Direct Line and Churchill fined by FSA

[Mrs James]

Not sure if this is the correct place to post this. Please feel free to move it if that is the case.

nsurance firms Direct Line and Churchill - both owned by RBS - have been fined £2.17m for tampering with customer complaint files before submitting them to the Financial Services Authority. The FSA said the "improper alterations" were "minor in nature".
It added that the changes to the documents had not affected the customers.
But the FSA said the action was still a serious breach of its rules.
"The firms' attempt to ensure that complete files were provided to the FSA backfired," said Tracey McDermott of the FSA.
"The firms failed to give clear instructions resulting in staff making inappropriate alterations with one individual even forging the signatures of colleagues.
"The firms' management did not know what changes had been made or when [but] it is of critical importance that material provided to the FSA must reflect the picture as it is - not as they might like it to be," she added.

[labman]

Re: Direct Line and Churchill fined by FSA

Good! We know this goes on quite a lot, not only with insurance companies, but with phantom payments being made to stop debts becoming SB, lifting of signatures to paste onto agreements etc....

The more companies caught tampering with things, the better as far as I'm concerned.

I received a reply from the FSO yesterday over Argos refusing to comply with the law. Suddenly they will now comply, but how many consumers suffer because of these companies?

[bluebottle]

Re: Direct Line and Churchill fined by FSA

The sort of behaviour highlighted is of serious concern. Forgery is regarded as one of the more serious offences under the Criminal Law. Maximum penalties for forgery vary between two and fourteen years' imprisonment. If legal proceedings are involved, evidence of forgery can amount to Perverting the Course of Justice, if it reaches court, or Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice or Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice if it is discovered before things reach a court. Whilst Perverting the Course of Justice only carries a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. This is because the offence of conspiracy to commit an offence at law, under Section 1, Criminal Law At 1977, carries a penalty of that prescribed by statute or 10 years' imprisonment, whichever is the greater.

Sometimes, it is advisable to warn employees of financial services businesses that their actions could have serious consequences, pointing out that they are only required to comply with the lawful instructions from their employers. Unfortunately, employees of these businesses do not have a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" and neither do the directors or managers. It is, sometimes, necessary to remind them of this.

[miliitant]

Re: Direct Line and Churchill fined by FSA

as to the above and forgery

what about a dca sending out an NOA preporting it came direct from the creditor when infact the dca has printed it out using the creditors company logo. that is fraud and if it is used when evidence has been exchanged, god help them

sorry for going off topic but relevant to the post above

[bluebottle]

Re: Direct Line and Churchill fined by FSA

as to the above and forgery

what about a dca sending out an NOA preporting it came direct from the creditor when infact the dca has printed it out using the creditors company logo. that is fraud and if it is used when evidence has been exchanged, god help them

sorry for going off topic but relevant to the post above

Hi Militant,

What you describe is as follows -

Forgery
Using a False Instrument with Intent to Defraud (possibly)
Using a False Instrument with Intent to Deceive (possibly)
Fraud by False Misrepresentation
Making an Article for Use in Fraud
Possession of an Article for Use in Fraud
Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice (God help them)
Perverting the Course of Justice (God help them)
Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice (God help them)

I could probably find more offences to throw at them, but these will be enough to be going on with.

Bluebottle

[labman]

Re: Direct Line and Churchill fined by FSA

You do need to be able to prove it conclusively though.:tinysmile_grin_t:

[TUTTSI]

Re: Direct Line and Churchill fined by FSA

What did the FSO say in connection with Argos not replying to you?

Good! We know this goes on quite a lot, not only with insurance companies, but with phantom payments being made to stop debts becoming SB, lifting of signatures to paste onto agreements etc....

The more companies caught tampering with things, the better as far as I'm concerned.

I received a reply from the FSO yesterday over Argos refusing to comply with the law. Suddenly they will now comply, but how many consumers suffer because of these companies?

[labman]

Re: Direct Line and Churchill fined by FSA

What did the FSO say in connection with Argos not replying to you?

Argos did reply, but not to the charity's satisfaction. The FSO frowned on their behaviour, and while they couldn't force compliance as I'd complained about guidelines, not statute, they criticised Argos for not sticking to guidelines to which they were subscribed. Argos then decided they would abide by the guidelines.

I always treat guidelines as legislation, as if the companies subscribe to them, they should, in my opinion, stick by them.