MSE News: Dodgy credit firms face OFT crackdown

[MSE Helen]

"Unscrupulous credit firms can now have their licenses taken away immediately, under new OFT powers..."

Read the full story:

Dodgy credit firms face OFT crackdown



Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

[JohnRo]

It all smacks of yet more authoritarian power and control for the sake of it, creeping nanny state etc. and all in the name of protecting people from their own stupidity. If these firms are using violence, fraud or trading dishonestly, they're breaking the law and that should be more than sufficient cause for the police to act immediately without adding to the endless rules, regulations, power and control over everyone's lives being handed to damned bureaucrats.

[analyst]

JohnRo, are you an avid reader of the Daily Heil by any chance?

[JohnRo]

Far from it and can't quite see the connection. I'll retort by asking if your defensive posture means you're an unaccountable civil servant by any chance?

[poppasmurf_bewdley]

There has been far too much use made of the appeals system in this country - whether it be shady loan companies or asylum seekers - as a way of dragging out the inevitable and enabling individuals and companies to continue doing what they've been doing, and anything which stops such practices is to be applauded.

[mo786uk]

Originally Posted by JohnRo

It all smacks of yet more authoritarian power and control for the sake of it, creeping nanny state etc. and all in the name of protecting people from their own stupidity. If these firms are using violence, fraud or trading dishonestly, they're breaking the law and that should be more than sufficient cause for the police to act immediately without adding to the endless rules, regulations, power and control over everyone's lives being handed to damned bureaucrats.

People like you are the reason why the powers are used sparingly rather than as often as they should be.

A positive licencing system has many benefits as you can put many controls on anyone who wants a licence - for example the OFT debt collection guidance. Trying to deal with every breach by prosecution wouldn't be feasible. Threatening to close a business by removing their licence is more feasiable.

[analyst]

• We didn't have effective regulatory control of the financial sector and look where that has got us.
• We didn't have effective regulatory control of the press and look where that has got us.
• We didn't have effective regulatory control of the police and look where that has got us.
• We didn't have effective regulatory control of the gambling sector and look where that has got us.
• We didn't have effective regulatory control of the food industries and look where that has got us.

How long are we going to keep on putting our (horse's) head in the sand?

FWIW JohnRo - No I am not a civil servant, nor ever have been. But it is interesting that you seem to make a sweeping dismissal of all public sector workers (I see the inference there) as unaccountable.

I have worked in both public and private sectors almost equally throughout my life. I found the private sector to be, by far, the more corrupt, discriminatory, nepotistic, tax-avoiding, tax evading, profiteering, penny-pinching, corner-cutting, safety compromising, polluting, and yes, least accountable.

We may call it the private sector, but ultimately it is all public money. Who do you think is actually paying for the obscene pensions and bonuses of the board of Sainsbury's, or Tesco or Sky, or GlaxoSmithKline or . . . (insert your 'favourite' company name here).

[JohnRo]

Ok so we've established unaccountable bureaucrats are either complicit, corrupt, or incompetent. That's a given.

Now, explain how giving them even more powers is going to help make the situation any better.

[analyst]

we've established unaccountable bureaucrats are either complicit, corrupt, or incompetent

In your blinkered eyes only. As I said, I have extensively witnessed the other side of the coin and found it to be far, far worse.

Now, explain how giving them even more powers is going to help make the situation any better.

To take control of that vast mob of thieving, cheating, scamming, corrupt, discriminatory, nepotistic, tax-avoiding, tax evading, profiteering, penny-pinching, corner-cutting, safety compromising, polluting, unaccountable bar-stewards that skin us all and hive it off to their tax havens.

Did I equivocate there?

[JohnRo]

prevaricate is the word you're looking for.

[analyst]

nope, that was the word I'd ascribe to your post.
I said equivocate and I meant it.

[cos]

Based just on what MSE has published, this looks a bit like environmental health officers being able to close a restaurant, immediately, because it has rotten food or mouse droppings in the kitchen. I like this.

The difference, of course, is the definition of unscrupulous, which itself is probably not a usable descriptor in financial legalese. I suspect some of the wrangling will come from the 'moral' aspect of lending practice.

Many of us might agree that beating people up for non-payment is morally wrong, and would be happy to transcribe that to a legal status. I would.

But, at what point does charging high interest become fraud, or illegal, or immoral?

Personally, I think the government taking income tax, national insurance, fuel tax, property tax, sales tax, numerous other taxes from me over my working life is far more worthy of the attribution of 'theft' than these various doorstep lenders!


ETA - I don't mean I like mouse droppings in the kitchen, despite my heritage