consumer credit. CCTA members are always interested to see trends and insights from the wider sector. Our last panel sessions of the day focused on the regulatory environment and the alternative lending customer. The regulatory panel talked about the implementation of the Consumer Duty, the current review of the motor finance market, and further changes expected in 2025. The consumer panel looked at the demographics of borrowers and why they need the products offered by CCTA members. Assessing vulnerability and how to help those struggling was also discussed. The last session of the day kicked off with a keynote speech from Square 4 Partners on how to take on complacency within firms. The presentation looked at areas businesses should be reviewing often to ensure continuous improvement- especially with the Consumer Duty framework now in place. For our final keynote speech, we heard from Alex MacDonald of the Financial Ombudsman Service. It is always important for industry to engage with the Ombudsman, so it was great to them as part of the agenda once again. Alex shared some updated from the Ombudsman before questions from the audience. It was once again a packed agenda with lots of topics up for discussion. We would like to thank all our speakers and panellists, along with our sponsors for supporting the event. Thanks also to those that were able to attend on the day. We are already thinking about how the discussions play into the work of the association in the coming months. As always, if there is something you want to discuss contact the team.  

The Mental Health Moratorium
An important new measure in debt recovery in Scotland

Published 02 October 2024

The Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 6 June 2024. It is not yet known when it will come into force, but an important milestone has been passed. The Bill brings into force an important new measure in debt recovery in Scotland, namely the introduction of a Mental Health Moratorium. Separate regulations as to how the moratorium will work in practice were published in May 2024 and a public consultation will follow. Based on those regulations, we are able to gain some insight at this stage as to how the moratorium will work. Applications will be submitted to the Accountant in Bankruptcy (‘AIB’) in Scotland and can only be submitted by a money adviser. The person for whom the application is being made cannot be in any other form of debt solution at the time and must meet both the mental health and the debt criteria set out in the regulations. The bar has been set high in terms of the mental health criteria which must be satisfied to qualify for the moratorium. The individual has to either be subject to certain orders, certificates or directions under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 or, if they are voluntarily or otherwise receiving equivalent emergency, crisis or acute care or treatment in the community from a specialist mental health service in relation to a mental illness of a serious nature, they will qualify. For the debt criteria to be satisfied, a mental health professional must confirm essentially that the individual is dealing with debts in such a way that they are causing or contributing to their mental illness or affecting the individual’s recovery. The mental health professional is required to sign the application for the moratorium and confirm the criteria have been met in writing. If the application is granted, the AIB will issue notification of the start date to relevant parties including all creditors known to the AIB. If creditor details have not been provided in the application, a credit check will be carried out on the individual. The individual’s name will also be added to the new Mental Health Moratorium Register. The moratorium will last for six months but the mental health professional who signed the application has a duty to notify the AIB if they become aware the individual no longer meets the criteria. The moratorium can be continued if the criteria are still met and the AIB must request confirmation from the mental health professional, before the end of the six months, whether the individual still meets the criteria and if so, the moratorium will continue. Once in place, the impact on creditors is as follows: No enforcement action can take place, and this includes trying to contact the individual No interest, fees or charges which may accrue during a moratorium period can be claimed The creditor must carry out a search of their records once notified of a moratorium to identify …

