The OFT made an announcement last week that followed its warning to 129 debt management firms in September last year that highlighted serious issues over compliance.It confirmed that 35 firms have surrendered their consumer credit licences and at least 15 are facing licensing action as a result of the OFT's compliance review. In detail, since the warning was issued: 35 firms have surrendered their licences; 8 firms have been informed that the OFT intends to revoke their licences; a further 7 companies who did not respond are currently being investigated; and 79 firms have submitted evidence, which the OFT will now review.
One of the footnotes to the official news release says that: 'the OFT is not able to name the companies subject to the announcement because of disclosure restrictions under Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Where the OFT uses its formal powers under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to refuse or revoke a credit licence, decisions are made public on the Public Register'.
I understand the principles of disclosure but it seems to me perverse that the public cannot know the names of the companies involved so that they - and their advisers - can be wary of dealing with them, particularly where the OFT plans to revoke a licence. It has now been four months since the initial announcement, which means at best there are still many debt management companies behaving unethically or worse. (By the way, I thought I'd look at Part 9 of the Enterprise Act to see what the restrictions were and I'm still ploughing through the 18 pages of guidance notes!)
To more positive news, I am delighted to see our Managing Cashflow Guides passed 200,000 downloads in January. I appreciate there are an estimated 4.7 million businesses in the UK but at least a proportion of them are downloading good advice that can help them manage cashflow more effectively.
No comments:
Post a Comment