DCM Nottingham / DCM Money Solutions in administration?

wheelerr

Excellent news on the tv appearance Mike can not wait to see it, thanks for still working so hard on this.

I have arrange to pay one of my debts back the company has accepted very easily a payment of £20 per month it will take 20 years to pay back at that rate, they also asked me what i could pay in full and final i very cheekily offered £1200 and he said it could be arranged, it beggers belief how much they bought the debt for.

Has your MP given any further input?

mikewjones_from_wales

there is a lot going on.

MP still on the case.

Got more TV planned.

Keeping the pressure up on them

mikewjones_from_wales

Nice to have you back Shane, hope all goes well next Tuesday with Radio 4.

To the DCM Directors How does it go again "be afraid be VERY afraid".

By now you have all started to get letters from the media asking some very searching questions of you.

This is only the beginning of your woes.

fermi

mikewjones_from_wales wrote: »

thats great but it does not say anything about actually paying the money we give to them to our creditors and not using the money for themselves.

ummm

What?

Yes it does.

Handling client's money

3.37 Any monies held on behalf of consumers should always be kept in a separate ring-fenced client bank account and not used by the licensee for its own purposes.76 Any interest earned on a client bank account should accrue to the benefit of the consumer, not the licensee.

76 It is unlawful for a licensee to spend consumer client's money on its own account since it is held in trust on behalf of the consumer client and is not the licensee's to spend.

We would expect consumer client monies to be held in a separate ring- fenced bank account in such a way as to be 'protected' in the event of a licensee holding such monies ceasing to trade. Any such monies, held prior to disbursement to creditors, should also be promptly refunded to the client (excluding any reasonable administration fees) where the client withdraws from a debt management plan or other debt solution.

3.38 Examples of unfair or improper business practices include:

a. where a debt management plan or other debt solution has been entered into, failing to pay creditors at the earliest reasonable opportunity. In the OFT's view, this should normally be within five working days from receipt of cleared funds. 77

77 We are aware of limited circumstances where consumer client's money may be held for longer than five working days without being disbursed to creditors. Where this is the case, the contract should specifically provide for this, the relevant contract term should be clearly brought to the consumer's attention prior to his entering the contract, and relevant creditors should be informed that monies will not be disbursed within five working days, prior to the expiry of the period of five working days following the licensee's receipt of the consumer client's first payment.

b. failing to inform the consumer of the reasons for any delay in distributing payments to creditors in accordance with the contract, whether or not the delay is outside its control

c. failing to accept responsibility for any delay in distributing payments to creditors in accordance with the contract, where the delay is not outside the licensee's control

d. where the delay was not beyond the licensee's control, failing to put the consumer back in the position he would have been in had the contract been fulfilled, including making good on any additional interest which would have accrued and on any default charges that have been applied to the account as a result of the delay. 78

78 The law does not impose liability where the reason for delay is beyond the control of the service supplier.

e. failing to take reasonable steps to anticipate, and to the extent that it is reasonably possible, prevent, possible delays

f. failing to have in place appropriate and robust systems, including contingency plans, to deal with reasonably foreseeable problems, including payment delays, even when the initial cause may not be the licensee's fault

g. holding monies for consumers, which should otherwise be distributed to creditors to pay off their debts:

• without the express agreement of the consumer to do so
• without having fully explained the associated risks and implications to the consumer
• without ensuring that the consumers' monies held are appropriately protected in the event of the licensee holding such monies ceasing to trade and
• without having advised creditors that this is the case

h. making unauthorised withdrawals from the consumer's bank account(s)

i. failing to promptly 79 refund to consumers any consumer client monies held prior to disbursement to creditors, where the client withdraws from a debt management plan or other debt solution.

79 The OFT would regard 'promptly' in this context to be within five working days.

mikewjones_from_wales

fermi wrote: »

What?

Yes it does.

sorry fermi,

i just read your post. I wasnt the only one to read it that way.

But regarding the DCM situation my previous comment still stands. Problem with OFT is that they dont get involved after the company goes pop.

I found that out when i contacted them

DCM held our money in a separate bank account, wasnt ring fenced because they spent it.

I dont think this goes far enough. The debt management industry needs legislation to enforce this.

"Latest Guidance" needs to be latest rules.

It still doesnt force the rouges out though.

I still think a particular license needs to be brought into existence, one that requires all the qualifications and accreditations.

Debt management should be their speciality and not their hobby.

Not only debt management but also debt collections too.

and the legislation needs to be looked at by people outside the industry.

You cannot expect the debt management industy to regulate themselves. There is a conflict of interest there, they are only going to want to make money and it might not all be in the intersts of the consumer.

you would expect the banks to regulate themselves after what they have done, would you trust the debt management companies anymore.

