Tweet
Our ref: FOI1329
Dear Ms Coleman
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), for the following information:
On 24 June 2009 you clarified your request as follows:
Your request has now been considered and the relevant information is provided below.
The waiver contains a number of conditions including consumer protection measures to try and ensure that complainants are not disadvantaged by their complaint being put on hold under the waiver. Since July 2008 we have enhanced our monitoring of firms' treatment of consumers in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges complaints. Our focus is on ensuring that firms with the waiver are complying with its requirements, which includes identifying complainants facing financial difficulty who need extra help.
Our ongoing monitoring of firms’ compliance with the waiver follows the general procedure set out below and which is tailored to each firm:
Your request explained that you do not want to receive specific information about individual firms. However, we should mention that if you had requested firm specific information, this would be ‘confidential information’ which the FSA has received for the purpose of carrying out its regulatory functions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and so would likely be exempt from disclosure.
The waiver includes a requirement for firms to supply management information (detailed in Annex 1 of the waiver) to the FSA on a monthly or quarterly basis. This data is used when planning visits to firms and to monitor trends in complaints handling across firms. The figures for the monthly reporting firms as of May 2009 are:
Yours sincerely
S. Spies (Mrs)
Information Access Team
Dear Ms Coleman
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), for the following information:
- “In a letter to firms dated 19th March 2009 regarding the modification of DISP rules for complaints handling regarding unauthorised overdraft charges you state ''The minimum standards are not handbook guidance but rather update firms on the findings of good practise from our thematic review of the handing of unauthorised overdraft complaints.'' The only published information from any thematic review is dated July 2007. Please send any documents/letters sent to firms, barring the 19th March letter, relating to the most recent thematic review.”
On 24 June 2009 you clarified your request as follows:
- “Please provide formal data showing the processes undertaken and results of visits to firms regarding the monitoring of firms compliance with the FSA waiver undertaken since January 2009. Firms names may be redacted as the enquiry relates to evidence that the FSA IS effectively monitoring the firms’ compliance with the waiver rather than specific information on individual firms.”
Your request has now been considered and the relevant information is provided below.
The waiver contains a number of conditions including consumer protection measures to try and ensure that complainants are not disadvantaged by their complaint being put on hold under the waiver. Since July 2008 we have enhanced our monitoring of firms' treatment of consumers in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges complaints. Our focus is on ensuring that firms with the waiver are complying with its requirements, which includes identifying complainants facing financial difficulty who need extra help.
Our ongoing monitoring of firms’ compliance with the waiver follows the general procedure set out below and which is tailored to each firm:
- The FSA undertakes waiver monitoring visits to firms. Since January 2009 the FSA has undertaken visits to 7 firms as part of our monitoring of firms’ compliance with the conditions in the waiver;
- Firms are notified by letter prior to the visit taking place. We have attached a pre-visit letter template for your information. This letter outlines the visit process and details the pre-visit information firms are required to provide us with;
- A review of a sample of complaints files is undertaken as part of the visit process;
- Where shortcomings in consumer outcomes are identified, firms will be given remedial actions (which are followed up) and may be asked to revisit affected cases, as appropriate;
- The firm will be sent a follow up letter setting out our findings.
Your request explained that you do not want to receive specific information about individual firms. However, we should mention that if you had requested firm specific information, this would be ‘confidential information’ which the FSA has received for the purpose of carrying out its regulatory functions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and so would likely be exempt from disclosure.
The waiver includes a requirement for firms to supply management information (detailed in Annex 1 of the waiver) to the FSA on a monthly or quarterly basis. This data is used when planning visits to firms and to monitor trends in complaints handling across firms. The figures for the monthly reporting firms as of May 2009 are:
- The total number of relevant charges complaints put on hold since 27 July 2007: 1,125,853;
- The number of relevant charges complaints where a complainant had claimed to be in financial difficulty: 178,018;
- The number of relevant charges complaints where the firm accepted a claim that the complainant was in financial difficulty: 52,797.
The difference between the number of financial hardship claims and the number of accepted financial hardship cases is made up of: - Cases where sufficient information was available for the case to be assessed and it was decided the customer was not in financial difficulty. Based on information provided by the 10 monthly reporting firms (this includes some estimated figures), since July 2008 there have been 32,329 such cases;
- Cases where the firm has not yet made a decision accepting or rejecting a claim of being in financial difficulty;
- Cases that are no longer considered to be pending (i.e. are not actively being worked on or chased) due to the customer not providing sufficient information for the case to be assessed.
Yours sincerely
S. Spies (Mrs)
Information Access Team
Comment