Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k custs

[Captain Haddock]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

I think DG might fall into the same category...

This firm is the practising name of solicitors employed by the HSBC Group








But BOS doesn't because it is a legal entity in its own right.... just owned by BOS (lol)



Blair Oliver & Scott Ltd is a wholly owned subsidary of Bank of Scotland Plc

That's interesting! In similar correspondence to me in 2009 they mention court action on behalf of their 'client'!! Note, also, that there is no mention in the letter to me of Blair, Oliver & Scott being a subsidiary, as in the 2012 one above.

[Captain Haddock]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Scottish Law society supporting their English & Welsh counterparts in their request for an investigation.

I think it's time to turn some heat on Halifax/Bank of Scotland, too.

[Amethyst]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

That's interesting! In similar correspondence to me in 2009 they mention court action on behalf of their 'client'!! Note, also, that there is no mention in the letter to me of Blair, Oliver & Scott being a subsidiary, as in the 2012 one above.

Plus Blair Oliver Scott are not solicitors and seem to be intimating they are. Nothing on there to say they are part of HBOS. They did have a separate consumer credit licence though. Apparently they stopped sending Blair Oliver Scott letters in November 2013. WHY????? Did the OFT do something and not tell the public again???

[Nibbler]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

That's interesting! In similar correspondence to me in 2009 they mention court action on behalf of their 'client'!! Note, also, that there is no mention in the letter to me of Blair, Oliver & Scott being a subsidiary, as in the 2012 one above.

Found one of that format online from at late as 2011, but unfortunately the small print at the bottom has been cropped off.

So can't say whether they admitted to being a subsidiary on that.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...by2oon/bo1.jpg

Really need to see how late they sent the more deceptive letters?

Although, personally I think it's deceptive and undue pressure no matter what.

[Captain Haddock]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

The fact that they attempted it at all is proof enough that they were impersonating solicitors!

[Wombats]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

When did the FCA take over? April 1st wasn't it?

The November 2013 date may well have coincided with one if the steps CCL holders had to jump through to retain their licence. I'll have to go back through my emails and see what they sent me.

[MissFM]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

When did the FCA take over? April 1st wasn't it?

:lol::lol::lol: x

[Fred]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

:lol::lol::lol: x

According to the FCA they never took over the unregulated bit at all :tinysmile_aha_t:

[dogtired]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Seems to match with my dates as that was roughly the time I got first letters from first Robinson Way, then Wescott, then Arrow Global who are using Wescott.

Plus Blair Oliver Scott are not solicitors and seem to be intimating they are. Nothing on there to say they are part of HBOS. They did have a separate consumer credit licence though. Apparently they stopped sending Blair Oliver Scott letters in November 2013. WHY????? Did the OFT do something and not tell the public again???

[Fred]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

What difference does it make if they do not intend &/or do not take any action legally ?

What constitutes a threat ?

Should it be that potential default in risk assessment is a resounding "no" or should it be that other methods of customer action should be deployed like charging higher rates hence the problem is extended.

Or is it that consumers sit on their arses & wait for D-Day.

[dogtired]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Having kept everything I went through all of mine.
2011, I had a letter and income and expenditure in the same envelope, dated 19th and 20th of December, the letter had them as " subsidiary" the form did not.
2012 Letter in the January because I had not "responded" ( I had, once again requesting that they prove I was liable for alleged sum)
This did not have the bit about being a subsiduary on it.:noidea:

[EXC]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

''The Financial Conduct Authority is to meet with officers from the City of London Police this week to discuss Wonga, the payday lending firm.

The Telegraph understands that the regulator was contacted by the City force late last week in order to arrange a meeting, which is likely to take place either tomorrow or Tuesday.

The police force on Friday said it would look into whether there was enough evidence to start a criminal investigation into fake legal letters sent out by the company over the course of two years from 2008 to 2010.

The imminent meeting reflects the seriousness with which the police force is treating the case, ahead of opening a formal investigation.

It is understood that the force is keen to find out what evidence is held by the regulator, and how the case was assessed.

Meanwhile, it emerged this weekend that in the wake of last Wednesday’s admissions, Wonga has introduced a series of changes designed to appease customers.

Tessa Cook, head of Wonga’s UK consumer lending arm, has introduced a three-day grace period for customers who don’t meet their payment date before a default fee is charged.

In addition, default fees have been reduced from £30 to £20. The two changes are understood to be part of a series of broader changes to the way Wonga interacts with its customers, particularly those in arrears.

The changes are part of a wider reset of the way Wonga operates in the UK, which are likely to include changes in marketing and pricing.

However, in an interview with this newspaper, Ms Cook admitted that the company did and would continue to sell on the debts of a small minority of customers who continued not to pay up.

