Credit Card Application Ombudsman

leetabix

thegoodman wrote: »

If this is the case what stop the card company to give you £50 or even £5 limit rather than decline the card. This can be used a way around the law if it ever was to change. The person can not go for review because the credit is offered.

Even better for example barclaycard may turn around and say everyone over 18 in the uk can have a card with a £1 limit. After this you would need to apply for increase with us direct. We would be back to where we started from.

Good point, hadn't thought of that initially - however I guess now we're getting into the details of how such regulation would be implemented in a logical/sensible manner to avoid such situations. Also, once you're a customer with the bank, rather than a consumer, you then come under the umbrella of existing regulation which would cover off the above behaviour.

opinions4u

I can't believe they removed Sharpy's post!

#senseofhumourbypass

thegoodman

leetabix wrote: »

Good point, hadn't thought of that initially - however I guess now we're getting into the details of how such regulation would be implemented in a logical/sensible manner to avoid such situations. Also, once you're a customer with the bank, rather than a consumer, you then come under the umbrella of existing regulation which would cover off the above behaviour.

It would not. The current regulation do not have any power to give more credit by force. This also nee to be changed.

leetabix

chattychappy wrote: »

I want to be free to engage with a lender on terms that they wish to offer that I am happy to accept. I don't want a regulator intervening at the level you suggest.



I see the need to prevent the kind of intervention you suggest - from a consumer point of view.



I'm happy that they maximise their profits. I'm happy for regulation in terms of APRs, summary boxes, rate jacking and an FOS to investigate complaints. But you are not talking about regulation, you are talking about supervision to the point of micromanagement of lending policy.

Instituational stability and consumer interests are not inextricably correlated when it comes to lending. (Hence unlike investments CCs are not FSA regulated and are very unlikely to be FCA regulated.) In fact, if they are maximising their profits, they are less likely to go bust. So better that consumer regulation and prudential regulation are kept separate.

In summary, I don't think we do. And I don't think it will happen anyway - choice would be reduced, costs would increase, there would be more barriers to new entrants and more consumers will go to illegal outfits.

I think we're at the point where it's opinion rather than logic directing the discussion/points made. I accept that people will have a different view, depending on how they see the situation. With regulation, it's a sliding scale between a company's aim of maximising revenue/profit, against a consumer's aim of getting the best deal possible for the best price. Where you want to be on the scale is all down to opinion, and there's no right/wrong on that.

leetabix

opinions4u wrote: »

I can't believe they removed Sharpy's post!

#senseofhumourbypass

Probably because I asked them to review the post, due to it going against the forum rules on multiple points.

chattychappy

leetabix wrote: »

With regulation, it's a sliding scale between a company's aim of maximising revenue/profit, against a consumer's aim of getting the best deal possible for the best price.

You keep referring to the "profit" issue and this being in conflict with consumer interest.

I don't see it as a sliding scale at all. The profit motive drives companies to produce products and services that people want to buy. If you stifle this, you risk reducing choice. Granted you need some regulation as I said before. But you appear to want a regulator to manage the whole process and approve lending procedures. This is totally at odds with the way financial regulation currently works which is a "principles based" system. And as I said, CCs as products are out of scope of the current (and proposed) financial regulators.

Now perhaps you see that as "opinion" rather than "logic". But I think you should be lobbying the politicians not speaking to the FCA. It is outside of their remit to be involved in this.

thegoodman

chattychappy wrote: »

You keep referring to the "profit" issue and this being in conflict with consumer interest.

I don't see it as a sliding scale at all. The profit motive drives companies to produce products and services that people want to buy. If you stifle this, you risk reducing choice. Granted you need some regulation as I said before. But you appear to want a regulator to manage the whole process and approve lending procedures. This is totally at odds with the way financial regulation currently works which is a "principles based" system. And as I said, CCs as products are out of scope of the current (and proposed) financial regulators.

Now perhaps you see that as "opinion" rather than "logic". But I think you should be lobbying the politicians not speaking to the FCA. It is outside of their remit to be involved in this.

I agree. Also all other credit products need to work within the same frame. If the credit card is called pre approved loan card than what?
if less profit for card companies no point having them, no offers, no cash back or rewards, less cards, charge to have a card and most companies will only give the card if you have house, good income. People on low to average income will end up with very high APR. The banks will only push debit cards and likely to charge to have one. I still can't see how 3rd party what ever body in charge can force to give more credit.

Sounds nice on paper but I can't see workable change unless answers to some questions is found.

leetabix

Yes, I still see the above as opinion rather than logic - and I think we've reached the end of the original topic of the thread, and branched off it entirely, so I'll call it day there. Appreciate the assistive comments made, thanks all.

chattychappy

leetabix wrote: »

Yes, I still see the above as opinion rather than logic - and I think we've reached the end of the original topic of the thread, and branched off it entirely, so I'll call it day there.

It seems as if you are holding out your arguments to be "logical" whilst failing to recognise the logic of counter-arguments.

I don't think we've branched off at all. You asked about the regulation of credit cards and embarked on a discussion where you propose that there should be greater regulation in the interests of consumers and the institutions themselves.

Others (not all) have disagreed with you, that's all.

leetabix

chattychappy wrote: »

It seems as if you are holding out your arguments to be "logical" whilst failing to recognise the logic of counter-arguments.

I don't think we've branched off at all. You asked about the regulation of credit cards and embarked on a discussion where you propose that there should be greater regulation in the interests of consumers and the institutions themselves.

Others (not all) have disagreed with you, that's all.

My original question was the below:

Who is the Ombudsman in the UK that deals with rejections for credit card applications?

It has now been answered. The paragraph beneath it was just to give context to the reason I asked the question, rather than posing as a seperate question in of itself. So yes, we have branched off my initial question, but admittedly I was ok with this for a while for the purpose of responding to people who consistently seemed to have the wrong idea of what/why the thread was about.

As for the logical arguments - what's the logic present in the counter-argument? I didn't really see anything conclusive, but perhaps I didn't review the response correctly?