Consumer Credit

Key dates

2016-07-01

Beginning of the period during which Sunshine Loans entered into contracts containing the unlawful amendment fee.

2019-03-13

Relevant fee contraventions became civil penalty provisions; civil penalties were available only for contraventions from this date.

2020-11-01

Sunshine Loans ceased charging the amendment or rescheduling fee shortly after ASIC intervention.

2022-06-01

ASIC commenced Federal Court civil penalty proceedings against Sunshine Loans.

2024-04-12

The Federal Court found that Sunshine Loans had contravened the National Credit Code by imposing, charging and accepting the prohibited fee.

2025-03-24

The Full Federal Court dismissed Sunshine Loans' liability appeal and determined the relevant appeals in ASIC's favour.

2026-03-18

The High Court unanimously dismissed Sunshine Loans' appeal concerning the recusal issue, allowing the penalty matter to return to the Federal Court.

2026-11-06

The Federal Court ordered Sunshine Loans to pay a $5.5 million civil penalty and ASIC's costs.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every fee and charge applied to small amount credit contracts and map each one to an expressly permitted category under the National Credit Code.
• Lenders should consider testing repayment-date changes, hardship arrangements, restructures and other contract variations to confirm that fees are not imposed when a consumer is not in default.
• Firms should consider conducting a historical review of fee configuration, customer communications, contract templates, payment records and general ledger data to identify comparable conduct and quantify affected consumers.
• Where potentially unlawful fees are identified, firms should consider stopping the relevant charging logic, preserving records, assessing remediation and notifying relevant governance bodies and regulators where appropriate.
• Credit licensees may wish to strengthen legal review and compliance sign-off for product terms and fee changes, including documented evidence supporting the legality of each fee.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether compliance monitoring adequately tests fee restrictions for products used by financially vulnerable consumers and whether identified issues are escalated promptly.
• Firms should consider reviewing whether their dispute-resolution and remediation processes enable affected consumers to obtain redress through internal complaints handling and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new legislative rule. The Court confirmed that small amount credit contract providers may impose only the fee categories permitted by the National Credit Code: an establishment fee, a monthly fee, a fee payable on default, or a government fee, charge or duty. A $35 fee for rescheduling a repayment where the consumer was not in default did not fall within those categories.

Key dates

2026-11-02

The FCA published an earlier statement warning about demands for repayment of disguised-remuneration scheme loans, the possible need for a Validation Order and undue pressure in debt collection.

2026-11-05

The FCA published the intervention and the restrictions agreed with Ethica Resolve Limited and West 28th Street Limited.

Suggested considerations

• Firms servicing or collecting historic disguised-remuneration loans should identify affected portfolios, pause demands and litigation activity falling within the FCA restrictions, and confirm the precise scope of any agreed requirements with the FCA.
• Ethica should complete and evidence the required consumer communications, including the explanation that payment is not currently enforceable, and maintain records of recipients, delivery attempts and unresolved cases.
• Compliance teams should review whether correspondence, telephone contact, default notices, letters of claim and court instructions could create undue pressure or inaccurately imply that immediate payment is legally required.
• Firms should establish a vulnerability-identification and support process covering consumers experiencing health, financial or comprehension difficulties, with appropriate escalation, reasonable adjustments and management information.
• Debt servicers should verify the creditor's ownership, the chain of assignment, the original lender's regulatory status and any applicable consumer-credit permissions or exemptions before pursuing repayment.
• Legal and compliance teams should assess whether any proposed enforcement requires an FCA Validation Order or other court permission, recognising that a Validation Order is not guaranteed and that the FCA has stated that the debt may remain unenforceable if required permission is not granted.
• Firms should ensure that no default judgment is sought in the affected claims and that consumers continue to receive accurate information that formal court documents should not be ignored.
• Senior management should review outsourcing, agency and oversight arrangements where an authorised firm acts for an unauthorised debt purchaser, including conduct risk, consumer-outcome monitoring and escalation to the FCA where harm may have occurred.

What changed

Ethica must write to affected consumers explaining that they do not currently have an enforceable obligation to pay and therefore do not need to make payment at this stage. Ethica must not make further demands for payment from affected consumers in the current proposed court claim while the relevant issues remain unresolved. Ethica and West 28 must not seek default judgments against consumers who have not responded to a legal claim. Ethica must identify affected vulnerable consumers and put additional protections in place.

Key dates

2026-11-03

FCA and PRA published DP26/1: Credit unions: review of the regulatory regime.

2027-03-05 Deadline

Deadline for responses to DP26/1 to be sent to the FCA.

Suggested considerations

• Credit unions should consider whether to submit a response by 5 March 2027, addressing the questions and evidence relevant to their business model, size, complexity, growth plans and risk profile.
• Boards and senior management may wish to assess how potential changes to prudential requirements, permitted activities, governance expectations, operational resilience and resolution or exit arrangements could affect strategic plans, without treating the Discussion Paper as a change to current rules.
• Compliance and regulatory-policy teams should map the firm’s current obligations under the PRA Rulebook Credit Unions Part, applicable FCA conduct requirements and the Credit Unions Act 1979, then identify areas where proportionality or regulatory barriers create material costs or risks.
• Credit unions may wish to engage with representative bodies and credit union service organisations to develop evidence on member outcomes, access to affordable credit, innovation, consolidation, operational dependencies and barriers to orderly exit.
• Firms should monitor subsequent FCA and PRA consultation papers, policy statements and rule changes because any future implementation would require a separate policy process and could include differentiated requirements for smaller and larger credit unions.

What changed

No binding regulatory requirements or policy changes have been introduced. The regulators are seeking evidence on whether the existing prudential framework remains appropriate; whether risk-based and proportionate requirements could better support growth and complexity; whether the framework provides adequate safeguards while enabling competition and innovation; and whether credit unions have effective tools for orderly market exit. The publication is relevant to credit unions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, their members, credit union service organisations and trade associations.

Key dates

2026-11-03

PRA and FCA publish the joint discussion paper and open the feedback period.

2027-03-05 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the discussion paper to be submitted to the PRA and FCA.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess the discussion paper against their size, growth trajectory, business model, lending mix, capital methodology, governance arrangements and operational-risk profile.
• Credit unions may wish to submit evidence to the PRA and FCA by 5 March 2027, including quantified costs and benefits of simplified requirements, risk-based capital treatment, revised reporting and any proposed thresholds.
• Compliance and risk teams should map current internal-audit, regulatory-documentation, capital, leverage-ratio, risk-weighted-asset, capital-add-on and stress-testing requirements so that the impact of possible future options can be assessed without assuming that any proposal is yet effective.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether planned growth, aggregator arrangements, mortgage or fixed-rate lending, outsourcing and technology investment are matched by appropriate governance, liquidity, credit-risk, operational-resilience and third-party oversight capabilities.
• Firms considering new products or services should identify statutory, prudential, conduct, systems and outsourcing barriers and document the safeguards that would be needed to support a credible response to the regulators.
• Credit unions should review current wind-down, transfer and restructuring plans and identify legislative or contractual barriers to sale of loan books, transfer of business or conversion to another mutual form.
• Industry bodies and service providers may wish to coordinate submissions on FCA fees, shared-service models, CUSO capability, third-party guidance and the practical consequences of applying Small Domestic Deposit Takers rules.

What changed

This is a discussion paper, not a consultation proposing or committing to specific policy changes, so existing PRA and FCA requirements continue to apply. The regulators are examining whether internal-audit and regulatory-document requirements could be reduced for smaller and simpler credit unions; whether larger or more complex credit unions should move to a risk-based framework with more flexible capital requirements; and whether relevant Small Domestic Deposit Takers rules, including the standardised approach for risk-weighted assets, could replace the current simple leverage-ratio...

