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

[dogtired]

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

Will post the link as soon as I can.

I dont think I have seen the new guidelines, any chance of a copy?

[dogtired]

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

Home now and here is the link from the e mail

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/CONC/7

You can save this as a PDF but for some reason I could not !
It, it is quite a lot of reading and it may need posting in the main help or guidance folder

[EXC]

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

Home now and here is the link from the e mail

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/CONC/7

You can save this as a PDF but for some reason I could not !
It, it is quite a lot of reading and it may need posting in the main help or guidance folder

Here you go DT.

[dogtired]

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

That will do Exe!
Strangly it saved fine on the tablet but not on pc!

[dogtired]

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

Would it be useful for all members to post this as a " sticky" link ?
Also now had a responce from the FOS, she has forwarded this to the ombudsma dealing with it ( I had not accepted her view that the OC had acted correctly , she had also said they were unable to deal with DCA which again seemed wrong)

[Amethyst]

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

SRA Warning - http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/cod...ng-notice.page


Warning notice

Employed solicitors: publicity and information provided to third parties

Issued on 8 July 2014
Status

This warning notice does not form part of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Handbook. However, the SRA will have regard to it when exercising its regulatory functions.
Who is this warning notice relevant to?

In-house/employed solicitors
Our concerns

There have been a number of complaints from the public regarding misleading information contained in letters and in letterheads, of some in-house solicitors. These complaints arise as a result of in-house solicitors giving the impression, through the wording contained in letters, through the use of business names by in-house solicitors, by the description of their regulatory status and by their contact details that they are an independent firm of solicitors or other legal services firm.
Overall, these approaches appear to be attempts to give the impression to a third party that an external agency or firm has been instructed to take legal action, up to and including, court proceedings.
These complaints have arisen most commonly in debt collection or enforcement matters where solicitors are employed in-house by the organisation seeking to recover the debt.
Further concern has been caused by complaints of solicitors having taken unfair advantage of a third party’s lack of legal knowledge, particularly in debt collecting matters, where the third party is unrepresented.
The SRA Principles

The SRA Principles are mandatory and apply to all solicitors and to those acting under their supervision. The following SRA Principles are of particular relevance to this issue.

• Principle 2 – You must act with integrity
• Principle 6 – You must behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services

SRA Mandatory Outcomes

The Outcomes in the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 are mandatory and describe what firms and individuals are expected to achieve in order to comply with the relevant SRA Principles. However, they are not an exhaustive list of the application of all the Principles.
The following Outcomes are of particular relevance to this issue.

• O(8.1) – your publicity in relation to your firm or in house practice or for any other business is accurate and not misleading, and is not likely to diminish the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services.
• O(8.4) – clients and the public have appropriate information about you, your firm and how you are regulated.
• O(11.1) – you do not take unfair advantage of third parties in either your professional or personal capacity.

Regulatory action

Failure to comply with this warning notice will lead to regulatory action. Regulatory action may also be necessary because of misconduct that has already taken place.
Our expectations

All solicitors must act with integrity and maintain the trust the public places in them and in the provision of legal services. We expect that all publicity and information regarding your position, as an in house/employed solicitor, is compliant with the Principles and relevant Outcomes in the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
We have reviewed a number of complaints and a range of letters sent by solicitors employed within financial (and similar) institutions to pursue debts or other outstanding sums of money. We consider that, through a range of approaches, attempts are being made to mislead third parties (invariably individual debtors) that their case has been referred by the organisation owed money to an independent law firm to pursue the debt, notably the "naming" of in-house legal teams in the style of independent law firms.
We consider that such approaches do not meet the requirements of Principles 2 and 6 and of Outcomes 8.1, 8.4 and 11.1.
Letterheads must be clear as to the organisation employing you and you must not give any impression that you are part of an independent law firm or firm of solicitors or an independent solicitor.
Any contact details should ensure the third party is aware who they are contacting whether you directly, the in-house legal department or other staff of your employer.
Any correspondence from you, or sent under your supervision, must indicate your individual status as a solicitor regulated by the SRA but must not seek to give any impression that the organisation which employs you is regulated by the SRA.
Overall, the obligation on you is to take positive steps to ensure that third parties are clear about your status and relationship with the organisation seeking recovery of the debt.
In considering any complaints or regulatory action the SRA will consider whether the Principles are being complied with and Outcomes being met. We will consider the overall impact on the third party of information provided in the letterhead, the body of the correspondence and in the references made to regulatory status. In particular we will consider whether the totality of the information provided makes the solicitor’s status clear or whether it gives a false impression and may mislead.
Further help

If solicitors require further help, they can call or email the SRA Ethics helpline.

[PAWS]

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

Regulatory action
Failure to complywith this warning notice will lead to regulatory action. Regulatory action mayalso be necessary because of misconduct that has already taken place.

I wonder if they really will slap down those who have already behaved badly! The SRA and TheFCA /OFT are all very fond of using ‘might’, ‘may’ and ‘could’ in their regulations. If they ‘did’ something positive and very public now to those who have signed these letters it might be a better deterrent.

[Nibbler]

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

she had also said they were unable to deal with DCA which again seemed wrong)

You mean not within their remit? Depends on the debt type?

If so, then might like to point them at this? http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...ting-note.html

[dogtired]

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

Nibbler, I dont know, she did not explain, even when I pointed out that earlier last year they had delt with one of mine that had gone to Cabot!
Thank you for the link will read it properly on a bigger screen.