No someone with the consumers interests at the forefront need to look into the industry and fully protect the consumer.

Also this protect needs to be extended into when companies have gone pop and have broken the rules, not to do so would present these companies with an easy out. When they have taken the money and looks like the oft are coming to knock the door just go pop.

Failings in the items as listed in fermi post, handling clients money also needs some reinforcement that should any of these failings occur criminal proceedings will follow.

If nothing else over the last few months has taught us that when it comes to fraud like this the poilce get really confused where to go, what to do and in some cases IS IT FRAUD AND THEFT!! There world needs some clarity to help them act in a way that we all know that they should.

The "latest guidance" notes clearly need to state that if you take people money even if your company has gone into adminsitration or has been liquidated, if you were in charge or proven that you were responsible for this money not going where it should then you will face criminal charges and go to prison.

fermi

I agree in some ways.

The OFT and the licensing regime, as is, is pretty ineffective.

Saying that, if applied correctly "guidance" are pretty much "rules".

Non-adherence to the OFTs "guidance" is good enough grounds for the OFT to revoke consumer credit/operating licenses. So if applied with sufficient diligence, they are (or could be) just "rules" by another name.

The problem with the OFT in the past has been good intentions, and fine words, but little or no action to back them up.

That seems to be shifting somewhat, with more revocation of licenses and focusing on allegedly 'cleaning up' the sector.

New guidance (rules by another name) could be a platform for them to work off an do a much better job from now on.

Exactly the same goes for debt collection, as that is under similar review with new guidelines due this year.

I certainly take the point that regulation should be on more of a statutory regulated basis though, with what is acceptable and what is not set down in law rather than being left to a body like the OFT to be lawmaker, judge and jury on it.

And appropriate civil or criminal sanctions as appropriate for breaches.

And of course, that debt advice etc should require proper licensing and training for individuals. Not the 'half arsed' regime we have at present.

fermi

http://simongompertz.blogspot.com/2011/06/clampdown-on-debt-firms.html

Rednelly_2

fermi wrote: »

I agree in some ways.

The OFT and the licensing regime, as is, is pretty ineffective.

Saying that, if applied correctly "guidance" are pretty much "rules".

Non-adherence to the OFTs "guidance" is good enough grounds for the OFT to revoke consumer credit/operating licenses. So if applied with sufficient diligence, they are (or could be) just "rules" by another name.

First, I think it's pretty likely we are going to see the OFT making a number of "minded to revoke" CCL notices in the coming months and more "minded to make requirements" notices - which is really a companies final notice to shape up or ship out (£50K fines can be imposed).

Secondly, I think this guidance is pretty much "take it or leave it" and even if it wasn't, when the OFT goes in the near future and the FCA take it's place, this guidance is likely to be the basis of a rules-based regime that will be much tougher. All good stuff in my view.

I'm still ploughing through the guidance in detail but it strikes me that it will cause a sea change. Combined, the requirements that lead introducers must work to the same standards as the solutions providers, the requirement to provide rounded advice on all options, the requirement that staff cannot in any way be incentivised to sell a particular solution, rahter than give appropriate advice, and the need to ensure advice staff are competently trained. All of this will change things, force many companies to look at how they work and make others decide to get out of the business.

It's a beginning...

mikewjones_from_wales

Problem is that companies whilst do not "cold call", they "cold text" im still getting them, where they got my telephone number from i do not know.

Im even getting letter from organisation offering me loans saying "we can give you a loan to discharge you early" bit wrong considering taking up such a loan breaks the bankruptcy as one of the rules states you cannot have credit.

Mr Smith says it will tighten things up and that most companies already do what the guidance says. Well i dont think it will. These activities will just be done more covertly by the rouges in the industry, unless you put some serious penalities in place the ultimate being that you could go to jail people will not change.

Companies have become more readily disposable, the idea of "we will just start again" rather than operating in a manner that stops the whole DCM situation raising in the first place.

This guidance will not change what has happened, the rouges they will circumvent it.

Unless you hold people to account even if the company ceases trading thus giving the rouges no room to undertake their activities will they cease opperating in the market.

I do not subscribe to the " it will stop the "global DCM apex situation happening" just because they have tightened up now doesnt release the industry or the individuals from what has already happened and i would take offence of Mr Smith if that was or what he thinks is the right attitude to take.

the oh well it happened but wont happen again mentality is exactly what needs to change in this sector.

Although apart from Mr Smith of Cleardebt all other debt companies have remained silent on the DCM issue and i wonder why??

fermi

mikewjones_from_wales wrote: »

Problem is that companies whilst do not "cold call", they "cold text" im still getting them, where they got my telephone number from i do not know.

That is strictly prohibited under the proposed regime, if sent without prior consent of the person receiving them.