Key dates

2026-11-03

PRA published CP15/26 for consultation.

2026-12-04

Northern Ireland Assembly consultation on the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill closes; this is a legislative scrutiny date, not a stated PRA consultation deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to track the Northern Ireland Assembly’s passage and final commencement provisions for the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill rather than treating the consultation proposals as final requirements.
• Credit unions considering member referrals should assess governance, counterparty due diligence, member eligibility and service-specific responsibilities, and consider whether contracts prevent inappropriate transfer of credit risk back to the referring credit union.
• Credit unions considering loan participation should consider documenting originator and participant roles, borrower relationship ownership, underwriting and monitoring responsibilities, security and enforcement rights, default allocation, concentration limits, large-exposure treatment, provisioning and capital treatment.
• Boards and senior managers may wish to assess whether existing risk appetite, lending policies, management information, stress testing and internal controls are proportionate to the additional activities contemplated by the PRA.
• Firms may wish to map existing lending-limit, large-exposure, provisioning and capital processes against the proposed treatment of participation loans and identify data or systems changes needed before implementation.
• Credit unions that do not intend to undertake the new activities may wish to document that decision and retain evidence that their existing governance and control framework remains appropriate for their current business model.
• Affected firms may wish to monitor the PRA’s final policy statement and any revised SS2/23 or Rulebook text before committing to new products or contractual arrangements.

What changed

The PRA proposes amendments to the Credit Unions Part of the PRA Rulebook and SS2/23 – Supervising Credit Unions. Member referral arrangements would be treated as an additional activity; the receiving credit union would retain responsibility for the referred member’s credit risk, and firms would be expected to maintain effective governance, due diligence and clear contractual allocation of responsibilities.

Key dates

2026-11-03

PRA publication date for DP2/26 and FCA publication date for the parallel credit-union discussion paper DP26/1.

2027-03-05 Deadline

Deadline for responses to DP2/26, submitted to [email protected].

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider whether to submit evidence or a response to DP2/26 by 2027-03-05, addressing the questions most relevant to their size, business model, activities and growth plans.
• Compliance teams may wish to map current prudential, reporting, governance and operational-resilience requirements against the proposed distinction between small and simple firms and larger or more complex credit unions.
• Credit unions considering growth should assess whether board expertise, senior-management capacity, capital and liquidity planning, credit-risk controls, member-servicing capability and operational resilience will scale with membership and lending volumes.
• Firms may wish to review governance and controls for aggregator-driven growth, mortgage lending, fixed-rate products, outsourced activities, third-party providers and CUSO relationships, because these are identified as areas where future safeguards or supervisory expectations may develop.
• Boards and senior managers should consider how existing responsibilities under Rule 11.5(3) of the Credit Unions Part of the PRA Rulebook are evidenced, including oversight of regulatory compliance, risk management and business growth.
• Credit unions may wish to evaluate their current solvent-exit and wind-down arrangements, including the feasibility of transferring business, selling a loan book, restructuring or maintaining continuity of member services.
• Trade associations and service organisations may wish to provide data on compliance costs, asset-based thresholds, barriers to permitted activities, common-bond expansion, CUSO use and the practical effects of different prudential models.
• Firms should monitor subsequent PRA and FCA consultations and any legislative proposals; no implementation plan or transition timetable has been established at this stage.

What changed

No rules, thresholds, permissions or supervisory requirements have been amended by DP2/26. The regulators are seeking evidence on six outcomes: proportionate regulation; consumer confidence and protection; competition and innovation; long-term sustainability; operational resilience and risk management; and orderly market exit.

Key dates

2026-11-02

The FCA published its expectations for lenders making voluntary motor finance settlement offers; the page was updated on 2026-11-03.

2026-10-01

Barclays Partner Finance identified customers whose complaints had been acknowledged on or before this date as a cohort for some early settlement offers.

2027-02-16

The scheduled start of the legal challenges to the FCA motor finance compensation scheme.

2027-03-03

The scheduled end date of the hearing window for the legal challenges to the FCA motor finance compensation scheme.

Suggested considerations

• Firms considering early settlements should assess each offer against the maximum redress that would have been available under the FCA motor finance compensation scheme, rather than using a lower discretionary amount.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish governance and second-line review for the methodology, calculations, customer segmentation and approval of settlement communications.
• Firms should consider notifying the FCA before making offers and supplying the FCA factsheet with each customer communication.
• Offer letters should clearly state the amount, calculation basis, the full-and-final effect of acceptance, the inability to claim more later, the option to reject and remain within the scheme, and the consequences for the existing complaint.
• Firms should consider allowing at least one month for customers to respond and retaining evidence that customers had sufficient information and time to make an informed decision.
• Marketing, customer-service and complaints teams should avoid language suggesting FCA endorsement, approval or validation of an individual offer.
• Firms should consider controls to prevent accepted settlements from being subsequently processed as scheme claims or referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
• Motor finance lenders should continue preparing for the compensation scheme and progress complaints as far as possible during the partial suspension, even if scheme compensation is not currently calculated or paid.

What changed

Lenders may make voluntary settlement offers before the partially suspended FCA motor finance compensation scheme is implemented, but the FCA expects each offer to provide at least the compensation the customer would receive under the scheme, calculated by reference to the relevant agreement and the scheme methodology. Firms intending to make offers are expected to notify the FCA, provide the FCA factsheet to customers, and ensure communications are clear, fair and not misleading.

Key dates

2026-10-29

FCA published Fair value in consumer finance and associated supervisory commentary; the examples are effective as supervisory guidance and do not create new rules.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every financial and non-financial charge across each product's full customer journey and lifetime, including contingent, arrears, repeat and cumulative charges.
• Firms should consider refreshing fair value assessments to reconcile current pricing and charging data with quantified or otherwise evidenced customer benefits, product limitations, service quality and foreseeable risks.
• Firms may wish to document how assumptions, management information, customer outcomes and governance challenge support each fair value conclusion, with clear ownership and audit trails.
• Firms should consider segmenting analysis by relevant customer groups, including vulnerability characteristics, credit risk, product usage, distribution channel and customers experiencing financial difficulty, and testing whether outcomes differ materially.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish monitoring for arrears, complaints, cancellations, usage, enquiries, refunds, waivers, repeat charges and customer understanding, with defined escalation thresholds and remediation options.
• Firms should consider testing whether fees and charges are communicated clearly, prominently and at the point customers need them to make informed decisions, including through customer-understanding testing.
• Firms may wish to review controls for grace periods, charge caps, fee waivers and refunds and evidence that those controls are appropriately designed, operating effectively and reducing foreseeable harm.
• Where late or missed repayment charges are justified by reasonable costs, firms should consider documenting the cost methodology, evidence relied upon and relationship between the methodology and the charge level, alongside the separate fair value assessment.

What changed

The publication does not amend the FCA Handbook or create new mandatory actions. It consolidates good and poor practice under the existing price and value outcome in PRIN 2A.4 and FG22/5, including the requirement for manufacturers under PRIN 2A.4.2R(2) to conduct and regularly review value assessments at intervals appropriate to the product's nature and duration.

Key dates

2026-10-29

MAS published the policy statement announcing the extension of motor vehicle financing restrictions to individual-owned PHCs.

