Nobody heard a peep.
Not even a whisper.
No, nothing..nothing at all on the 31st January 2012. But you should have.
You should have heard that the FSA now take ownership and responsibility for the appalling peddling that went on over 2nd charges. Many of those 2nd charges have been irresponsibly funded and irresponsibly managed – the latter being a self evident truth when you know about the disgusting and quite frankly fraudulent practices that Capstone Acenden get up to.
Habitually – even addictively – like some fraud junkie – they could not (and still DO NOT) exercise restraint. They are conditioned and pre-programmed to rip the wind from your sails, the money from your bank account and your guts from your innards.And they like to be proud of it in the process.
Take for example the ongoing insurance fraud. Many housing association shared ownership mortgagees ended up with the vile spawn of Lehmans Capstone Acenden, after applying to the Leeds, the Leicester and the rest of the old style mutuals for the share that wasn’t put up by the HA.
Fair enough. But having been shoved around a fair bit for the mortgage that was “right for them” some referral was made here there or everywhere so that eventually they end up with the filth of the universe.
Well that’s OK isn’t it? Just ask Alliance and Leicester mortgage holders their satisfaction after the administration of their mortgages was “outsourced” to the filth.
TheiInsurance fraud has been well documented. They require that you have buildings insurance.
This requirement is an absolute.
They will organise for it to be in place though they may not even have the good grace to tell you so.
They will ensure that the contract they have for this massive buildings insurance is lucrative for them and even if you have your own, prove that you have your own, and send all relevant documentation to that effect they will still charge you for their policy. If you are lucky you might even get to find out about this in the first place. Ask for a refund. You will get between 20 and 50%. But again only if you are lucky. They will charge a cancellation fee of £50, but ooops,…forget to cancel. They won’t forget to charge the fee though.
Which leads us to this. The regulator. Aaaah….the regulator. The regulator that fails to regulate. Much like the clock that does not tick, the law that does not work or the regulation that exists more in its breach than its observance.
Some insight into the wit, wisdom and irony of Hector. What better way for that to happen than to use his own words.
Hector Sants said:
“The move to twin peaks is an opportunity to drive home and further embed the move to forward-looking, proactive, judgement-based supervision. It is an opportunity that must not be missed. We must crystallise the change from the old style reactive approach to the new style proactive approach.
“The most important change that will occur at twin peaks, in my judgement, is not the introduction of a new operational framework, but the opportunity to accelerate the process of behavioural change that the FSA embarked on when we began the reform of the supervisory process in the spring of 2008.”
He argued that if this new approach is to work effectively, firms would need to change the way they thought about regulation. Firms will be expected to:
- recognise the importance of aligning their goals with those of the supervisors and society as a whole;
- show a greater willingness to proactively comply with supervisory judgements. “We are not asking firms to forgo their right to challenge their supervisor if their decisions have not been properly made. But we are suggesting that dragging their feet in complying with requests when it is obvious to all that the outcome is in the best interest of society as a whole is not a behaviour which should survive in the new world”; and
- Recognise that this new approach will require greater resources and expertise and thus costs more than the old reactive model which existed prior to the crisis.
Hector Sants concluded:
“It is really important that we must use this opportunity to accelerate the behavioural and cultural change needed in both regulators and firms. The new world of judgement-based regulation needs to be embraced by us all.”
I know the regulatory gap between what should happen and what does happen is as wide as could be.
I’d not realised that we are now in David Lynch mode and that we must look to ‘twin peaks” for salvation.
My goodness gracious me, a Freudian therapist would have enough for a weekend case conference with this psychobabble nonsense.