1-20 of 89 results for subject:Misrepresentation
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.274 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.008 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Misrepresentation
- We searched for
- subject_t:Misrepresentation OR subject_ses:92053
Type
House
Session
More
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
The Financial Conduct Authority has asked John Swift QC to investigate the mis-selling of certain business loans to small businesses, as well as their response to complaints about that mis-selling. The review has refused to take into account any loans that were settled with non-disclosure agreements between the businesses and the banks, giving a skewed view and a skewed outcome. Will the Chancellor speak to the FCA and ask John Swift to ensure that all evidence is taken into account, so that we get a proper review of the FCA’s dealings?
The Financial Conduct Authority has asked John Swift QC to investigate the mis-selling of certain business loans to small businesses, as well as their response to complaints about that mis-selling. The review has refused to take into account any loans that were settled with non-disclosure agreements between the businesses and the banks, giving a skewed view and a skewed outcome. Will the Chancellor speak to the FCA and ask John Swift to ensure that all evidence is taken into account, so that we get a proper review of the FCA’s dealings?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is on an important matter. I welcome the conclusions of the Swift review, and I hope he will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment or intervene on the scope of that review, as it was set up to be completely independent of Government. That said, we have always been clear that the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products is wrong, and nothing that the redress scheme does means that businesses cannot still go to the FCA, the Financial Ombudsman Service or the courts if they wish. If he wishes to raise particular circumstances with either the FCA or the Swift review, he can do that directly.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is on an important matter. I welcome the conclusions of the Swift review, and I hope he will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment or intervene on the scope of that review, as it was set up to be completely independent of Government. That said, we have always been clear that the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products is wrong, and nothing that the redress scheme does means that businesses cannot still go to the FCA, the Financial Ombudsman Service or the courts if they wish. If he wishes to raise particular circumstances with either the FCA or the Swift review, he can do that directly.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is on an important matter. I welcome the conclusions of the Swift review, and I hope he will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment or intervene on the scope of that review, as it was set up to be completely independent of Government. That said, we have always been clear that the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products is wrong, and nothing that the redress scheme does means that businesses cannot still go to the FCA, the Financial Ombudsman Service or the courts if they wish. If he wishes to raise particular circumstances with either the FCA or the Swift review, he can do that directly.
The Financial Conduct Authority has asked John Swift QC to investigate the mis-selling of certain business loans to small businesses, as well as their response to complaints about that mis-selling. The review has refused to take into account any loans that were settled with non-disclosure agreements between the businesses and the banks, giving a skewed view and a skewed outcome. Will the Chancellor speak to the FCA and ask John Swift to ensure that all evidence is taken into account, so that we get a proper review of the FCA’s dealings?
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that false marketing of fresh, wholegrain, artisan and sourdough bread will be prohibited by law in order to protect the customer and prevent SME Real Bread bakeries from being undercut...
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that false marketing of fresh, wholegrain, artisan and sourdough bread will be prohibited by law in order to protect the customer and prevent SME Real Bread bakeries from being undercut...
Consumers are already protected from false and misleading marketing by both general consumer protection law and specifically by food information law. The rules on the provision of food information to consumers, taken together with requirements on the control of additives in food production, ensure that food is produced safely and labelled effectively in order for consumers to make informed choices on the food they buy and consume.
Bakers, including traditional and artisan bakers of high-quality bread, have the ability to effectively market their products on their own merits and legislation supports such marketing so long as it is not misleading. Any information provided with food, whether in words, pictures or symbols, must not be misleading to consumers.
Officials have had extensive discussions with the Real Bread Campaign over a number of years, have taken their views fully into account and will continue to do so.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on redress for victims of HELMS Green Deal mis-selling.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on redress for victims of HELMS Green Deal mis-selling.
No such formal discussions have taken place with Cabinet colleagues specifically on the subject of redress for victims of mis-selling by the former Green Deal Provider, Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Ltd (HELMS). The redress process is completed in line with the requirements of the Green Deal Framework Regulations.
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the report by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Our work on motor finance—final findings, published on 1 March 2019, and the decision by the FCA announced on 28 July to ban discretionary commission models of car finance, what assessment they have made of...
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the report by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Our work on motor finance—final findings, published on 1 March 2019, and the decision by the FCA announced on 28 July to ban discretionary commission models of car finance, what assessment they have made of...
This question has been passed on to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The FCA will reply directly to the Lord Bishop by letter. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
What steps his Department is taking to support people who were mis-sold a Green deal loan more than six years ago.
What steps his Department is taking to support people who were mis-sold a Green deal loan more than six years ago.