2026-10-30 Deadline

New restrictions take effect for individual-owned PHC purchases where the sales agreement is signed on or after this date; where there is no sales agreement, they apply if the COE is obtained on or after this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at affected lenders should update eligibility, LTV and tenure controls so that individual-owned PHCs are treated as private cars for transactions falling within the effective-date tests.
• Firms should confirm that the LTV calculation uses the full purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable, and that the OMV threshold is applied at $20,000.
• Lenders and finance providers should review onboarding and documentation controls to distinguish individual or sole-proprietor ownership from business-owned PHC ownership and to evidence the sales-agreement or COE date.
• Providers should assess pending applications, approvals, hire-purchase agreements and conditional sales near the 30 October 2026 transition point, including whether any transaction was restructured to avoid the new restrictions.
• Car dealers and platform operators should consider updating customer disclosures, application workflows and referral arrangements so that individual buyers are not presented with financing terms inconsistent with the new limits.
• Firms should review dealer, leasing and in-house financing products for potential regulatory perimeter or circumvention risk, particularly because the Government has indicated that it may apply equivalent restrictions to additional arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor MAS and Government follow-up, including implementation guidance and any measures affecting in-house loans or platform-operated financing channels.
• Firms should consider controls and customer communications addressing unregulated leasing, lease-to-own or other arrangements that may be marketed as alternatives to regulated motor vehicle financing.

What changed

For an individual-owned PHC with an OMV of $20,000 or below, the maximum LTV is 70% of the purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable. For an OMV above $20,000, the maximum LTV is 60%; financing tenure is capped at seven years in both cases. The restrictions apply to motor vehicle loans provided by financial institutions and licensed or exempt moneylenders, and to hire-purchase and conditional sale agreements.

Key dates

2026-04-21

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Kingscrown Finance Ltd.

2026-09-25

Further voluntary restrictions were imposed on Kingscrown Finance Ltd, including limits on receiving payments from existing customers and an orderly wind-down requirement.

2026-10-07

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on MOMSB Ltd and Momentus Capital Ltd, including restrictions on new customers, new lending arrangements and certain payments from existing customers, together with independent AML-framework reviews.

2026-10-09

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Grosvenor Funding Ltd and Grosvenor Funding (North West) Ltd, including restrictions on new customers, new lending arrangements and certain payments from existing customers, together with independent AML-framework reviews.

2026-10-15

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Abbital Ltd, including specified conditions for taking on customers, entering into lending arrangements and accepting payments, together with an independent review of its AML systems and controls.

2026-10-23

The FCA announced the restrictions and reiterated its enhanced oversight of Annex 1 firms and due-diligence expectations for regulated firms dealing with them.

Suggested considerations

• Annex 1 firms should consider reviewing their business-wide AML risk assessment, customer and beneficial-owner due diligence, ongoing monitoring, suspicious-activity escalation, governance, management information, resourcing and independent-testing arrangements against the Money Laundering Regulations 2017.
• Annex 1 firms seeking registration or under FCA assessment should consider ensuring that policies and controls are tailored to their actual lending activities, customer base, delivery channels and growth plans, rather than relying on generic or group-level documentation.
• The six named firms should consider mapping their operational processes, customer communications, payment arrangements and lending activity to the precise terms of their voluntary restrictions and preserving evidence of compliance with those terms.
• FCA-authorised firms should consider identifying all Annex 1 counterparties and refreshing onboarding and periodic-review procedures to obtain direct confirmation of registration, conduct independent verification, understand the counterparty's business model and assess whether its AML controls create heightened relationship risk.
• Regulated firms should consider recording the rationale for accepting, continuing or restricting relationships with Annex 1 firms and escalating discrepancies between a firm's registered activities, actual activities, ownership, governance or AML framework.
• Groups with multiple Annex 1 entities should consider documenting entity-specific risk assessments and controls, since group-wide or off-the-shelf procedures may not demonstrate that each entity manages its own risks effectively.
• Lenders and their service providers should consider contingency arrangements for restricted firms, including payment handling, loan-book servicing, customer communications and orderly wind-down scenarios.

What changed

Kingscrown Finance Ltd is subject to restrictions limiting how it may receive payments from existing customers and requiring an orderly wind-down of its existing loan book. MOMSB Ltd, Momentus Capital Ltd, Grosvenor Funding Ltd and Grosvenor Funding (North West) Ltd are restricted from taking on new customers or entering into new lending arrangements, subject to the specified exceptions; restrictions also apply to accepting payments from existing customers, and the firms must obtain independent reviews of their AML frameworks.

Key dates

2025-11-21

Daniel Juratowitch and Rachel Burdett of Cor Cordis were appointed liquidators of MWL.

2025-11-28

AFCA made a determination against MWL, which MWL failed to pay.

2026-09-16

The CSLR paid $90,031.34, including interest, in respect of the unpaid AFCA determination and notified ASIC.

2026-10-12

ASIC cancelled MWL’s Australian credit licence and commenced the specified 12-month continuation of AFCA membership.

2027-10-12 Deadline

MWL’s required continuation of AFCA membership ends, subject to any further applicable requirements.

Suggested considerations

• Credit licensees should consider maintaining controls that identify AFCA determinations, track payment deadlines and escalate any threatened or actual inability to pay to senior management and the board.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether unresolved AFCA determinations could trigger CSLR involvement and the consequent mandatory licence-cancellation risk under the National Consumer Credit Protection framework.
• Firms approaching licence cancellation, surrender or liquidation should consider confirming continuing AFCA membership obligations and preserving complaint-handling, client-file and remediation records for the applicable post-exit period.
• AFCA members should consider reviewing procedures for responding to complaints involving related entities, former representatives and businesses that have ceased trading or entered liquidation.
• Credit providers and intermediaries should consider monitoring ASIC enforcement involving MWL, Shield Master Fund and related entities for indicators relevant to advice referrals, distribution oversight, representative supervision and complaint remediation.
• Businesses that have paid CSLR levies or may be exposed to future CSLR funding should consider incorporating unpaid AFCA determinations and insolvency trends into conduct-risk and financial-planning assessments.

What changed

MWL’s Australian credit licence was cancelled following the unpaid AFCA determination dated 2025-11-28 and the subsequent CSLR compensation payment dated 2026-09-16. ASIC stated that it has no discretion to avoid cancellation and that the decision is not subject to merits review. MWL must nevertheless retain AFCA membership until 2027-10-12, allowing further complaints to be lodged for 12 months after the cancellation.

Key dates

2026-10-19

The FCA publication was issued as part of its wider AI supervisory and industry-engagement work.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider maintaining an inventory of AI use cases, including internally developed, embedded and outsourced tools, with a named accountable senior manager and documented risk classification for each use case.
• Compliance teams may wish to map each consumer-facing AI use case to Consumer Duty outcomes, the target market, foreseeable harms, vulnerable-customer considerations, fair value where relevant, complaints handling and available redress.
• Firms should consider documenting why AI is appropriate for the identified consumer need, which activities remain staff-led, where the system must abstain or escalate, and how those controls have been tested in practice.
• Model and risk functions may wish to test accuracy, bias, error rates, explainability, data quality, drift and robustness across relevant consumer characteristics, including vulnerability, accessibility, digital capability and financial capability.
• Firms should consider testing consumer understanding of AI disclosures and outputs with representative user groups, rather than relying solely on technical model explanations or generic disclaimers.
• Operations and technology teams may wish to implement proportionate live monitoring, clear escalation thresholds, sample-based human review, incident and near-miss processes, fallback arrangements and channel continuity where an AI system fails or produces harmful outputs.
• Firms should consider retaining auditable records of prompts, inputs, outputs, model and vendor versions, filters, approvals, overrides, escalations, complaints and remediation decisions for a period consistent with the applicable record-keeping requirements.
• Outsourcing and third-party risk assessments may wish to address concentration and dependency risks, access to testing and performance information, change control, data use, subcontracting, service continuity and the firm’s ability to challenge or replace an AI provider.

