MCO Capital loan

grahamqat

Hi Goemacl, I supppose it's better than complete inactivity, but the way I see it is this:

If just one person at the OFT had been doing his job properly he should have asked "are we in the business of licensing loan sharks?" MCO would have stayed in Finland and this whole matter would not have started. What we have now is a hugely expensive police operation following up 9000 potential enquiries at a time when we need to be shedding jobs in the public sector. The really sad thing is there appears to be nothing in place to stop all this happening again.

Prudence2_2

grahamqat wrote: »

If just one person at the OFT had been doing his job properly he should have asked "are we in the business of licensing loan sharks?"

Unfortunately it's not the OFT's job to ask this question!

The really sad thing is there appears to be nothing in place to stop all this happening again.

Absolutely. The law needs to be changed so that companies applying for a CCL in the UK are subject to much more stringent checks. But how do we go about getting the law changed?

grahamqat

Hi Prudence, thanks for the response. I think the law is OK as it states that to have a CCL you have to demonstrate competence. The OFT are now in a position to remove the MCO licence. The problem is more one of government qangos (you may have mentioned this before) simply reserving the right to monitor, but not to actually do anything. Companies House is another fine example. They will happily register any company for a fee. There are no checks that the company actually exists or the directors are real. Just a simple form. (Simpler than the MCO loan application form!) A company can engage in illegal activity but will not be struck off because it's not their job to police. We desperately need to restore accountability with some of these bodies if we are to get improved efficiencies and proper protection against criminal activity.

geomacl

Prudence2 wrote: »

I have also received the witness statement letter from CoLP. Does anyone have any insight into how we should fill out the reverse of the form?

There is a statement on the form which says 'The criminal justice process and Victim Personal Statement scheme has been explained to me' followed by two tick-boxes, 'Yes' and 'No'. I can only tick 'No' because these things have not been explained to me. Will that then make my statement inadmissible?

I don't believe that this will make your statement inadmissable Prudence2. I did the same - 2 x "No" and 3 x N/A. I have the feeling that these forms will not have to be used.

geomacl

Prudence2 wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not the OFT's job to ask this question!
Absolutely. The law needs to be changed so that companies applying for a CCL in the UK are subject to much more stringent checks. But how do we go about getting the law changed?

Maybe not to ask the question Prudence2 but they ate the authority which issues and vets CCLs - see from their web site:
"The Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires most businesses that offer credit or lend money to consumers to be licensed by the OFT - find out what kind of businesses need a credit licence and how to apply for one."
If they can issue them, they can take them away!!!! In this case, they most certainly should strip MCO of their licence - even if only for being negligent (as opposed to being fraudulent!)

geomacl

grahamqat wrote: »

Hi Prudence, thanks for the response. I think the law is OK as it states that to have a CCL you have to demonstrate competence. The OFT are now in a position to remove the MCO licence. The problem is more one of government qangos (you may have mentioned this before) simply reserving the right to monitor, but not to actually do anything. Companies House is another fine example. They will happily register any company for a fee. There are no checks that the company actually exists or the directors are real. Just a simple form. (Simpler than the MCO loan application form!) A company can engage in illegal activity but will not be struck off because it's not their job to police. We desperately need to restore accountability with some of these bodies if we are to get improved efficiencies and proper protection against criminal activity.

Spot on grahamqat - I could not agree more - our quangos do lots of huffing and puffing but seem not to actually do anything - other than pay huge salaries and spend taxpayers money

Prudence2_2

grahamqat wrote: »

I think the law is OK as it states that to have a CCL you have to demonstrate competence.

In this situation, you really have to wonder what 'competence' means!!

grahamqat

I would think competence means not giving loans to people on the basis of phone book info. In other words you have to have a link between someone's account and where they live. Gomer would call this KYC. You send the loan cheque to their address - this cannot be done by electronic transfer. All electronic transfers are insecure. Incidentally the recent mods to the Helploan and Balanceloan web-sites dont make them more secure as banks dont use account names, only numbers. I'm quite happy about this as the ID fraudsters will continue to do what the OFT won't - try to put the loan sharks out of business! Sorry about the rant Prudence, but I remain convinced this problem is a product of loan shark greed and Government qango disfunction. Combined together they have created 9,000 crimes out of thin air - something I'm sure they're not worried about - loads of overtime at the tax payer's expense.

Prudence2_2

grahamqat wrote: »

Sorry about the rant Prudence, but I remain convinced this problem is a product of loan shark greed and Government qango disfunction.

I agree GQ - except I would add 'criminal scum' at the top of the list of guilty parties!

grahamqat

Point taken Prudence, also a kind of collective noun for the other two!