Section 404 Financial Services & Markets Act

[Halifax71]

Morning. Does anyone know anything about the FSMA, specifically section 404G?

In one last attempt to avoid court action i've been attempting to find out if the FSA could instigate a Consumer Redress Scheme. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/guidance/guidance10.pdf

However my problem is that my issue is unregulated, i.e. a secured loan, and the OFT don't have the same powers.

Over the last year I have been asking the OFT, the FSA, Treasury & BIS to see if 404G could be used to widen the scope to cover non FSA regulated activities. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...6/1?view=plain , i.e.

New section 404G: Power to widen the scope of consumer redress schemes

182.This section gives the Treasury a power to widen the scope of the FSA's power to establish a consumer redress scheme by amending the definition of relevant firms or consumers.

I've been advised yesterday that Treasury & BIS believe they are "statutorily unable to help". I.e. they say they cannot allow the FSA to investigate, should the FSA choose to do so. The FSA are currently not allowed as secured loans are unregulated.

Is my understanding warped? I.e. how can they say they are "statutorily
unable" when 404G appears to be the statutory intrument enabling them?

Thanks in advance.

[MIKE770]

Re: forum samochodowe

Spam Fritters.

[Halifax71]

Re: Section 404 Financial Services & Markets Act

A sneaky bump. Anyone?

It's important, to me at least, as essentially I think they're wrong, and this is from the Minister.

Thanks in advance.

[Halifax71]

Re: Section 404 Financial Services & Markets Act

I've asked my MP to seek clarification anyway.

Hopefully they'll explain exactly what the purpose of 404g is, if it not to widen the scope of activities that are covered by schemes.

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Section 404 Financial Services & Markets Act

If your loan is unregulated then it would be under contractual law case, and would be proven on copies of the original agreement terms and conditions, and under section 404G you would have to be personally named as guareentor, or be the manager or promotor of the accussed.

[Halifax71]

Re: Section 404 Financial Services & Markets Act

If your loan is unregulated then it would be under contractual law case, and would be proven on copies of the original agreement terms and conditions, and under section 404G you would have to be personally named as guareentor, or be the manager or promotor of the accussed.

Confused mate. Not sure what you're saying here.

[Halifax71]

Re: Section 404 Financial Services & Markets Act

Just a repost on this as i'm still waiting for Treasury to clarify their stance. Can anyone advise?

To clarify, The existing section 404 of FSMA enabled the Treasury, subject to Parliamentary approval, to authorise the FSA to require firms to conduct a review of past business and, if liable, to pay compensation to consumers.

Section 14 of the Financial Services Act 2010 replaced section 404 with new sections 404 and 404A to 404G, conferring new powers for the FSA to make rules requiring firms to establish and operate consumer redress schemes.

A consumer redress scheme is a set of rules under which a firm is required to take one or more of the following steps:
• investigate whether, on or after a specific date, it has failed to comply with particular requirements that are applicable to an activity it has been carrying on;
• determine whether the failure has caused (or may cause) loss or damage to consumers;
• determine what the redress should be in respect of the failure; and
• make the redress to the consumers.

Ignoring the why’s and wherefores as to whether my specific situation satisfies the criteria of being “widespread” or “regular” I’m in discussions with Treasury as to whether or not the FSA can actually consider.

My problem is that my issue is with regard to a secured loan, which is regulated by the OFT not the FSA.

The OFT do not have the same powers and are clearly a toothless organisation that needs to be abolished – that’s another discussion.

The FSA refuse to consider as they don’t regulate Second Charge Loans. They state: -S404 of the Financial Services Act 2010 (consumer redress scheme) only covers requirements imposed on a firm under the Financial Services & Markets Act (FSMA), and does not have any jurisdiction over consumer credit business carried out within the scope of the CCA.

I have asked Treasury to give consideration to extending the FSA’s powers as is seemingly allowed under 404g of the FSMA.

New section 404G: Power to widen the scope of consumer redress schemes182. This section gives the Treasury a power to widen the scope of the FSA's power to establish a consumer redress scheme by amending the definition of relevant firms or consumers.

Both Treasury and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills say they are “statutorily unable to help”.

Being a pain in the butt I have asked why – does 404g not allow Treasury to allow the FSA to consider (should the FSA choose to do so)?

As I said ignoring the specifics of the case does anyone have any knowledge of what 404g means in practice?

Thanks in advance.

[Halifax71]

Re: Section 404 Financial Services & Markets Act

Hmm, I take it no one on here knows about this either. No wonder Treasury are taking so long to decide what to tell me to make me go away.

[EXC]

Re: Section 404 Financial Services & Markets Act

I can't answer the question myself but a good source of information on s404 is the BBA v FSA PPI Judicial Review judgment and the FSA's Grounds of Resistance:


http://www.legalbeagles.info/FSA_JR_...galBeagles.pdf

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/999.html

[Halifax71]

Re: Section 404 Financial Services & Markets Act

Ok, this is the reply. I'm not going to pursue this any further.It was a long shot and it just adds to my evidence of exhausting the alternate resolution schemes.

We've now used the FOS who cannot consider fairness of contract terms.

We've used the OFT who have essentially colluded with FirstPlus to reprimand past activities but only prevent future reoccurences ignoring the consumers right to redress. They've also deemed the findings of their investigation too harmful to be made public. However I have got the Parliamentary Ombudsman to formally investigate the OFT's refusal to disclose.

I have tried to get the FSA to deal with consumer redress following the OFT's reprimand but they cannot deal with second charge loans and Treasury don't think this is a big issue anyway despite it affecting over 70,000 customers of FirstPlus to the tune of £500m and counting.

Off to court we go