What changed

The publication consolidates the FCA’s expectations under the existing framework, including the Principles for Businesses, Threshold Conditions, SYSC, operational resilience, outsourcing and critical third-party requirements, Consumer Duty, vulnerable-customer guidance, SM&CR and DISP. It identifies good practice such as defining the consumer need and target market before deployment, testing outcomes across consumer characteristics and vulnerability scenarios, setting human escalation and abstention controls, maintaining auditable records of prompts, outputs, model versions and decisions, and...

Key dates

2026-10-14

The CFPB announced the debanking investigation and enforcement initiative; the OCC released its report on the nine largest national banks on the same date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory account closures, service restrictions, onboarding denials, credit denials, and material service-friction decisions since 2020, with particular attention to political or religious affiliations and lawful activities in firearms, oil and gas, coal, tobacco, digital assets, and other sectors identified by the OCC.
• Firms should consider testing whether customer-facing reasons for adverse decisions accurately and specifically reflect the documented internal rationale, including compliance with ECOA and Regulation B adverse-action notice requirements and applicable FCRA adverse-action notice requirements.
• Institutions may wish to review reputation-risk policies, sector restrictions, escalation criteria, committee materials, employee guidance, and risk taxonomies to confirm that decisions are based on objective, individualized, documented, and legally supportable risk considerations rather than generalized political, social, or reputational preferences.
• Compliance teams should consider preserving relevant complaints, account-review records, escalation communications, decision logs, adverse-action notices, and policy versions in anticipation of CFPB information requests or supervisory examination.
• Banks and covered nonbanks may wish to compare complaint-portal submissions and internal complaint data against account-closure and service-denial populations to identify unexplained patterns, inconsistent reasons, or failures to provide required notices.
• Firms should consider assessing whether deposit-account and payment-service decisions create potential UDAAP exposure even where ECOA or FCRA does not directly apply, while continuing to apply legitimate safety, soundness, sanctions, fraud, AML, credit, and operational-risk controls.
• Senior compliance and legal personnel may wish to establish governance for politically sensitive or sector-based account decisions so that risk-based controls are not removed indiscriminately and exceptions are documented, consistently applied, and subject to appropriate review.

What changed

The CFPB did not issue a new regulation or impose a new compliance deadline. It announced a supervisory and enforcement initiative implementing Executive Order 14331 and responding to the OCC's report covering conduct identified between 2020 and September 2025. The CFPB stated that it will investigate potential violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, including Regulation B adverse-action requirements, the Fair Credit Reporting Act adverse-action requirements, and the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

Key dates

2026-03-30

The FCA published PS26/3, establishing the motor finance consumer redress scheme for relevant agreements entered into from 6 April 2007 to 1 November 2024.

2026-05-31

The FCA's general pause on handling certain motor finance complaints ended; complaints outside the scheme scope generally reverted to the applicable ordinary complaint-handling framework from 1 June 2026.

2026-06-30

The implementation period for Scheme 2, covering agreements entered into from 1 April 2014 to 1 November 2024, was scheduled to end.

2026-08-31

The implementation period for Scheme 1, covering agreements entered into from 6 April 2007 to 31 March 2014, was scheduled to end.

2027-02-16

The Upper Tribunal hearing of the legal challenges to the motor finance compensation scheme is scheduled to begin.

2027-02-26

The scheduled window for the Upper Tribunal hearing of the legal challenges is due to conclude.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to maintain a documented inventory of complaints, agreements, commission data, consumer communications and redress calculations so that scheme preparation can resume promptly if the legal challenges fail.
• Lenders should continue complying with all motor finance scheme rules that have not been suspended, including required notifications to consumers who are not owed compensation.
• Firms should model both principal outcomes: implementation of the scheme after judgment and resumption of ordinary complaint handling if the scheme or relevant provisions are quashed.
• Operational planning may include capacity, case-management systems, data remediation, quality assurance, customer communications and escalation procedures for the ordinary DISP complaint process.
• Finance, risk and compliance teams should consider scenario-based provisions for scheme redress, litigation-related costs and ordinary complaint liabilities, and should engage auditors regarding assumptions, evidence and disclosure.
• Firms should review whether complaints outside the scheme scope are being handled under the ordinary DISP time limits, rather than being treated as covered by the suspended scheme arrangements.
• Senior management may wish to monitor the tribunal proceedings, FCA firm updates and any subsequent judgment, appeal or amendments to CONRED and DISP requirements.
• Firms should consider customer-outcome and conduct risks arising from delayed compensation, incomplete communications, duplicated claims-management fees and inconsistent treatment of consumers during the suspension.

What changed

The Upper Tribunal hearing window is now confirmed for 16 to 26 February 2027. The scheme remains partially suspended, so lenders are not required to calculate or pay compensation under the scheme until the legal process concludes, but the suspension does not remove the requirement to comply with unaffected scheme rules, including sending specified communications to consumers who are not owed compensation. The FCA has expressly warned lenders to prepare for the possibility that the scheme, or parts of it, are quashed and that there is consequently no scheme-based complaint-handling pause.

Key dates

2026-10-08

The OCC announced the cease-and-desist order and $350 million civil money penalty against American Express National Bank; the Federal Reserve announced a coordinated action against American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to reassess whether the BSA/AML risk assessment accurately reflects the institution's largest and most complex products, customer segments, payment flows, geographies, channels, and transaction types, rather than relying primarily on deposit-account risk.
• Firms should consider testing whether customer identification, customer due diligence, beneficial-ownership information, and account-risk-rating processes provide sufficiently complete and reliable data for transaction monitoring and suspicious-activity reporting.
• Banks may wish to conduct a targeted lookback for trade-based money-laundering indicators in card, merchant, payment, cross-border, and related repayment activity, including activity involving insiders or connected accounts, and document escalation and reporting decisions.
• Compliance teams should consider validating that monitoring scenarios, alert thresholds, investigative workflows, case-management controls, quality assurance, and SAR filing processes can identify and report suspicious activity within applicable regulatory timeframes.
• Boards and senior management may wish to review whether BSA/AML staffing levels, expertise, reporting lines, technology, data governance, and independent-testing coverage are proportionate to the institution's size, complexity, and risk profile.
• Firms should consider strengthening role-based BSA/AML training for employees, directors, and senior management, with evidence of completion, competency, and periodic refreshers.
• Internal audit or another suitably independent function may wish to perform end-to-end testing of risk assessment, customer due diligence, monitoring, investigation, SAR decisioning, and governance controls, with tracked remediation and board-level reporting.
• U.S. banking organizations may wish to compare their programs against the OCC's findings and the market commentary emphasizing that the principal lesson is product-risk misalignment and the need for enterprise-wide controls, not merely remediation of isolated monitoring alerts.

What changed

This is an enforcement action and supervisory precedent, not a new generally applicable rule. The OCC required American Express National Bank to remediate a BSA/AML program that was not reasonably designed to assure and monitor compliance with the BSA and its implementing regulations. The findings specifically reinforce expectations that risk assessments cover the institution's actual product mix, including credit and charge cards; customer identification and customer due-diligence procedures support effective monitoring; transaction-monitoring and suspicious-activity reporting processes...

Key dates

2026-10-07

MAS published the written parliamentary reply and stated that approximately 4,000 households could face cash shortfalls under the severe stress scenario.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and consumer-credit teams may wish to confirm that mortgage portfolios have documented processes for identifying deteriorating repayment performance and other early indicators of financial stress.
• Banks should consider reviewing whether frontline and collections staff consistently contact borrowers early, assess individual circumstances, and record the rationale for any restructuring, refinancing, forbearance, or other assistance offered.
• Mortgage lenders may wish to test whether vulnerable segments identified by the MAS stress test, including lower-income middle-aged HDB borrowers and borrowers with sizeable private-housing loan balances, are adequately represented in portfolio monitoring and scenario analysis.
• Firms should consider maintaining clear customer communications directing borrowers who anticipate repayment difficulty to contact the lender before arrears arise.
• Banks and relevant agencies may wish to review referral arrangements with HDB, Credit Counselling Singapore, and appropriate social-service agencies, including escalation and hand-off procedures.
• Risk committees may wish to retain evidence that severe interest-rate, income-reduction, unemployment, and liquidity-buffer scenarios are considered in mortgage portfolio risk management, while distinguishing scenario-based vulnerabilities from actual current borrower distress.
• Firms should avoid describing the approximately 4,000-household figure as a forecast of current arrears or as an individually identified list of affected customers.

