The FCA? Bring back the OFT i say

[pt2537]

Its not often that i complain about the UK regulators, but i really am disappointed by the FCA and their authorisation system. In my view its shambolic and open to total abuse, moreover its actually being abused day after day after day and the FCA seem utterly oblivious, and what’s more when these points are […]


More...

[R0b]

Re: The FCA? Bring back the OFT i say

Interesting article, i think my view is that the debt purchaser who needs to rely on the exemption set out in the FSMA and the RAO, and provided that they comply, would be exempt insofar as they do not need require permission (or licence back in the OFT days). That does not however, mean that they are not regulated by the FCA.

If the agreement is a regulated agreement which falls subject to the CCA and they would therefore come within the remit of the FCA and subject to the FSMA / RAO. The argument that the debt purchaser is not a creditor is utter ****. If they weren't the creditor then they would have no rights to bring a claim against the debtor. Equally the third party authorised firm is acting on instructions from the debt purchaser who in turn is the creditor. If the debt purchaser is not the creditor then they could not rely on the exemption because you would need to be the creditor to instruct the third party!

So it all goes round in one big circle and whichever way the creditor (or debt purchaser whatever name they call themselves) argues, the matter of the fact is that although they are not authorised it is a regulated agreement that is now regulated by the FCA and is subject to the FCA rules.

[Fred]

Re: The FCA? Bring back the OFT i say

http://www.fca.org.uk/static/documen...ated-guide.pdf

A little confused.............is the unlicensed debt purchaser covered by the statement on page 27 on the above link ?

[R0b]

Re: The FCA? Bring back the OFT i say

No, there is an exemption in the regulated activities order which enables an unauthorised firm who has rights under a credit agreement to enter into a servicing agreement with an authorised third party to act on their behalf and enforce their rights.

I'm presuming the principal and appointed rep situation will cover where the principal firm does not have authroisation for certain activities whereas the appointed rep does.

[Amethyst]

Re: The FCA? Bring back the OFT i say

Discussion on http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...645#post587645 thread - although the original letter has fallen off somewhere along the way.

[charitynjw]

Re: The FCA? Bring back the OFT i say

No, there is an exemption in the regulated activities order which enables an unauthorised firm who has rights under a credit agreement to enter into a servicing agreement with an authorised third party to act on their behalf and enforce their rights.

I'm presuming the principal and appointed rep situation will cover where the principal firm does not have authroisation for certain activities whereas the appointed rep does.

So how come it is the debt purchaser's name on the court claim form?

[R0b]

Re: The FCA? Bring back the OFT i say

Because they have the rights under the agreement, not the third party or anyone else. The way I see it is the debt purchaser instructs third party who takes instructions. If the debt purchaser wishes to issue a claim then it instructs the third party who in turn instructs solicitors. The solicitors instructions would need to come from the third party as an agent, because if instructions came from the debt purchaser direct, they would be taking steps to collect the debt and therefore conducting a regulated activity - that is it in a nutshell.

In the cases I've read on here, particularly Cabot they say that they're not authorised but there doesn't seem to be a third party in sight and all instructions come directly from them to the solicitor which I think is where the problem lies and that they are conducting regulated activities without authorisation.

Assuming the reason why there is no third party is because it will cost further money to employ them, which in debt purchasing, keeping costs to a minimum is the objective whilst maximising return

[charitynjw]

Re: The FCA? Bring back the OFT i say

Because they have the rights under the agreement, not the third party or anyone else. The way I see it is the debt purchaser instructs third party who takes instructions. If the debt purchaser wishes to issue a claim then it instructs the third party who in turn instructs solicitors. The solicitors instructions would need to come from the third party as an agent, because if instructions came from the debt purchaser direct, they would be taking steps to collect the debt and therefore conducting a regulated activity - that is it in a nutshell.

In the cases I've read on here, particularly Cabot they say that they're not authorised but there doesn't seem to be a third party in sight and all instructions come directly from them to the solicitor which I think is where the problem lies and that they are conducting regulated activities without authorisation.

Assuming the reason why there is no third party is because it will cost further money to employ them, which in debt purchasing, keeping costs to a minimum is the objective whilst maximising return

Imo you are right.
Debt collection activity requires the debt collection bod to be authorised.
Claiming (Esp via court) is a an 'activity.
The claimant is whoever is named on the claim form.

[Fred]

Re: The FCA? Bring back the OFT i say

Does then the solicitor have any duty to check whether the instructions are coming from licensed purchaser ?

[charitynjw]

Re: The FCA? Bring back the OFT i say

Does then the solicitor have any duty to check whether the instructions are coming from licensed purchaser ?

Should the instructions to solicitors be coming from the (allegedly unlicenced) debt purchaser, or from the licenced agent?
& it's also worth bearing in mind that nowadays solicitors can be (& are) part of the debt purchasers firm.
(ie Cabot & Mitchel Clarke? - they live in the same building......HO of Cabot (Europe)).

[meellis]

Re: The FCA? Bring back the OFT i say

I am beginning to think some of the problems are purely political and maybe done with ulterior motives. It seems somebody makes progress in these matters, albeit slowly and costly, and then another leader comes in and instead of fixing what maybe wrong they want to dismantle and start again which in this case delays resolution and justice. Even though people were given the impression that the FCA was going to carry on where the OFT finished it seems they want little to do with it and just want a clean slate.