Credit Card Application Ombudsman

leetabix

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'm ok with reducing choice (and that's an opinion, doesn't mean I'm right of course). Psychologists have conducted studies of choices being given to people, and found that a high amount of choice in various situations leads to poorer decisions (see the book 'Predictably Irrational' by Dan Ariely for reference) - most people don't know what they want until they see it in context, and a higher number of choices inevitably leads to a higher complexity of financial products, making it more difficult to make a contextually correct choice. An example of a regulator who has realised this very recently is OFGEM who are attempting to reduce the complexity of the market as they see it as too complex for consumers to differentiate between the way both the way products are marketed/priced, and their number. So it seems that regulators also believe that too much choice can have a detrimental effect.

OFGEM's document in relation to the above:

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/PressRel/Documents1/RMR Oct.pdf

To address the remaining point, I'm not 100% convinced that the FCA's remit don't cover this area from reading the approach document. It's not precise wording in areas which can be read in multiple ways. However, I take the point onboard and think it'd be worthwhile for this to be first cleared up before anything further is discussed with them, as the conversational is pointless if it's not even in their remit to cover these sorts of processes/areas.

thegoodman

Good luck with this.
I don't think the way you want to change the credit agreement is going to work. Just read the post by others.
I know you have said this is got nothing to do with the Amex however I still get the feeling that you are trying to hurt them by reduce profit rather than look for a change that will benefit customers Even the mortgage for the house do not work the way you want the credit card to operate. Bank can refuse a mortgage without any reason. With the mortgage if you meet the set criteria, it is not guaranteed.
The choice can be good or bad thing depending on the product. The people like choice with cards because you can get perks, rewards, cash back, travel rewards, insurance, 0% offers etc. You may like the idea of everyone having the same card because you did not get the card you wanted so to make sure no one get it but 95% of people will disagree. Too much choice with gas and electric can be a bad thing as it is only one product and you use it everyday. Look at the mobile phones, you have a large choice.

Good luck any way but if I was you I want spend too much time on this, it is highly unlikely for the way you want to chane the credit cards is going to happen.
if you are trying to be next Martin Lewis than you would need to look for a product that will benefit most not pre credit. Also remember the ppi it self was not a problem, the problem was the way it was sold to customers. Two different things.