What changed

No binding regulatory requirement, threshold, reporting obligation, or enforcement measure was introduced by this parliamentary reply. MAS confirmed that financial institutions monitor repayment performance and engage borrowers showing signs of financial stress, with assistance tailored to individual circumstances. HDB-financed borrowers may approach HDB for restructuring discussions, bank-financed borrowers may approach their banks, and borrowers already experiencing debt repayment difficulties may seek counselling and debt-management guidance from Credit Counselling Singapore.

Key dates

2026-03-18

The FCA opened its call for input on whether FCA regulation affects SME access to finance.

2026-06-30

The FCA completed the call for input during Q2 2026.

2026-09-17

The FCA published Feedback Statement FS26/2: Supporting SME access to finance.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to record that FS26/2 is a feedback statement rather than a rule change and does not itself require immediate changes to policies, systems or customer communications.
• Consumer-credit lenders may wish to map products involving sole traders and small partnerships against the £25,000 scope threshold and monitor HMT and FCA consultations on the reformed Consumer Credit Act framework.
• Lenders may wish to review repeated customer-information requests, broker-to-lender information flows, declined-application explanations and referral or signposting arrangements to identify avoidable SME application friction.
• Banks, building societies, lenders and brokers may wish to monitor the development of the voluntary UK Finance digital-verification service and assess whether proposed reliance models preserve customer due diligence, anti-money-laundering and other financial-crime obligations.
• Lenders and brokers may wish to review commission arrangements, product governance and disclosures where remuneration could influence referrals of micro-SMEs to high-cost or short-term alternative lending, even where the relevant lending or broker activity is outside the FCA perimeter.
• Accredited Growth Guarantee Scheme lenders may wish to monitor the mandatory code of conduct on personal guarantees and prepare to evidence clear communications and fair and transparent use of guarantees once applicable.
• Open-finance, data and lending businesses may wish to monitor the FCA discussion paper planned for early 2027 and the Government’s planned 2027 consultation, particularly on consent, data access, interoperability, customer authentication and financial-crime controls.
• Firms serving asset-light, newer, regional or underserved SMEs may wish to assess whether underwriting data, product design and application processes adequately address limited trading histories, intangible assets and restricted collateral.

What changed

FS26/2 introduces no new rules, reporting requirements, permissions or implementation deadlines. The FCA will monitor industry work on voluntary digital verification to reduce duplicated customer checks while preserving effective financial-crime controls and firms’ existing legal and regulatory obligations. It will support a more proportionate consumer-credit regime as part of Consumer Credit Act reform, including future consultation on FCA Handbook rules replacing or recasting certain statutory requirements.

Key dates

2026-04-22

The CFPB published a final rule amending Regulation B provisions concerning special purpose credit programs, including new restrictions applicable to programs offered or participated in by for-profit organizations.

2026-07-21

The CFPB's Regulation B amendments became effective. For-profit special purpose credit programs offered or participated in on or after this date must comply with the amended requirements, including the prohibition on using race, color, national origin, or sex as a common eligibility criterion.

2026-08-25

The seven agencies rescinded the 2022 interagency statement and OCC Bulletin 2022-3, effective immediately. Creditors should no longer rely on those issuances or related guidance.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory special purpose credit programs, marketing, eligibility criteria, underwriting policies, written plans, and monitoring practices that were developed or supported by the 2022 interagency statement, OCC Bulletin 2022-3, or related guidance.
• Firms should consider reassessing any program that uses race, color, national origin, or sex as a common eligibility criterion, particularly for credit extended on or after July 21, 2026, against 12 CFR 1002.8 as amended.
• For-profit creditors may wish to confirm that each written special purpose credit program plan contains evidence of need, explains why the relevant class would not receive credit under the organization's ordinary creditworthiness standards, and supports any eligibility characteristic used by the program.
• Compliance teams may wish to remove rescinded guidance from policies, procedures, training materials, legal inventories, product governance documents, and examiner-facing materials, while retaining records needed to explain prior program design and implementation.
• Firms should consider reviewing program communications and applicant data practices for potential discrimination or misleading reliance on the rescinded statement, including communications suggesting that protected-class distinctions are broadly authorized.
• Banks and credit unions may wish to brief fair-lending, legal, product, underwriting, marketing, and model-risk stakeholders and document the governance decision regarding whether each program should be amended, suspended, or continued under current law.

What changed

The 2022 interagency statement and OCC Bulletin 2022-3 are rescinded, effective immediately, and creditors are instructed not to rely on those issuances or related guidance. The rescission does not eliminate the statutory or regulatory framework for special purpose credit programs under ECOA and Regulation B, including 12 CFR 1002.8; rather, it clarifies that those programs remain subject to applicable fair-lending prohibitions. The agencies specifically identify the prior version of Regulation B referenced by the 2022 statement as having been amended.

Key dates

2025-09-10

Tricolor and affiliates filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and moved toward liquidation.

2025-12-17

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges against Tricolor executives in connection with the alleged fraud.

2026-08-18

The SEC announced the civil enforcement action against Daniel Chu, Jerome Kollar, and Ameryn Seibold in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider performing a targeted review of whether the same receivable, loan, vehicle, inventory item, or other asset can be pledged across multiple warehouse facilities, securitizations, lenders, or managed accounts, including through affiliates and special-purpose vehicles.
• Compliance teams may wish to test collateral eligibility and borrowing-base reporting back to source-level records, payment histories, lien and ownership data, servicing systems, and independent third-party evidence rather than relying solely on management certifications.
• Securitization sponsors, underwriters, and investors should consider reviewing controls for detecting loans that are delinquent, charged off, non-paying, fictitious, materially impaired, or otherwise ineligible but reported as current or eligible.
• Firms should consider reconciling loan-level collateral tapes across all funding channels and establishing exception escalation, independent sign-off, segregation of duties, and documented remediation for duplicate identifiers or inconsistent pledging data.
• Finance and compliance functions may wish to assess whether offering documents, investor presentations, lender certificates, and management meetings accurately describe liquidity constraints, funding needs, collateral encumbrances, and portfolio performance.
• Boards and senior-management committees should consider reviewing governance over collateral operations, securitization disclosures, liquidity reporting, related-party or affiliate financing, and controls over executive certifications.
• Investment managers and lenders may wish to incorporate independent collateral verification, borrowing-base audit rights, data-access rights, concentration and duplication analytics, and covenant triggers into new and renewed transactions.
• Firms with relevant exposure should consider preserving records, communications, collateral tapes, system audit trails, certifications, underwriting files, and exception reports in light of parallel SEC and criminal proceedings.

What changed

The publication does not introduce a new rule, threshold, filing requirement, or compliance deadline. It announces an enforcement complaint under the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including alleged control-person liability against Chu and aiding-and-abetting liability against all three defendants. The SEC seeks injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and officer-and-director bars against Chu and Kollar.

Key dates

2020-11-13

The High Court disqualified Howard Roland Duckett from acting as a company director for 10 years under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

2020-12-04

The 10-year company-director disqualification took effect and is stated to run until 2030-12-04.

2025-11-20

The FCA identified this date in consumer communications as the point after which payments requested by Beauforce should be reported; the firm was restricted from regulated activities and ordered to stop accepting consumer money.

