FCA regulation of debt collectors

parkingnuts

Have taken much of the advice on this site in relation to parking tickets and won appeals because of it, and am very grateful for the hard work on these sites.

However, the advice to appeal to DVLA, ICO etc really needs to caveated with the fact that you will receive stock responses and in general these routes remain a huge waste of time unless you are prepared to challenge their stock answers in court.

That said, the one piece of advice that interests me most due to recent regulatory changes is the moving of regulated debt collectors under the FCA and its Treating Customers Fairly regime. This has been in place since last year.

TCF has applied to Financial Services for years and drives transparency, clear communication, defined processes and ability to demonstrate that the law is being adhered due during the conduct of business that has no customer detriment (amongst other things!)

So, take the basic parking ticket. A nominal debt, say 50p to £10 is incurred due to alleged non-payment. PPCs issue unclear documentation aimed at miselading the customer to believe they HAVE to pay £40, their tone is threatening, and their explanations do not clearly set out the basis of their case or reasonableness of their responses. TCF alone in FS would always find in favour of the customer in this case as it would be very difficult for a bank to justify a £50 charge for a 50p unauthorised overdraft.

Given that the regulatory regime for TCF applies to debt collectors as it does for banks, i wonder whether forum members are aware that in the FS sector, any appeal to the Financial Ombudsman Service, by a customer, whether justfied or not, invokes a substantial fee (£550 per case). This has had a very positive impact on banks and insurers in dealing with complaints where the big boys alone uphold 40-60% of complaints without contest.

So, if the FCA are applying TCF to debt collectors, why not apply a similar charge to parking companies' complaints when referred to FOS. Bearing in mind that these companies are increasing debt in a haphazard fashion without following the law in many cases, or not providing clear responses or documentation, the effect of inflating a 50p ticket to a £150 charge is as bad as banks' behaviour.

That argument may take a long time to reach fruition, BUT, TCF does apply today. That does require clear, non-misleading correspondence at all stages of an invoice pursuit by a PPC. We all know that frequently this is not the case. So when you get to debt collection stage, appeal to the debt collector. Highlight the lack of transparency etc, wait for the inevitable brush off, then refer them immediately to the FOS for unreasonable increasing an alleged debt detailing reasons why you have been treated unfairly. TCF is principle led legislation so reasons for not being treated fairly are yours to define so long as they are reasonably justified.

It took years for the banks to catch up with the principle led regualtion of TCF, Parking Companies are not run by people who will have thought of this. If PPCs want to play this big boys in inflating debt unfairly, then lets see how they can respiond to big boys' rules within TCF.

bazster

I think you may be overlooking that so-called debts arising from fake parking fines are not regulated. These "debt" collectors don't need any kind of licence and they don't have to be a member of anything, it's a free-for-all.

You might also want to explain all your terms if you are going to make long, technical posts. FCA? FOS? I've figured out what they are but many readers will not bother.

esmerobbo

Any charge by the Financial Ombudsman Service is only made if they accept a complaint has merit.

parkingnuts

To recover any debt, most of these organisations use solicitors.

Solicitors are regulated by the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) if involved in the recovery of debt, and SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority).

All i am pointing out is that there are opportunities to break the chain of harrasment and duplicity at this point, and that this opportunity has only been available since September 2014.

Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) legislation will treat the debtor as a customer, and this places huge onus on everyone in the chain of recovery. If the process to drive a debt from 50p to £120 has not been transparent & open then the Financial Ombundsman Service (FOS) will investigate. The FCA places onus on the banks to prove transparency - this could leave these PPC jokers in an impossible situation

bazster

parkingnuts wrote: »

To recover any debt, most of these organisations use solicitors.

Solicitors are regulated by the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) if involved in the recovery of debt, and SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority).

Actually they don't use solicitors. Apart from one very recent example where the solicitors concerned are digging themselves a very deep hole, all supposed solicitors' letters sent by DCA's state that their client is the PPC, not the DCA, and certainly a solicitor claiming damages for breach of contract is not regulated by the FCA.

In any case I suspect that, just as with any of its members, the FCA would only regulate debt collection activity where the debt is regulated, which isn't the case with these parking fake fines.

parkingnuts wrote: »

Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) legislation will treat the debtor as a customer, and this places huge onus on everyone in the chain of recovery. If the process to drive a debt from 50p to £120 has not been transparent & open then the Financial Ombundsman Service (FOS) will investigate. The FCA places onus on the banks to prove transparency - this could leave these PPC jokers in an impossible situation

I think you are failing to grasp that the so-called debts that DCA's claim are owed to PPC's are not regulated debt such as consumer credit agreements and as such are not regulated by the FCA (and hence do not fall within the remit of the Ombudsman).