A strategic framework for successS
Enhancing consumer complaints handling

Published 25 September 2024

“Complaints! It’s easy, right?” As industry representatives, we often hear this. At its core, handling complaints is about addressing customer needs and restoring faith in the brand, epitomising ownership. However, to keep it “easy,” you need robust planning and implementation, which is anything but easy. Drawing from my experience, this article outlines a strategic framework to help you navigate the complexities of consumer complaints handling, ensuring you are on the right path to success. UNDERSTANDING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS In the UK financial services sector, managing consumer complaints requires adherence to regulatory frameworks such as the FCA’s Consumer Duty, DISP, CONC, and SYSC. Navigating these regulations confidently is crucial for producing a compliant function. Partnering with Compliance is essential; they are critical allies in developing and maturing a frontline complaints operation. BUILDING A TARGET OPERATING MODEL An optimal and effective Target Operating Model (C-TOM) must efficiently and compliantly address consumer complaints, inform the business of lessons learnt, and continuously improve process efficiency and control. Key components of an effective C-TOM include: 1. Governance and Leadership Establish clear roles and responsibilities, accountability structures, and oversight mechanisms. The board and executive leadership should prioritise customer outcomes, regularly review complaint trends, and challenge the business on complaint handling. 2. Complaint handling process Implement a streamlined, customer-centric, and transparent process aligned with regulatory requirements. This includes triage, prompt acknowledgement, thorough investigation, clear communication, and an escalation process for unresolved complaints. 3. Regulatory compliance Ensure full compliance with DISP, CONC, the Consumer Duty, and SYSC. Regularly train colleagues on regulatory requirements, integrate compliance into outcome testing, and conduct regular audits to ensure processes meet standards. 4. Systems and technology Invest in a robust Complaint Management System (CMS) to centralise information, track complaint status, and generate reports. Utilise automation to streamline tasks and data analytics to identify trends and areas for improvement. 5. People and training Right-size the team, hire individuals with the right skills, and provide comprehensive training on complaint handling procedures and regulatory requirements. Regularly review performance metrics and support colleague well-being. 6. Feedback and continuous improvement Perform root cause analyses on resolved complaints, regularly review processes, establish feedback loops, and benchmark against industry standards. Use these combined insights to drive continuous improvement. 7. Engage with regulators and external bodies Maintain clear communication and collaboration with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Handle requests from claims management companies (CMCs) and professional law firms promptly and accurately. 8. Customer feedback and reputation management Monitor online reviews and social media to staying informed about customer sentiments. Address negative reviews promptly and constructively. Maintain a watching brief on emerging issues. 9. Executive office escalation team Establish a team to handle high-priority and complex complaints, ensuring swift resolution and executive oversight. 10. Process for vulnerable customers Develop procedures for identifying and supporting vulnerable customers, provide mechanisms for signposting support services, and ensure complaint-handling processes can adapt to their specific needs. By investing strategically in these areas and maintaining a proactive approach to customer feedback and …

Holding cyber criminals accountable
Mooji V Persons Unknown

Published 18 September 2024

n the ever-evolving landscape of cyberspace, legal disputes can arise where the identity of the alleged wrongdoers are shrouded in anonymity. These disputes present unique challenges for the traditional legal frameworks, particularly determining accountability. A case that has explored this area further is Mooij -v- Persons Unknown. The judgment not only underscores the complexities of holding unidentifiable persons accountable but also provides much needed guidance on effecting service on unknown defendants and the approach to be taken by the court on liability issues in such scenarios. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FACTS Mooij was a case heard in the High Court of England and Wales which centred around cryptocurrency theft. The claimant, Mr. Mooij, was deceived into transferring Bitcoins and €330,000 to fraudulent entities, prompting him to seek legal recourse, including an initial freezing injunction. He also pursued related claims against the unknown defendants, including for proprietary relief and a money judgment for the value of the lost assets. Unsurprisingly and characteristically for such disputes, none of the defendants participated in the court proceedings. KEY ISSUES AND FINDINGS OF THE JUDGE The case raised fundamental questions about jurisdiction, identification, and liability in the digital realm. The Court made an order permitting alternative service on the defendants. It was held that the sole intent behind serving legal proceedings, regardless of the method used, was to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over defendants. This encompassed individuals who were considered served but opted not to recognise the Court’s jurisdiction. In this case, creative methods such as NFT airdrops into target wallets and filing documents at Court were deemed effective service. This case illustrates that the courts are more than willing to adopt creative alternative methods for serving legal documents and establishing jurisdiction in these matters. The High Court affirmed that although enforcing the judgment might pose challenges, the inability to identify a defendant at the time of judgment did not hinder the Court from exercising jurisdiction to grant relief, including issuing a final monetary judgment. In doing so, the court distinguished from the court in Boonyaem -v- Persons Unknown Category A, a similar case focussed on digital asset fraud, in which held that the Court should not give judgment for any non-proprietary relief to unknown defendants. In Mooij, the High Court held that the defendants had failed to present a viable defence due to their complete lack of engagement in the proceedings, and that there was no reason for the jurisdiction established against them through court-directed alternative service not to result in the desired outcome pursued by the claimant. Again, an eminently practical approach. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Mooij highlights the evolving nature of legal and technological landscapes. Whilst it might be anticipated that the courts may struggle to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies, such as cryptocurrencies, and their implications for legal frameworks, enforcement and remedies available to claimants, the courts have in fact proved extremely adaptable to dealing with such issues. The ruling in Mooij represents a further step towards enhancing accountability in the digital …