2026-08-18

The FCA announced the prohibition of Howard Roland Duckett from performing functions in relation to regulated activities.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review fitness-and-propriety checks for current and prospective senior managers, including searches for director disqualifications, litigation findings, insolvency events, and other adverse information.
• Firms should consider confirming that senior managers have disclosed all matters relevant to their approval and that changes affecting their fitness, propriety, or ability to perform an SMF are escalated and notified to the FCA where required.
• Firms should consider testing compliance with FCA Principle 11, COCON 2.2.4R, and SUP 10C.14.18R in relation to open, cooperative, and timely dealings with the FCA and notification of disqualifications or other relevant changes.
• Boards and compliance functions may wish to assess whether regulatory records, management-accountability maps, company-director registers, and evidence supporting senior-manager attestations are complete, consistent, and independently verifiable.
• Consumer-credit firms should consider reviewing controls over debt-management client payments, client-money safeguarding, communications, and contingency arrangements for transferring customers if permissions are restricted or withdrawn.
• Firms should consider screening current staff and approved persons against the FCA Financial Services Register and relevant Companies House director-disqualification information before appointment and periodically thereafter.
• Compliance teams may wish to use the case in senior-manager and conduct-risk training to reinforce that misleading the FCA or relying on fabricated information can independently support prohibition, even where the underlying misconduct occurred at an unrelated company.

What changed

The FCA made an individual prohibition order under section 56 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and withdrew Duckett’s approval to perform the SMF3 Executive Director and SMF16 Compliance Oversight functions under section 63 of that Act. This is an enforcement outcome against a specific individual rather than a new generally applicable rule. The underlying conduct included inadequate company records, repeated lies and reliance on fabricated evidence in High Court proceedings, and failure to notify the FCA of a director disqualification.

Key dates

2026-08-14

The CFPB announced and implemented the cessation of discretionary publication of complaint narratives and associated visualizations in the Consumer Complaint Database; previously published narratives remain subject to proactive FOIA Reading Room disclosure.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to continue treating CFPB complaints as supervisory and potential enforcement inputs, notwithstanding the removal of narratives from the public database.
• Firms should consider maintaining controls that support complete, accurate, and timely responses to CFPB complaints, including documented investigation, escalation, remediation, and quality-assurance procedures.
• Complaint-management owners may wish to monitor whether the removal of public narratives affects internal trend analysis and should preserve their own historical complaint records and supporting evidence.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should consider reviewing previously published complaint narratives concerning the firm in the CFPB FOIA Reading Room and assessing whether existing disclosure, litigation, reputation, and remediation processes remain appropriate.
• Firms should consider retaining evidence supporting complaint responses because complaint information may continue to be shared with prudential regulators, the FTC, and federal or state agencies, and may remain accessible through FOIA.
• Management may wish to avoid interpreting the change as a basis for reducing complaint-governance staffing, monitoring, root-cause analysis, or board and senior-management reporting.

What changed

The CFPB will no longer publish consumer-submitted complaint narratives or related data visualizations in the Consumer Complaint Database. The Bureau characterizes publication of these materials as discretionary rather than statutorily required and states that the materials are unverified, potentially misleading, and not necessarily evidence of legal violations.

Key dates

20 March 2026

- The FCA published the statement announcing increased scrutiny of Annex 1 firms and warning that registration applications should be expected to take longer

TBD (ongoing, from the date of publication)

- Annex 1 firms that are not registered should submit a registration application before continuing Annex 1 activity, because the FCA states such firms need to be registered for AML purposes

TBD (ongoing supervisory cycle)

- Around 900 Annex 1 firms are subject to FCA information requests to support supervisory risk assessment and intelligence gathering

Suggested considerations

• Confirm whether any UK business line falls within Annex 1 scope and, if so, verify that the entity is registered with the FCA for AML purposes before continuing the activity.
• Submit a registration application immediately if the firm carries on Annex 1 activity without being registered.
• Reassess the firm’s AML framework at entity level, rather than relying on group-level policies or parent-company controls, and document why the controls are appropriate for the firm’s own risks and operations.
• Replace any generic or off-the-shelf procedures with policies, controls, and procedures tailored to the firm’s actual products, customers, geographies, and delivery model.
• Prepare evidence of MLR compliance for FCA review, including risk assessment logic, governance arrangements, customer due diligence processes, and monitoring controls.

What changed

• - The FCA is closely scrutinising applications to register as an Annex 1 firm, indicating a tougher gateway for new registrations and potentially more refusals or delay where evidence is weak.
• Annex 1 firms must demonstrate compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations, rather than merely assert that controls exist.
• The FCA is warning firms that registration applications will take longer, which affects launch plans, transaction timing, and group structuring decisions.
• The FCA has sent an information request to around 900 Annex 1 firms to better understand their activities, business models, and risks.
• The FCA says it will use this information, together with other intelligence, to identify and disrupt financial crime risks in the sector.

Key dates

2026-06-08

CFPB issued the Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status referenced by the agencies

2026-07-13

FDIC, OCC, and NCUA issued the interagency guidance on lending to individuals not legally authorized to work in the United States

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review underwriting standards to confirm that capacity-to-repay analysis captures employment-authorization-related income instability.
• Firms should consider whether credit policy, risk grading, and portfolio monitoring procedures explicitly address elevated repayment uncertainty for non-work-authorized borrowers.
• Institutions may wish to reassess documentation and verification controls for income, employment, and supporting records in light of the agencies' stated focus on safe-and-sound lending.
• Teams should consider whether fair-lending, TILA, and ECOA controls are aligned with the CFPB's June 8, 2026 statement and the interagency guidance.
• Risk and finance functions may wish to evaluate whether allowance, concentration risk, and credit-loss assumptions need updating where exposure to this borrower segment is material.

What changed

The publication does not create a new lending ban or a new standalone rule. Instead, it restates that institutions should identify, measure, monitor, and control the credit risks associated with borrowers who are not legally authorized to work in the United States through underwriting practices that assess willingness and capacity to repay according to the credit terms. The guidance specifically links this issue to the CFPB's June 8, 2026 Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status and reminds creditors of obligations under the Truth in Lending Act as implemented by Regulation Z,...

Key dates

2026-07-13

OCC, FDIC, and NCUA issued the interagency guidance

2026-06-08

CFPB issued its Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status, referenced by the guidance

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review underwriting standards to confirm that repayment capacity, source of repayment, and overall financial condition are assessed consistently for borrowers whose work authorization is uncertain.
• Firms may wish to test whether account management, credit classification, and allowance methodologies adequately capture elevated credit risk linked to employment authorization uncertainty.
• Institutions may wish to review consumer compliance controls for alignment with TILA, Regulation Z, ECOA, and Regulation B when evaluating applicants affected by immigration or work-authorized status.
• Risk and compliance teams may wish to update portfolio monitoring, concentration analysis, and documentation standards so that the identified credit risk factors are reflected in governance and reporting.
• Community banks may wish to verify that loan policy language and examiner-facing documentation clearly show how these risks are being identified, measured, monitored, and controlled.

What changed

The publication is guidance, not a new rule or statute, and it reinforces existing expectations rather than imposing a new legal prohibition. It states that lending to individuals not legally authorized to work in the United States may present elevated credit risk because their ability to generate income, maintain employment, and remain financially stable may be more uncertain.

