Why the National Consumer Agency does not get involved in the high SVR issue

Raging Bull said:
The OECD document says the competition authority has power to take a competition case but has devolved its right to do so to CB who does not have the power or mandate to look at anything competition wise
Click to expand...

Hi Bull

Where does it say that the Competition Authority has devolved its power to do so the CB? What page?
 
The quickest and easiest way to stop this agreement is to take a high court injunction against it that would not be too hard

It will bring huge pressure to bear on both institutions

It would be a public interest case so costs likely to be ruled against NCA and CB
 
[QUOimplicit inreading sections 1.1 1.3 1.5 and 1.6 combined with the mechanics of cooperation agreement

To be honest they need to be grilled by Finance Committee or someone to find out what they are doing, not doing and why E="Brendan Burgess, post: 1420736, member: 1"]Hi Bull

Where does it say that the Competition Authority has devolved its power to do so the CB? What page?[/QUOTE]
Its I
 
Hi Sop

You are referring to an agreement between the old National Consumer Agency and the Central Bank.

Raging Bull is quoting the OECD document. But I don't think it is there.

I don't understand his reply which has got garbled.

Brendan
 
Its not directly there, you look at paragraph 1 of OECD article, response to Michael McGrath, understand the meaning or impact of cooperation agreement its a fair conclusion to reach that competition authority has totally abandoned financial consumers with the small caveat they work on providing information such as bank account switching


The point is they have the power not the CB to take a case on competition issues and won't....why is obvious but in my book the competition authority are guilty of a dereliction of duty
 
Hi

I understand that you are raging and I am raging as well. But it does not help the discussion if you state something as fact, which is really something you are guessing at.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Competition Authority has devolved its power on competition to the Central Bank.

Let's be absolutely clear, the Competition Authority is in gross dereliction of its duty in not challenging the lack of competition on mortgage rates, but it's derelicting its duty itself, not because it has devolved it to the Central Bank whose lying about mortgage interest rates is the exact opposite of promoting competition.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Let's be absolutely clear, the Competition Authority is in gross dereliction of its duty in not challenging the lack of competition on mortgage rates, but it's derelicting its duty itself, not because it has devolved it to the Central Bank whose lying about mortgage interest rates is the exact opposite of promoting competition.
Click to expand...

That I think we are all agreed on. But what we have not figured out is why? The reply to M. McGrath is pure waffle. On and on about support for the banking sector but no reason as to why they are not taking action against the banks on mortgages all being somehow on par with their high mortgage rates (relative to what they can borrow at and relative to what consumers in the rest of the EU have).

Has the Authority been told not to do anything, or are they toothless, or are they afraid of taking on the banks?
 
Last edited:
Agreed, It is essentially the nub of the issues, they have done nothing and are on official record as planning to do nothing, I really suggest people look at Consumer Protection Act and look at what powers they have agreed to forbear.

I can understand the principal of forebearance but to forbear its consumer protection mandate to the Central Bank who can't interact with the average consumer for professional secrecy etc,, is ludicrous and circumventing EU Law
 
This is the part I do not understand.

In the Competition Authority Submission Response to OECD questionnaire on the role of competition in financial consumer protection – page 1:

In your jurisdiction, does the responsibility for promoting competition across financial services markets rest with a separate competition authority or the financial regulator/supervisor, or is the responsibility shared?


1.1 In Ireland the Competition Authority is the principal agency with responsibility for promoting competition across all sectors of the Irish economy. This general mandate includes the promotion of competition in financial services but we do not have a specific mandate to promote competition in this sector.


1.2 The Central Bank of Ireland (‘Central Bank’) is the body responsible for both central banking and financial regulation. The Central Bank’s remit was extended to financial regulation under a new regulatory structure which was formed by the Central Bank Reform Act, 2010, which amalgamated the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator. The Central Bank has no specific statutory responsibility for promoting competition across financial services markets.


Who then is responsible for promoting competition across financial services markets?
 
Hi Sop

That is very badly worded. But The Competition Authority is the the only agency with responsibility for promoting competition in financial services. The Central Bank has no role in it whatsoever.

They should have worded 1.1
In Ireland the Competition Authority is the principal agency with responsibility for promoting competition across all sectors of the Irish economy, including financial services.
Brendan
 
Bronte said:
1.1 This general mandate includes the promotion of competition in financial services but we do not have a specific mandate to promote competition in this sector.
Click to expand...

