Competition and Markets Authority
PPI Market Investigation Order 2011 - CMA writes to banking group about further breaches - 9 September 2021
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published a letter sent to Lloyds Banking Group (LBG) about its non-compliance with the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) Market Investigation Order 2011 (the Order). The PPI Order imposes the remedies set following the PPI market investigation, including a requirement that providers send customers Annual Review statements setting out information about the PPI policy. Annual Reviews are intended to help customers compare the cost of PPI.
In April 2021, LBG notified the CMA that it had breached the Order by failing to include the monthly PPI benefit value figures in Annual Reviews relating to some of its AXA (TSB) Mortgagesure PPI policies. In its 2021 mailing cycle, LBG identified that Annual Reviews for 23 customers did not include the monthly benefit values as required. LBG corrected the Annual Reviews in time to avoid a breach of the Order in 2021. However, having investigated the error further, LBG found that 41 customers were affected by the same error in 2019 and 26 of those customers were affected in 2020.
LBG identified this breach as a result of enhanced measures put in place following previous enforcement action taken by the CMA in February 2021 and October 2018.
LBG has proposed actions to address the system error in time for the next Annual Review mailing round. It is also sending apology letters and offering affected customers (with open and closed policies) the option to receive a refund of premiums with 8% interest. Due to the nature of the voluntary actions being taken by LBG, the CMA does not consider it necessary to take further formal enforcement action at this time.
Letter: Lloyds Banking Group’s breach of the Payment Protection Insurance Market Investigation Order 2011 in relaation to AXA (TSB) Mortgagesure policies
Lloyds Banking Group Action Plan
Webpage
Recent Cases
Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov v LG and MH (Case C-790/19) ECLI:EU:C:2021:661
Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing – MLD3 and MLD4 – Offence of money laundering – Laundering by the perpetrator of the predicate offence
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has considered interpretation of the money laundering definitions in Article 1(2)(a) of the repealed Third Money Laundering Directive (2005/60/EC) (MLD3) and Article 1(3) of the Fourth Money Laundering Directive ((EU) 2015/849) (MLD4). The Court of Appeal, Braşov, Romania, made a referral to the ECJ asking whether the same person could commit both an act constituting a money laundering offence and also the offence from which the laundered money derives (known as a ‘predicate offence’).
The ECJ concluded that Article 1(2)(a) of MLD3 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that the offence of money laundering may be committed by the perpetrator of the criminal activity from which the money concerned was derived. It considers that the same conclusion applies as regards Article 1(3) of MLD4 as it simply replaced Article 1(2)(a) of MLD3 without making any substantial amendment.
Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov v LG and MH (Case C-790/19) ECLI:EU:C:2021:661