The hon. Lady will be aware that too many people have suffered from mis-selling by a small number of green deal providers. We are doing all we can to provide redress where appropriate, as enabled by the green deal regulations.
The hon. Lady will be aware that too many people have suffered from mis-selling by a small number of green deal providers. We are doing all we can to provide redress where appropriate, as enabled by the green deal regulations.
The hon. Lady will be aware that too many people have suffered from mis-selling by a small number of green deal providers. We are doing all we can to provide redress where appropriate, as enabled by the green deal regulations.
What steps his Department is taking to support people who were mis-sold a Green deal loan more than six years ago.
If someone is mis-sold something, there is a six-year time bar to get redress, unless they were not aware of it at the time, in which case they have three more years from when they became aware. There is a significant number of victims of green deal mis-selling, many of whom were very elderly and thought they must have misunderstood, but they did not; they were duped. Why are they, after all they have been through, being denied that extra three-year rule and access to justice?
If someone is mis-sold something, there is a six-year time bar to get redress, unless they were not aware of it at the time, in which case they have three more years from when they became aware. There is a significant number of victims of green deal mis-selling, many of whom were very elderly and thought they must have misunderstood, but they did not; they were duped. Why are they, after all they have been through, being denied that extra three-year rule and access to justice?
It is correct that a complaint must be made within six years of the date of the breach, as we would expect mis-selling to become evident within six years, but we have to take everything, as the hon. Lady knows, on a case-by-case basis. We will explore the relevant facts of each case, and then we can work out whether an eligible complaint can be made within the relevant timeframe. I am very happy to meet her individually to discuss cases as they arise, because we have to take each on a case-by-case basis.
It is correct that a complaint must be made within six years of the date of the breach, as we would expect mis-selling to become evident within six years, but we have to take everything, as the hon. Lady knows, on a case-by-case basis. We will explore the relevant facts of each case, and then we can work out whether an eligible complaint can be made within the relevant timeframe. I am very happy to meet her individually to discuss cases as they arise, because we have to take each on a case-by-case basis.
It is correct that a complaint must be made within six years of the date of the breach, as we would expect mis-selling to become evident within six years, but we have to take everything, as the hon. Lady knows, on a case-by-case basis. We will explore the relevant facts of each case, and then we can work out whether an eligible complaint can be made within the relevant timeframe. I am very happy to meet her individually to discuss cases as they arise, because we have to take each on a case-by-case basis.
If someone is mis-sold something, there is a six-year time bar to get redress, unless they were not aware of it at the time, in which case they have three more years from when they became aware. There is a significant number of victims of green deal mis-selling, many of whom were very elderly and thought they must have misunderstood, but they did not; they were duped. Why are they, after all they have been through, being denied that extra three-year rule and access to justice?
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps he is taking on the mis-selling of schemes now subject to the Loan Charge.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps he is taking on the mis-selling of schemes now subject to the Loan Charge.
While the Government sympathises with anyone who believes they were misled into using a disguised remuneration (DR) scheme, it is an individual’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy of their tax return and to understand the consequences of their decisions.
The Government and HMRC are determined to continue to tackle promoters of tax avoidance schemes. This includes challenging those who promote disguised remuneration loan schemes.
In March 2020, HMRC published their strategy for tackling promoters of tax avoidance schemes. The strategy sets out HMRC’s work to date and outlines how HMRC will continue to take robust actions against promoters of tax avoidance.
Last month HMRC launched the ‘Tax avoidance: don’t get caught out’ communications campaign. The campaign is targeted at contractors and encourages them to stop and take time to check what they are signing up for, challenge what they have been told by those selling the scheme, and protect themselves and public services by reporting schemes to HMRC.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many people have been affected by mis-selling schemes which are now subject to the Loan Charge in (a) Oxford West and Abingdon constituency and (b) the UK.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many people have been affected by mis-selling schemes which are now subject to the Loan Charge in (a) Oxford West and Abingdon constituency and (b) the UK.
While the Government empathises with anyone who believes they were misled into using a disguised remuneration (DR) scheme, it is an individual’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy of their tax return and to understand the consequences of their decisions. It remains right that the Government takes action to tackle tax avoidance which is unfair to the vast majority of taxpayers who pay the correct tax.
The Government estimates that about 50,000 individuals are affected by the Loan Charge. The number who may feel they have been affected by mis-selling is not available.