Is that not a contradiction. You either have a mandate or you don't, they are saying in the first half of the sentence that they do have a mandate and then in the second half saying they do not have a specific mandate.

What is the significance of 'specific' ?
 
I again find it strange that a little thing called Ask About Money has to be the one that yet again highlights the way Regulators of most shades are managing to deceive whilst pretending they act in the Public interest.

Every so often these People throw crumbs of comfort around a Variety of cases they took on {my} behalf.
It appears that it is in our High Courts that peoples rights slowly get vindicated ,not as it should be in our Legislature or legislation.

Brendan; In your humour, (which I appreciate) you highlight a rottenness.
 
I think Raging Bull has a point in that, at the very least, there appears to be a fudging of responsibilities.

By virtue of the Central Bank Act 1942, s 5A(5) and the co-operation agreement, the Central Bank retained responsibilities regarding consumer protection, other than that of providing consumer information on financial products and services, which it transferred to the NCA.

In its submission to the OECD, the Competition Authority mentions the co-operation agreement - but why?

The agreement was with the NCA, which agreed to forbear its functions, but not the Competition Authority, which was responsible for promoting competition.
 
Last edited:
Bronte said:
Is that not a contradiction. You either have a mandate or you don't, they are saying in the first half of the sentence that they do have a mandate and then in the second half saying they do not have a specific mandate.

What is the significance of 'specific' ?
Click to expand...

There is no contradiction, it's just badly worded. Maybe even stupidly worded.

The law makes them responsible for all competition in Ireland.
It does not specify that they are responsible for financial services competition. There is no need to.
So they do not have a specific mandate for financial services, they have a general mandate.

I don't know why they worded this so confusingly, but it could have been in response to a badly worded question by the OECD.

Brendan
 
Well surely they shouldn't be stupidly wording documents for public consumption.

It's still not clear to me, but it is to you. They do have a mandate to promote competition in financial services but they just don't do anything about it. What exactly have they done in this area. Mortgage rates in all the banks are exceedingly high relative to the banks borrowing costs and relative to what consumers in other EU countries can borrow at.

In addition many borrowers are stuck with their current lender due to NE. Something could be done about that. A borrower should still be able to switch even if in NE if the figures add up. That borrower is profitable to any bank. This would apply in particular to people in guaranteed state jobs.
 
The National Consumer Agency, now the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, I believe, is currently in breach of si 307/2000, by forbearing their investigation of unfair terms utilised by Financial service providers. Si 307/2000 was an amendment to si 27/1995 that the Irish State was forced to transpose into Irish Law by the European Commission, as they had left it out of the original si 27/1995. Si 307/2000 provides for the setting up of a national body whose main function is " the protection of consumer interests ". This was stipultaed in the original European directive 93/13/EEC

On the Central bank of Ireland's website it states that it may investigate personal complaints but it is under no obligation to provide the results of the investigation ( presumably if it initiates one) to the complainant. So, for example, the Central Bank of Ireland agrees to investigate your complaint, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission under the MOU are now absolved of any further action and you are not entitled to any feedback about your complaint from the Central Bank.

The Central Bank of Ireland further state, that if you have an individual complaint about a Financial service provider you may refer to the Bank's internal complaints department or seek redress from the Financial services Ombudsman's office.

Now moving to the Financial Services Ombudsman, they will only deal with complaints to which you are a party to. They also state "Broader issues of Consumer protection are the responsibilty of the Central bank." So again, for example, you have your mortgage paid off, but you wish to complain about the unfairly high variable mortgage rates charged by the banks in this Country that your children are subjected to, you have nowhere or no one to complain to.

This is an obvious breach of section 8(4) of si 27/1995 as it prohibits an individual complaining about an unfair term in a contract that he/she are not party to. Finally, I have to add that the whole purpose of si 307/2000 was to set up a body that dealt mainly with consumer protection issues. It is incredulous that the NCA, now the Competition and Consumer Protection Commision has entered such a ridiculous understanding with the Central Bank and has given away a major core purpose for which it was set up for, in the first instance. It is a derogation of its core duties. The MOU between the NCA and the Central bank should be the other way around.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top