Regulators?

GaryBC

This is probably nowhere near as simple a question as I'd like to think it is, but....
"Financial Conduct Authority"
"Prudential Regulation Authority"
"Lending Standards Board"
.... how do they all fit together? 

Annisele

I'm going to give a very general answer to your very general question - but I doubt it will be very helpful. If you give more information about why you want to know, maybe somebody will be able to be more helpful.

The Payment Systems Regulator publishes a graphic on this page showing the broad split of responsibiltes between itself, the FCA and the Bank of England.

The government website publishes links to the memorandums of understanding between the FCA and the PRA/Bank of England.

If want specifics, you might find them in the MoUs - but I confess I don't find them particuarly easy to understand.

DullGreyGuy

GaryBC said:

This is probably nowhere near as simple a question as I'd like to think it is, but....
"Financial Conduct Authority"
"Prudential Regulation Authority"
"Lending Standards Board"
.... how do they all fit together? 

In very simple terms...

FCA - ensures financial services companies treat customers fairly

PRA - ensures those providing certain financial services (banking, insurance etc) are financially stable. Those that sell others products wont be regulated by the PRA

LBS - is not a regulator per say but an organisation that lenders can join and in doings so agree to abide by their terms (the other two are not optional and are prescribed by law) 

As such there is a reasonable overlap between the LBS and FCA as both are about treating customers fairly. The PRA is out on its own to ensure insurers can afford to pay claims or banks dont gamble your savings away on risky loans. 

GaryBC

Why am I asking? 

If a mortgage lender has set itself up to be out of reach of the FCA I was wondering if any of the others might have been able to offer some sort of enforcement options. 

It would appear not. Thanks all the same. 

dunstonh

If a mortgage lender has set itself up to be out of reach of the FCA I was wondering if any of the others might have been able to offer some sort of enforcement options. 

Which lender?

GaryBC

Bank of Scotland Shared Appreciation Mortgages Number 6 Ltd.

Ombudsman says they have no jurisdiction over them. 

DullGreyGuy

GaryBC said:

Bank of Scotland Shared Appreciation Mortgages Number 6 Ltd.

Ombudsman says they have no jurisdiction over them. 

So presumably you took this out in the 90s before any of the above existed?

Not a product I'm aware of but a google shows there has been a reasonable amount of litigation around the product and the current owner Lloyds Bank

GaryBC

Parents did, yes. In 1997.

There's been a lot of attempted litigation but, to the best of my knowledge, none of it has stuck! They seem to be completely immune to any sort of regulation. 

dunstonh

GaryBC said:

Bank of Scotland Shared Appreciation Mortgages Number 6 Ltd.

Ombudsman says they have no jurisdiction over them. 

This is a different scenario to what you asked for in the first post.  I can see what you are after but your post isnt what you are looking for.

The issue is not current regulators or regulations but what was in place at the point of sale.   The bank itself is not liable for these.  The seller of them is and that was not the bank.  However, there was no regulation of these in 1997.      This is why any attempts to use regulatory processes, such as the FOS, will fail.

This means that you can only use the courts in your allegations of wrongdoing.   And that means identifying a breach of law that is not timebarred by the courts.  Timebarring is important here as a lot of what you may be able to complain about will now be timebarred.   And it also means you can end up on the hook for their costs and your own, if you lose,  and that can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.   

There's been a lot of attempted litigation but, to the best of my knowledge, none of it has stuck! They seem to be completely immune to any sort of regulation. 

You don't use litigation when dealing with regulation.    They are immune to regulation as the product was not regulated at the point of sale.  Litigation, involving the courts has its own limitations after this length of time as you need to focusing on law and not regulation.

The fact the product, with hindsight, has turned out to be very expensive is not grounds for legal action.    When these products were sold, they were actually considered good value for money.   No-one predicted the house price boom  which came about due to the loosening of credit rules.  The product was priced on the expectation of houses maintaining a real terms ballpark value.   

GaryBC

My question was "how do the three agencies fit together"?
And I got what I was looking for. 

dunstonh

GaryBC said:

My question was "how do the three agencies fit together"?
And I got what I was looking for. 

Although your question didn't have any relevance to the product you later mentioned as none of the apply to it.