Asked if it sold Wonga debt on to third-party agencies, she said: “Yes, we do. But these are customers in long-term arrears … for the first couple of months of the debt, we provide the service. And we’re absolutely customer-focused and sympathetic. But every financial services organisation uses debt collection agencies. And we have to be clear, this is a tiny minority of our business.”

Ms Cook also admitted that the public revelations of the past week had been “difficult” for Wonga’s 1,000 employees, but would not comment on whether it had had any impact on demand for loans.

“It’s been difficult, but what is motivating people is that the reason why we exist has not changed: widespread demand for access to short-term consumer credit, and our customers, in the main, really enjoy using our services and appreciate the way we help them.”

She added that Wonga’s board — currently without a chairman or a chief executive — had remained “supportive” of the management team over the fake letters incident.

When asked about the potential for a police investigation, a Wonga spokesman said: “'Wonga’s focus is on compensating the customers affected by the historic debt collection letters.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...er-furore.html

[andrew1]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

That's all very well, but they arrest people who murdered their parents some 15 years ago and I see no reason why why, just because Wonga have changed things now, that they are not treated like any other criminals and put behind bars. It's about time someone out there with the power to do so, begins to treat financial crime like any other crime and hammer them, putting criminals behind bars to show public outrage at the things they have done and the effects this has on people's lives.

Too many people, my darling wife included, think that financial institutions should be let get away with what they have done and we move on. My wife has a point, the stress, the strain, the worry, the fight, the considerable inbalance of the litigation expertise of the financial institution against a single LIP and the complete apathy the Court system has towards debtors in general, makes complaining or pursuing retribution a long, arduous and mostly fruitless costly activity and all they want to see is their loved one's living a healthier and worry free life. However, people like me rebel.

The fact that someone has dipped their hands into our pockets like a thief and stolen our money putting us into severe hardship at times and making many lose their homes as a result should not be overlooked. We need the Police to descend on these individuals with a much heavier hand than we have seen thus far - just because they speak nicely, look respectable or donate to a political party should make no difference.

Lock them up, throw the key away.

A1

[Captain Haddock]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Having kept everything I went through all of mine.
2011, I had a letter and income and expenditure in the same envelope, dated 19th and 20th of December, the letter had them as " subsidiary" the form did not.
2012 Letter in the January because I had not "responded" ( I had, once again requesting that I was liable for alleged sum)
This did not have the bit about being a subsiduary on it.:noidea:

Maybe someone inadvertently using a different template? However, it is clear that something prompted them to add this statement but what was it??

Furthermore, going back through my records I notice a letter from myself in 2009 to Blair, Oliver and Scott asking them to finally desist from bombarding the home with telephone calls or face a charge of harassment and of misuse of the Telecomms Act. It attaches a list of times that calls were made from numbers known to be used by BOS. However, the main issue for me here is the impersonation of solicitors by Bank of Scotland using their 'subsidiary' Blair, Oliver & Scott prior to 2011-2012, for that seems to be when they ceased to be implying that they were a law firm acting for a 'client', as is clear from my earlier attachment. It is my intention to contact the Law Society of Scotland and Police Scotland (Fife Division) to investigate HBOS for offences committed under sections 4, 22 and 23 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.

[meellis]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

"Too many people, my darling wife included, think that financial institutions should be let get away with what they have done and we move on. My wife has a point, the stress, the strain, the worry, the fight, the considerable inbalance of the litigation expertise of the financial institution against a single LIP and the complete apathy the Court system has towards debtors in general, makes complaining or pursuing retribution a long, arduous and mostly fruitless costly activity and all they want to see is their loved one's living a healthier and worry free life."
There is one of the reasons they do it, they know that the majority are too tired, ill equipped or scared to fight and hope that the authorities will do what we have always been told they are there to do.

So the police want to see some evidence and decide if a crime as been committed, they only need to open their eyes and see what the FCA have done and WONGA have excepted.

"Tessa Cook, head of Wonga’s UK consumer lending arm, has introduced a three-day grace period for customers who don’t meet their payment date before a default fee is charged.

In addition, default fees have been reduced from £30 to £20. The two changes are understood to be part of a series of broader changes to the way Wonga interacts with its customers, particularly those in arrears. "
That is an indicator to a few things, one the three day grace period. Wonga will have a lot of info on defaults and they will know the average default date, the real reason for the default letters was to add further charges to peoples accounts hence the speed in getting them out originally because they knew a lot of clients would be three days late with payments. Secondly the intention to change things now they have been caught. In the gas industry years ago there was a lot of problems and accidents and it was decided by some forward thinking engineers to start a regulatory body (CORGI). The reasons to start this body was they could foresee govt intervention so they decided that if they started something they were in control of the govt would adopt it and leave those in the know to run it as opposed to the govt starting their own which wouldn't understand the industry. Nowadays if companies seem to be addressing issues they seem to get off much more lightly and in greater control than if they just ignore things. If they are in greater control they can spin things to make it sound as though they are giving up a lot but in reality they know they aren't giving up much.