Key dates

31 July 2023

– Consumer Duty (Principle 12 and PRIN 2A) applies to all new and existing in‑scope products and services open to new business for retail customers

31 July 2024

– Consumer Duty applies to closed products and services (legacy books), extending the expectations on product design, monitoring and fair value to those products

Suggested considerations

• Review and update product governance frameworks to ensure they explicitly incorporate Consumer Duty outcomes, including structured consideration of customer needs, characteristics and objectives at every stage of product design and lifecycle.
• Define and document granular target markets for each retail product and service, clearly articulating which customer segments the product is designed for, and excluding groups for whom the product could cause foreseeable harm.
• Map products and services against vulnerable‑customer characteristics and update design, features, pricing and servicing models to mitigate risks and support good outcomes for vulnerable groups.
• Implement or enhance processes to collect comprehensive management information on consumer outcomes (complaints, customer feedback, usage patterns, lapse and cancellation data, arrears and forbearance metrics) for each product.
• Establish governance mechanisms to ensure that insights from monitoring and MI lead to timely, documented actions to improve products, pricing, communications or customer journeys where emerging risks or poor outcomes are identified.

What changed

• - FCA reinforces that product design must be explicitly based on evidenced consumer needs, characteristics and behaviours, rather than generic assumptions or internal commercial priorities.
• Firms are expected to define target markets at a granular level, avoiding broad or generic categories that mask differing needs or risks (especially for vulnerable customers).
• Product governance must be embedded into business‑as‑usual decision‑making with clear ownership, challenge and accountability, not treated as a one‑off Consumer Duty implementation project.
• Manufacturers and distributors must maintain robust, ongoing monitoring of consumer outcomes using a wide range of management information, including complaints, usage patterns, early cancellations...
• There must be a clear, demonstrable link between monitoring and remedial action; collecting data without acting on emerging risks is characterised as weak practice.

Key dates

18 November 2025

– Consultation on the proposed motor finance redress scheme closes (CP25/27), feeding into the final PS26/3 rules

5 December 2025 Deadline

– Firms must start sending final responses to any motor leasing complaint in line with normal complaint‑handling rules (outside the scheme‑specific pause)

1 May 2026

– FCA confirms its motor finance compensation scheme has been legally challenged, triggering the Upper Tribunal process

31 May 2026

– FCA lifts the general pause on handling certain motor finance complaints, returning many complaints to standard DISP timeframes, alongside the emerging scheme

30 June 2026

– Original end of the implementation period for loans taken out from 1 April 2014 under PS26/3 (now effectively paused for redress calculation/payment/communications)

Suggested considerations

• Identify and maintain a complete inventory of motor finance complaints and agreements that fall within the scheme scope (regulated motor finance with relevant commission arrangements between April 2007 and 2024).
• Continue to gather, centralise and validate data on commission structures, commission levels, and disclosure practices for all in‑scope agreements, including by issuing targeted information requests to brokers and dealers.
• Implement internal workflows to ensure brokers respond to lenders’ information requests within one month, or formally confirm where requested documents or data are not held.
• Review and classify complaints to determine which consumers are not owed compensation under the scheme, including cases outside scope and those lacking discretionary, high or tied commission arrangements, and prepare appropriate communications.
• Assess complaints for time‑bar issues and apply the scheme’s limitation and out‑of‑time principles consistently, documenting rationale for any reliance on time‑bar to decline redress.

What changed

• - Parts of the FCA motor finance consumer redress scheme under PS26/3 are formally suspended by order of the Upper Tribunal, on terms agreed between the FCA and four challengers (Consumer...
• During the suspension, firms are not required to calculate redress, pay compensation, or send communications about compensation owed under the scheme according to the original timetable.
• All non‑suspended rules remain fully applicable, including duties to identify in‑scope complaints and agreements, gather commission and disclosure data (including from brokers), and maintain records.
• Lenders must continue to identify relevant complaints and agreements falling within scheme scope (motor finance agreements between 2007 and 2024 with potentially unfair commission arrangements).
• Firms must continue to gather data on commission arrangements and disclosure practices, including obtaining information from brokers and confirming where such information is not held.

Key dates

26 June 2026

- CBI publishes the warning notice against Loan Empower Solution as an unauthorised retail credit firm and lists the firm under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013

Suggested considerations

• Review and update internal unauthorised-firm and scam monitoring procedures to ensure Loan Empower Solution and its identifiers (name, website, address, email, telephone number) are captured in watchlists, fraud rules, and staff guidance.
• Screen recent and ongoing customer transactions and communications for any references to Loan Empower Solution or similar lending scams requesting upfront “loan fees”, and escalate any matches to fraud and compliance teams.
• Update customer-facing communications and website scam warnings to highlight the risk of advance fee fraud in retail credit, referencing the need to check the CBI registers and unauthorised-firms list before engaging with lenders.
• Ensure call centre, branch, and digital support staff are trained to identify and respond to customers approached by unauthorised lenders, including how to advise customers to verify authorisation status on the CBI website and to report suspected scams.
• Incorporate checks against the CBI unauthorised firms search into onboarding, due diligence, and third-party risk management processes for any lending-related partnerships, introducers, or lead generators.

What changed

• - The CBI has added Loan Empower Solution (website: lesolution.eu) to its public list of unauthorised firms and explicitly categorised it as an unauthorised retail credit firm operating without the...
• The CBI has publicly stated that Loan Empower Solution appears to be operating an advance fee fraud model, where upfront payments are requested for credit services that are never provided.
• The CBI has confirmed that the firm is using a purported Irish business address (The Merrion Buildings, 18–20 Merrion Street, Dublin 2, D02 XH98), a non-Irish telephone number, and a specified...
• The firm’s name has been published under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013, reaffirming the CBI’s use of its statutory power to publicly identify entities...
• The CBI has directed the public to its unauthorised firms search and financial scams information pages, implicitly reinforcing expectations that firms promote use of these tools in their consumer...

Key dates

2026-06-24

CFPB published the announcement describing the consumer complaint portal reforms.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to obtain and operationalize the revised CFPB Company Portal Manual, mapping each substantive and administrative response category to documented decision criteria and approval controls.
• Nationwide consumer reporting agencies and other portal participants should consider testing whether complaint response coding is applied consistently across business units, products, and servicing locations, particularly for non-monetary relief and administrative returns.
• Firms should consider retaining evidence of the identity, authority, and relationship of any third party submitting or assisting with a complaint, while ensuring those controls do not improperly prevent authorized representatives from obtaining assistance.
• CRAs should consider enhancing intake and case-management fields to identify the consumer's prior direct FCRA dispute, the relevant dispute date, information disputed, investigation outcome, and supporting documentation.
• Compliance teams may wish to distinguish CFPB portal handling from the underlying duties in FCRA sections 611 and 623, including the reasonable-investigation and reinvestigation obligations that may arise after a consumer dispute is properly received.
• Companies should consider monitoring portal communications and API-related implementation materials for additional CFPB specifications concerning address validation, data exchange, administrative response categories, and apparent abuse.
• Complaint-management governance should consider the CFPB's 30-calendar-day operational backlog definition for internal escalation and management information, while avoiding the assumption that the definition changes a statutory response deadline.
• Credit repair and consumer-assistance businesses should review whether their complaint-submission practices accurately identify third-party involvement and avoid automated, duplicative, or unsupported disputes that could be treated as process abuse.

What changed

The CFPB issued a revised Company Portal Manual clarifying the use of substantive and administrative closure categories, including the category "Closed with non-monetary relief," to improve consistency across companies and CRAs. The portal now requires users creating online accounts to verify both an email address and mobile phone number through two-factor authentication, adds relationship categories and clarifying text requiring third parties to disclose their involvement, and is expected to add address validation at complaint submission.

