Ms Derville Rowland:

We are aware of this issue and we have been actively involved with it for quite some time. We are in supervisory engagement on the matter. In broad historical terms, it is not a practice that is predominant in this jurisdiction. The methodology used for calculation of arrears is a different approach. This was a more UK-based approach. In a UK court case, the judge, in effect, stated that one cannot have one's cake and eat it by capitalising arrears, on the one hand, and then claiming there are arrears, on the other. There was no double charging, if I call it that, but there was an overstatement of arrears. The judge stated the arrears must extinguished if they are capitalised. It was an approach. What subsequently occurred was that the UK regulator did not introduce a rule banning it, but stated, effectively, that people's repayment amounts might be increased on a monthly basis and if, for example, they were increased by more than £50, it would make it very difficult to pay and so it guided against that. We were aware of this and took the view that it was not a practice we wanted to see here. I am glad to say that it was not a practice widely held in any event in this jurisdiction, but it did arise with entities that had their origins in the UK. We guided very strongly that it was to stop and that is what we expect to see. We are aware of what happened and we are taking regulatory action.