[Nibbler]

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

Sadly, quite a few FOS staff who should know and be trained better don't seem to understand a basic thing such as their own remit for complaints.

[dogtired]

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

Just hope the allocated Ombudsman knows then!

[andrew1]

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

The SRA look after their members - not our interests. I wrote a few days ago with a simple question:

Dear sirs, Re: Finance company's in-house solicitors

Can you inform me whether it is normal practice or correct for an in-house department, (referred to as their legal department, but just a department none the less as is the canteen) of a company to charge ' hourly fees' to customers of their employer when the solicitors and staff are employees of the so called 'client' they are acting on behalf of?
Can I find any reference to this practice in any of your guidelines or Codes of Conducts at all and if so could you point me to them? Thank you

They came back with:

Thank you for your email of 8 July 2014..


I can confirm that we are unable to help with your enquiry as we cannot provide legal advice, nor can we comment on the actions of solicitors. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is the regulatory body for solicitors admitted in England and Wales and is responsible for protecting consumers by setting and enforcing standards for solicitors.

Plus a load of the usual garb about what they do....

I replied:

Dear Mr xxxx,

I thank you for your response to my question. It's a simple question, a very simple question, which, given the vast knowledge you people have in the SRA could answer 'yes or No' at the flick of a switch, but no, we consumers have to trawl right through the costly business of going to a solicitor just to get an answer.

Most high street solicitors wouldn't know the answer anyway - I've asked, so why is it so difficult in the 21st Century and in an atmosphere of transparency, honesty
and professionalism, that you people cannot answer a simple basic question?

I am not seeking legal advice, just whether it is allowed or not for in-house solicitors to charge hourly fees when in the employ of a plc and on a salary rather than as a sole practitioner.

What is it about that question that provides me with legal advice?

to which they replied:

Thank you for your email of 9 July 2014.

I understand you may feel it frustrating that you are unable to get an answer with regards to your question but as a regulatory body we are unable to comment on individual cases or fees that are charged.

We will endeavour to investigate any solicitor that you deem to have contravened standards that we set out in the SRA handbook but within that handbook there are no guidelines referring to what a solicitor can charge or cannot charge for each case. The Solicitors Regulation Authority do not regulate fees. la di da di da.....

These regulatory bodies are not worth the effort. It's a club and we're not in the club.

I would however, still like to know if it is legal for an employee of a company to charge his time out in hourly legal fees when collecting debt for his employer cos that's effectively what's been happening in some of these outfits.

If I have a company and employed a solicitor to work for me who would I turn to to ask that question?

Anyone knows where I can find out I'd appreciate knowing.

Thanks

A1

[PAWS]

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

This is typical of the answers I get from these organisations and MPs. They must think we are –sorry can’t think of a PC or word! It is downright insulting the way they think we will be so thrilled they even bothered to reply that any sort of BS will shut us up.:mad2:
I got pages of legislation about the behaviour of bailiffs from David Jones MP when I asked him how Lenders and DCAs could issue court papers before they had followed correct procedure as outlined by the CCA.
I feel like breaking out into chorus of ‘we shall overcome’.! And we Damnwell will.:thumb:

[Amethyst]

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

For info: CAP should be announced next week - http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...838#post450838

IF there IS a Cap.

[PAWS]

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

As we all know and as The University of Brighton report showed most consumers had to turn to these scoundrels because of unforeseen emergencies in their lives. They need to push and support fabulous organisations like the credit unions to provide a stop gap for these people but…….When will they tackle the cause of this crisis.

A pay day lender is never the first debt someone will have.

Now we can dig up archaic laws such as ‘Joint Enterprise’ –a law I believe was created to punish people involved in Duels! So why can’t we bring back good old ‘usury’ laws. It would slap these b****rs down and nip the whole ‘buying debts for pennies’ profiteering of the DCA’s.

They dare to list one of their considerations being Pay Day lenders going out of business! Well boo bloody hoo.:Cry:

Are we going to see yet another very expensive ‘inquiry’ that will result in sweet FA changing for the debtor? Even if the laws do change will the OL/DCA or indeed the courts ever pay any attention to them? We have a shed load of legislation in place (as the MPs and organisations I badger tell me ad nauseam) to protect the debtor but they are not clear and are rarely taken note of. The LB site is littered with cases where the debtor has to fight tooth and nail to bring their legal right to the attention of thecourt.
I believe the actions of other lenders and DCAs and the ignorance of the judiciary have caused the ‘vicious circle of debt’ that is the whole reason why these pay day lenders exist. Many people begin with what we call ‘normal’ debts like car loans, mortgages etc. Then they have an income crisis and the lenders including the utility providers and council tax come down on them with a hammer. They squeeze every penny out of the debtor and then destroy their credit file so even when the debtor gets back on his feet he has no option but turn to the sharks if the roof leaks or their children need new shoes. Once in their clutches it is almost impossible to escape. :ballchain:

A recent programme about food banks revealed that every person that has been reduced to begging for food paid their debt collector first. Now you and I know that they can fill out an income and expenditure form and prove they cannot do this but the collectors /lenders and as we have seen the courts, will still take action. Even if the court agrees the debtor cannot pay more they will still get a CCJ and many are permanently scarred by being brought to court for debt.

They need to go right back to the drawing board. Just like the FOS and the OFT the FCA are simply firefighting instead of fire proofing. Actually no…they don’t even fire fight; they take on the role of Nero and fiddle away assuming we will be all happy so long as we have something to listen to while our lives are destroyed.:violin:
End of rant –going for a fag.