Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,216
This seems to have got very little coverage ( in other words, I hadn't heard about it!)
[broken link removed]
The Central Bank of Ireland (the “Central Bank”) has entered into a Settlement Agreement with effect from 24 October 2012 with, Irish Mortgage Corporation Limited, trading as Moneyzone (the “Firm”), a regulated financial services provider.
The trading arm “Moneyzone” ceased business in October 2008.
This settlement agreement relates to breaches of the Consumer Protection Code (2006)(the “Code”) and the Minimum Competency Requirements (July 2006)(the “MCR”). Reprimand and fine The Central Bank reprimanded the Firm and required it to pay a monetary penalty of €65,000.
Breaches of the Code and the MCR During the period July 2007 and October 2008, the following breaches occurred:
General Principle 1, Chapter 1 of the Code, in that, the Firm failed to act
professionally in the best interests of its customers. Rule 24 and 30, Chapter 2 of the Code, in that the Firm failed to gather and record
sufficient information of pension planning provision to repay long term mortgages and consequently was unable to ensure that the mortgages recommended were suitable to those consumers.
Rules 46 and 48, Chapter 2 of the Code in that the Firm failed to comply with certain aspects of its complaints handling procedures and to maintain up-to-date records of complaints made by certain consumers.
General Principle 6 of the Code in that the Firm failed to make full disclosure to certain customers that incorporating the arrangement fee into their mortgage would incur interest charges from the lender.
Rule 57, Chapter 2 of the Code in that the Firm did not always have and employ systems and controls to ensure compliance with the Code.
Rule 31, Chapter 2 of the Code in that the Firm failed to retain, in some instances, a copy of a written statement setting out why the product recommended was suitable or the most suitable for consumers.
Paragraph 14, Chapter 4 of the Code in that the Firm failed in certain cases to submit to the mortgage lender a signed declaration that the Firm had sighted all original supporting documentation evidencing certain consumers’ identity and ability to repay, prior to the mortgage being drawn down.
During the period January 2007 and October 2008, the following breaches occurred:
the Firm did not comply with the requirements of the MCR by failing to ensure that the immediate direction and supervision, in respect of “new entrants”, was adequate.
The Code was introduced with the explicit intention of protecting consumers in their dealings with regulated entities and seeks to ensure that the same level of protection is offered to consumers regardless of the size and type of entity they are dealing with. The “Suitability” and the “Knowing the Consumer” requirements of the Code are at the heart of consumer protection and are designed to ensure that appropriate recommendations are made to consumers taking account of the particular circumstances of those consumers. In this case these requirements were of even greater importance given the nature of the subprime mortgages which were recommended and the circumstances of the affected customers.
[broken link removed]
The Central Bank of Ireland (the “Central Bank”) has entered into a Settlement Agreement with effect from 24 October 2012 with, Irish Mortgage Corporation Limited, trading as Moneyzone (the “Firm”), a regulated financial services provider.
The trading arm “Moneyzone” ceased business in October 2008.
This settlement agreement relates to breaches of the Consumer Protection Code (2006)(the “Code”) and the Minimum Competency Requirements (July 2006)(the “MCR”). Reprimand and fine The Central Bank reprimanded the Firm and required it to pay a monetary penalty of €65,000.
Breaches of the Code and the MCR During the period July 2007 and October 2008, the following breaches occurred:
General Principle 1, Chapter 1 of the Code, in that, the Firm failed to act
professionally in the best interests of its customers. Rule 24 and 30, Chapter 2 of the Code, in that the Firm failed to gather and record
sufficient information of pension planning provision to repay long term mortgages and consequently was unable to ensure that the mortgages recommended were suitable to those consumers.
Rules 46 and 48, Chapter 2 of the Code in that the Firm failed to comply with certain aspects of its complaints handling procedures and to maintain up-to-date records of complaints made by certain consumers.
General Principle 6 of the Code in that the Firm failed to make full disclosure to certain customers that incorporating the arrangement fee into their mortgage would incur interest charges from the lender.
Rule 57, Chapter 2 of the Code in that the Firm did not always have and employ systems and controls to ensure compliance with the Code.
Rule 31, Chapter 2 of the Code in that the Firm failed to retain, in some instances, a copy of a written statement setting out why the product recommended was suitable or the most suitable for consumers.
Paragraph 14, Chapter 4 of the Code in that the Firm failed in certain cases to submit to the mortgage lender a signed declaration that the Firm had sighted all original supporting documentation evidencing certain consumers’ identity and ability to repay, prior to the mortgage being drawn down.
During the period January 2007 and October 2008, the following breaches occurred:
the Firm did not comply with the requirements of the MCR by failing to ensure that the immediate direction and supervision, in respect of “new entrants”, was adequate.
The Code was introduced with the explicit intention of protecting consumers in their dealings with regulated entities and seeks to ensure that the same level of protection is offered to consumers regardless of the size and type of entity they are dealing with. The “Suitability” and the “Knowing the Consumer” requirements of the Code are at the heart of consumer protection and are designed to ensure that appropriate recommendations are made to consumers taking account of the particular circumstances of those consumers. In this case these requirements were of even greater importance given the nature of the subprime mortgages which were recommended and the circumstances of the affected customers.