Key dates

TBD

– HM Treasury’s policy statement has been published, but no specific implementation dates for CCA reform or FCA rule changes are given in the FCA response

TBD

– FCA consultation(s) on key elements of the consumer credit framework are announced as forthcoming; exact dates are not yet specified

TBD

– Future milestones such as FCA Policy Statements, Handbook changes and statutory amendments will follow, but no indicative timetable is provided in the FCA response

Suggested considerations

• Establish an internal CCA reform working group (legal, compliance, product, operations) to track HM Treasury and FCA publications on Consumer Credit Act reform and prepare coordinated responses.
• Map all existing product lines and customer journeys against current CCA and CONC requirements to identify areas most likely to be affected if obligations move from legislation into FCA rules (e.g. pre‑contract disclosure, notices of sums in arrears, default notices, early settlement calculations).
• Review your Consumer Duty implementation for consumer credit products (especially outcomes testing, fair value assessments and customer support processes) to ensure it can absorb additional or re‑framed requirements that may migrate from the CCA into the FCA Handbook.
• Compile an inventory of CCA‑dependent documentation (agreements, pre‑contract information, statutory notices, arrears and default letters, early settlement communications) and assess the effort required to update them if the form or content requirements are recast in FCA rules.
• Enhance regulatory horizon‑scanning processes to include systematic monitoring of HM Treasury CCA reform material and FCA consultations, ensuring early awareness of consultation questions and proposed Handbook text.

What changed

• - The UK Government has confirmed a programme to reform the Consumer Credit Act 1974, moving away from detailed prescriptive legislative requirements towards a more flexible framework based on FCA...
• The FCA has stated its intention to consult on “key elements” of the consumer credit framework that are currently in primary or secondary legislation, where it has the power to do so, covering the...
• The Consumer Duty (Principle 12, PRIN 2A) is explicitly confirmed as the overarching framework for the future consumer credit regime, meaning consumer credit firms will be expected to demonstrate...
• The FCA has signalled that existing consumer rights and protections under the CCA (including cancellation and withdrawal rights, termination, and early settlement rights) will be reviewed and...
• Any new FCA rules arising from CCA reform will be supported by a formal cost–benefit analysis and shaped through stakeholder engagement, implying a structured consultation process (likely one or more...

Key dates

14 April 2026

Publication date of warning notice; Immediate public alert on unauthorised status of Finance Advice Help.[Source URL: https://www.centralbank.ie/news/article/finance-advice-help--central-bank-of-ireland-issues-warning-on-unauthorised-firm]

Suggested considerations

• Verify firm status: Use CBI's unauthorised firms search tool before engaging with any retail credit provider (https://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/how-we-regulate/authorisation/unauthorised-firms/search-unauthorised-firms).
• Report suspicions: Contact CBI at (01) 224 5800 or via direct reporting portal for any dealings with Finance Advice Help or similar entities.[Source URL: https://www.centralbank.ie/news/article/finance-advice-help--central-bank-of-ireland-issues-warning-on-unauthorised-firm]
• Educate clients/staff: Disseminate scam protection guidance from www.centralbank.ie/financialscams; implement "SAFE test" for verification.[Source URL: https://www.centralbank.ie/news/article/finance-advice-help--central-bank-of-ireland-issues-warning-on-unauthorised-firm]
• Monitor clones: Screen for impersonation risks, as seen in related warnings (e.g., Shamrock Lend clone).

What changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement action via a public warning notice. It reinforces existing requirements under the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 (section 53), which empowers CBI to publish names of unauthorised firms offering regulated services like retail credit. No new rules are introduced; it signals ongoing vigilance against unauthorised retail credit providers.[Source URL: https://www.centralbank.ie/news/article/finance-advice-help--central-bank-of-ireland-issues-warning-on-unauthorised-firm]

Key dates

2026-04-09

FSCA press release on Fusion Guarantees and unregistered insurance business

2026-03-23

Gauteng Division of the High Court delivered the judgment referenced in the press release

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether construction, performance, or surety-style products could be characterised as non-life insurance under the Insurance Act.
• Firms may wish to review whether their current authorisations actually cover guarantee products that assume contingent obligations in exchange for consideration.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to align product documentation, marketing language, and contractual mechanics with the true regulatory character of the instrument.
• Counterparty due diligence processes may wish to verify whether guarantee issuers are authorised as insurers before acceptance of the instrument.
• Boards and senior management may wish to review governance controls for regulatory classification risk around bespoke guarantee products.

What changed

The High Court granted the FSCA’s counter-application and declared Fusion’s construction guarantees to be non-life insurance policies under the Insurance Act. The court held that issuing those guarantees without insurance authorisation breached section 5(1) of the Insurance Act, and it interdicted Fusion from issuing construction guarantees going forward. The court also declared the guarantees referenced by Elasah to be insurance policies and ordered costs against Fusion and Elasah.

Key dates

1 February 2021

12 December 2023; Period of Buckley's admitted misconduct (diverting payments and misrepresenting qualifications)

25 February 2026

Effective date of the indefinite prohibition on Buckley performing any controlled functions

01 April 2026

Publication date of the CBI press release announcing the Prohibition Notice

Suggested considerations

• Firms employing similar roles: Immediately review invoicing processes to ensure payments direct only to firm accounts, with segregation of duties and dual approvals for client billing.
• Fitness and Probity assessments: Conduct enhanced due diligence on customer-facing staff, verifying qualifications via independent sources and monitoring for personal financial gain conflicts.
• Incident reporting: Escalate any suspected integrity breaches (e.g., qualification misrepresentation or fund diversion) to CBI under fitness and probity notification obligations.
• Training programs: Update mandatory training on Fitness and Probity Standards (available at https://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/fitness-and-probity), focusing on honesty in client interactions.
• Prohibition checks: Screen all controlled function holders against CBI's public prohibitions list before approvals or role changes.

What changed

This is not a new regulation but an enforcement outcome under the existing Fitness and Probity Regime, established by the Central Bank Reform Act 2010, which mandates high standards of competence, integrity, and honesty for individuals in controlled functions. No regulatory changes are introduced; instead, it reinforces enforcement mechanisms, including investigations and prohibitions for breaches, particularly in customer-facing roles where honesty is paramount.

Key dates

6 April 2007

1 November 2024; Scope of agreements eligible for compensation

26 March 2020 Deadline

Cut-off for excluding high commission cases if clearly disclosed (firms must explain and allow FOS challenge)

2026 (this year)

Millions compensated

30 June 2026

End of implementation for 1 April 2014+ loans; lenders then have 3 months to notify complainants of redress

31 August 2026

End of implementation for 6 April 2007-31 March 2014 loans; lenders then have 3 months to notify complainants and 6 months for eligible non-complainants

Suggested considerations

• Identify all in-scope agreements (2007-2024 with broker commissions); assess eligibility against tightened criteria (e.g., undisclosed DCA/high commission/tie).
• Contact complainants within 3 months post-implementation; eligible non-complainants within 6 months; invite scheme participation (6-month consumer response window).
• Calculate redress per formula (commission-based, capped, with interest); pay promptly, allowing set-off against customer debts where applicable.
• Gather records now (FCA expectation pre-rules); handle exclusions/exceptions with explanations; prepare for FOS challenges on time-bars.
• Brokers: Respond to lender information requests.

What changed

• - Tightened eligibility: Excludes minimal commission agreements (£120 or less pre-1 April 2014; £150 or less post), zero APRs, unused DCAs, and contractual ties where lenders prove visible...
• Two schemes: Separate for 6 April 2007-31 March 2014 and 1 April 2014-1 November 2024 to mitigate legal challenges on pre-2014 powers.
• Compensation adjustments: Reflects higher 2007-2014 losses; capped in ~1/3 cases to avoid over-compensation.
• Streamlined operations: Lenders contact only complainants or eligible non-complainants; no recorded delivery required, cutting delivery costs >40%.
• Scope expansion: Covers DCAs, high commissions, and contractual ties under Consumer Credit Act 1974 ss.140A-C; includes deceased consumers.