Barclays/Woolwich named and shamed by UK financial services authority
LONDON - The UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) has reported Barclays Bank, trading under the name of UK mortgage provider The Woolwich, to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for undertaking not to use The Woolwich's terms, which the FSA deemed to be unfair practice.
Under the terms of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations, the FSA can challenge firms - referred to it by consumers, enforcement bodies and consumer organisations - that are using terms it deems to be unfair to consumers. Following the FSA's recommendations, the OFT will publish the FSA's results, including the name of the firm, on its consumer regulation website.
The FSA release warns that publishing information about such undertakings will likely attract more consumer complaints both to the FSA and direct to firms "which will need to be addressed", it says. The FSA also recommends that other financial services firms that have not given an undertaking or been subject to a court decision, as part of their risk management process, should remain alert to undertakings or court decisions concerning other firms. "These will be of potential value in showing the likely attitude of the courts, the FSA, the OFT or other qualifying bodies to similar terms or terms with similar effects," it says.
This undertaking follows a series of other enforcement actions launched by the FSA against UK mortgage firms deemed to be acting irresponsibly or unfairly, and takes place in a atmosphere of heightened awareness of the unfairness of bank charges - the OFT launched its test case against unfair bank charges in July.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Capital neutrality key to completing Basel III, says Quarles
Former Republican Fed vice-chair thinks Hill or Bowman could help revive stalled prudential rules
Review of 2024: as markets took a breather, firms switched focus
In the absence of major crises and rules deadlines, financial firms revamped strategy, services and practices
Dora flood pitches banks against vendors
Firms ask vendors for late addendums sometimes unrelated to resiliency, requiring renegotiation
Swiss report fingers Finma on Credit Suisse capital ratio
Parliament says bank would have breached minimum requirements in 2022 without regulatory filter
‘It’s not EU’: Do government bond spreads spell eurozone break-up?
Divergence between EGB yields is in the EU’s make-up; only a shared risk architecture can reunite them
CFTC weighs third-party risk rules for CCPs
Clearing houses could be required to formally identify and monitor critical vendors
Why there is no fence in effective regulatory relationships
A chief risk officer and former bank supervisor says regulators and regulated are on the same side
Snap! Derivatives reports decouple after Emir Refit shake-up
Counterparties find new rules have led to worse data quality, threatening regulators’ oversight of systemic risk