New clause 8 (Money laundering: electronic money institutions) debated and withdrawn. New clause 9 (Public country-by-country reporting by financial services companies) debated and withdrawn. New clause 10 (FCA recommendation to remove a self-regulatory organisation: Ministerial statement) debated and withdrawn. New clause 16 (Consumer credit: extension of FCA rule-making duty), discussed with new clause 17 (Regulation of buy-now-pay-later firms) and new clause 22 (Cost of credit: FCA assessment), debated and withdrawn. New clause 17 negatived on division (6 to 10). New clause 20 (Power of a select committee to require the FCA to conduct an investigation) debated and withdrawn. New clause 21 (Assessment of risks of consumer detriment) negatived on division (6 to 10). New clause 24 (Facilitation of economic crime) debated and withdrawn. New clause 26 (Legal protections for retail clients against the mis-selling of financial services), discussed with new clause 27 (Legal protections for small businesses against the mis-selling of financial services), debated and withdrawn. New clause 29 (Review of Impact of Scottish National Investment Bank Powers) negatived on division (6 to 10). New clause 31 (Parliamentary scrutiny of FCA provisions), discussed with new clause 32 (Scrutiny of FCA Powers by committees), negatived on division (6 to 10). New clause 33 (Review of impact of Act on UK meeting Paris climate change commitments), discussed with new clause 34 (Review of impact of Act on UK meeting UN Sustainable Development Goals), debated and withdrawn. New clause 35 (Money laundering and overseas trustees: review) negatived on division (6 to 10). New clause 37 (Registered societies with withdrawable share capital: removal of restriction on banking), negatived on division (6 to 10). New clause 38 (Duty of care specification) negatived on divison (6 to 10). Bill, as amended, to be reported (Bill 225). Written evidence reported to the House.
New clause 8 (Money laundering: electronic money institutions) debated and withdrawn. New clause 9 (Public country-by-country reporting by financial services companies) debated and withdrawn. New clause 10 (FCA recommendation to remove a self-regulatory organisation: Ministerial statement) debated and withdrawn. New clause 16 (Consumer credit: extension of FCA rule-making duty), discussed...
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what support he plans to give to people who experienced mis-selling of schemes that are now subject to the Loan Charge.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what support he plans to give to people who experienced mis-selling of schemes that are now subject to the Loan Charge.
While the Government sympathises with anyone who believes they were misled into using a disguised remuneration (DR) scheme, it is an individual’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy of their tax return and to understand the consequences of their decisions. It remains right that the Government takes action to tackle tax avoidance, which is unfair to the vast majority of taxpayers who pay the correct tax.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have been clear on their commitment to support all taxpayers who may need help to pay their Loan Charge liabilities. Where a taxpayer cannot afford to pay in full on time, HMRC will seek to agree payment by instalments with them. The payment plan agreed will be based on what the taxpayer can afford and there is no upper limit over how long HMRC can potentially spread payments.
HMRC have published settlement terms for taxpayers subject to the Loan Charge. These settlement terms are available on GOV.UK at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-settlement-terms-2020/disguised-remuneration-settlement-terms-2020.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, on what date he or his predecessor delegated the initial review of mis-selling allegations against HELMS to the Financial Ombudsman Service under section 32 of the Energy Act 2011.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, on what date he or his predecessor delegated the initial review of mis-selling allegations against HELMS to the Financial Ombudsman Service under section 32 of the Energy Act 2011.
The then Secretary of State Greg Clark delegated initial reviews of complaints about mis-selling to the Financial Ombudsman Service under section 32 of the Energy Act 2011 on 24th October 2018, and as such the Department does not hold data on the total value of Green Deal Loans, whether taken out with Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Ltd (HELMS) or any other Green Deal Provider.
The Financial Ombudsman Service’s consideration of complaints is part of the wider review process. Responsibility for deciding whether a breach has occurred and, if so, whether a sanction should be imposed rests with the Secretary of State, in line with the requirements of the Framework Regulations.
Under this delegation the Financial Ombudsman Service has made recommendations regarding 143 complaints about HELMS. Recommendations may cover whether to cancel or reduce loans, or cover other matters, such as whether to conclude that there have been breaches of the Green Deal Framework regulations. For 69 of these complaints, the Financial Ombudsman Service recommended cancellation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many recommendations the Financial Ombudsman Service has made to him in relation to HELMS complaints in its role delegated under section 32 of the Energy Act 2011 to carry out the initial review of mis-selling allegations against...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many recommendations the Financial Ombudsman Service has made to him in relation to HELMS complaints in its role delegated under section 32 of the Energy Act 2011 to carry out the initial review of mis-selling allegations against...
The then Secretary of State Greg Clark delegated initial reviews of complaints about mis-selling to the Financial Ombudsman Service under section 32 of the Energy Act 2011 on 24th October 2018, and as such the Department does not hold data on the total value of Green Deal Loans, whether taken out with Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Ltd (HELMS) or any other Green Deal Provider.
