Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It is. The issue at the heart of this is that the definition under the 2015 Act is that a credit servicing firm excludes key decision-making. This was dealt with on Committee Stage at the time when this was put to the then Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris. He said there is another section below the relevant section which basically states that if the owner of a loan forces the credit servicer to do anything that would be a contravention, then this credit servicer cannot do it. However, contraventions are dealt with and are specific in themselves. The issue here is with key decision-making. The FSPO has determined, for example, that an assessment of the standard financial statement is a key decision, as would be a decision on the sale of a house.

This is not just a unique situation by the way. The FSPO wrote to me giving an example which is separate from the case referenced in the paper. I have the ruling in that case in front of me. It relates to Jerry, which I assume is a made-up name, and refers to a complaint to a credit servicing firm and a special purpose vehicle loan owner where only part of the complaint can progress. It states that Jerry's loan fell into arrears and his bank sold the loan to the special purpose vehicle, which was not regulated by the Central Bank. The SPV was legally obliged to appoint a credit servicing firm to manage day-to-day operations on the loan, and it did so. Jerry was dissatisfied with the way the credit servicing firm managed the loan between 2017 and 2018 and made a complaint to the FSPO that the credit servicing firm had done two things. First, it delivered poor customer service to him and, second, it unfairly hindered his effort to sell the property securing the loan by taking an excessive amount of time to consider the offer he had received from a potential buyer.

The sale fell through, and so on and so forth, with major financial consequences to him. The FSPO determined poor customer service in respect of the first complaint. That was the credit servicing firm, which was regulated. If that issue can be dealt with, that is fine. The major problem he has is that it took forever to make a determination on whether he could sell the loan or property to an individual. The FSPO states it can only investigate the conduct of regulated financial service providers as defined by the Act, and the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act defines "credit servicing" as specifically including the maintenance and control of key decisions relating to credit agreements. The FSPO determined that this was a key decision, which it is. We know it is a key decision. That was all discussed. An unregulated entity took that key decision. The FSPO has no reach to it. The Central Bank has no reach to it, even though it has the role of consumer protection. These unregulated entities are making key decisions and nobody had a reach into them, until at least the later part of 2019, which I will come to shortly. That is the problem.

While the FSPO can deal with stuff, it is dealing with the lower issues. Any substantial issue, or key decision regarding how people are being dealt with, including interest rates, sale of a property and not being afforded an alternative arrangement they should have been afforded with, is falling under the scope of the FSPO, if it falls between the period from 2015 to the start of 2019.