The Financial Ombudsman Service’s consideration of complaints is part of the wider review process. Responsibility for deciding whether a breach has occurred and, if so, whether a sanction should be imposed rests with the Secretary of State, in line with the requirements of the Framework Regulations.
Under this delegation the Financial Ombudsman Service has made recommendations regarding 143 complaints about HELMS. Recommendations may cover whether to cancel or reduce loans, or cover other matters, such as whether to conclude that there have been breaches of the Green Deal Framework regulations. For 69 of these complaints, the Financial Ombudsman Service recommended cancellation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many recommendations of loan cancellation the Financial Ombudsman Service has made in relation to HELMS complaints in its role delegated under section 32 of the Energy Act 2011 to carry out the initial review of mis-selling allegations...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many recommendations of loan cancellation the Financial Ombudsman Service has made in relation to HELMS complaints in its role delegated under section 32 of the Energy Act 2011 to carry out the initial review of mis-selling allegations...
The then Secretary of State Greg Clark delegated initial reviews of complaints about mis-selling to the Financial Ombudsman Service under section 32 of the Energy Act 2011 on 24th October 2018, and as such the Department does not hold data on the total value of Green Deal Loans, whether taken out with Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Ltd (HELMS) or any other Green Deal Provider.
The Financial Ombudsman Service’s consideration of complaints is part of the wider review process. Responsibility for deciding whether a breach has occurred and, if so, whether a sanction should be imposed rests with the Secretary of State, in line with the requirements of the Framework Regulations.
Under this delegation the Financial Ombudsman Service has made recommendations regarding 143 complaints about HELMS. Recommendations may cover whether to cancel or reduce loans, or cover other matters, such as whether to conclude that there have been breaches of the Green Deal Framework regulations. For 69 of these complaints, the Financial Ombudsman Service recommended cancellation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many complaints he has received in relation to Green Deal mis-selling by Helms where the complainant was not the person in whose name the original credit agreement was made.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many complaints he has received in relation to Green Deal mis-selling by Helms where the complainant was not the person in whose name the original credit agreement was made.
The Department does not record data on the number of complaints about mis-selling of Green Deal Plans by Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd (HELMS) received from complainants who did not enter the original credit agreement as the property âimproverâ. Complaints to my Rt, Hon. Friend the Secretary of State can be made under the Green Deal Framework regulations by original improvers or subsequent bill payers (other eligibility criteria must also met).
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which legislation protected HELMS customers from Green Deal loan mis-selling; and whether there are time restrictions for those consumers raising complaints to either (a) his Department or (b) the Green Deal Finance Company.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which legislation protected HELMS customers from Green Deal loan mis-selling; and whether there are time restrictions for those consumers raising complaints to either (a) his Department or (b) the Green Deal Finance Company.
The legislative context within which redress can be sought in regard to mis-selling under the Green Deal is set out in The Green Deal Framework, based on provisions in the Energy Act 2011, Framework Regulations and Code of Practice.
Section 4.9 of the Green Deal Code of Practice lays out the time provisions within which a complaint must be made to be considered eligible. This confirms that a complaint must be made, by any category of person identified in the provisions, within six years of the date on which the alleged breach occurred. There are separate considerations where a complaint concerns matters relevant to specific Guarantees.
The Green Deal Finance Company, as a private company, have their own complaints procedure.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether complaints to his Department or the Green Deal Finance Company on Green Deal mis-selling are restricted by the amount of time elapsed since the signing of an agreement by a customer.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether complaints to his Department or the Green Deal Finance Company on Green Deal mis-selling are restricted by the amount of time elapsed since the signing of an agreement by a customer.
The legislative context within which redress can be sought in regard to mis-selling under the Green Deal is set out in The Green Deal Framework, based on provisions in the Energy Act 2011, Framework Regulations and Code of Practice.
Section 4.9 of the Green Deal Code of Practice lays out the time provisions within which a complaint must be made to be considered eligible. This confirms that a complaint must be made, by any category of person identified in the provisions, within six years of the date on which the alleged breach occurred. There are separate considerations where a complaint concerns matters relevant to specific Guarantees.
The Green Deal Finance Company, as a private company, have their own complaints procedure.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what proportion of correspondence acknowledging receipt of a complaint on Green Deal loan mis-selling has been sent by his Department within 15 days in line with departmental targets.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what proportion of correspondence acknowledging receipt of a complaint on Green Deal loan mis-selling has been sent by his Department within 15 days in line with departmental targets.
The Department does not record data on correspondence acknowledging receipt of a complaint on Green Deal loan mis-selling which has been sent by this Department. Complaints on Green Deal mis-selling can be received through a number of routes, including email, post, and official Department and Ministerial correspondence.