Well, well, well. It appears that someone in the big halls of power has finally grown a backbone. The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR), that supposedly independent body often relegated to the sidelines, has decided to put principles before profits. And oh, how it’s ruffled a few feathers at the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). What did the PSR do that was so scandalous, you ask? They had the audacity to stand up for victims of push payment fraud, ensuring quicker and better recompense. It’s enough to make the Treasury and FCA clutch their pearls in unison.
Let’s start with a little background. The PSR, in a rare moment of clarity, decided that victims of authorised push payment (APP) fraud should actually get their money back. Shocking, I know. From 7 October, banks and fintechs will be forced to fully reimburse these victims up to a limit of £415,000. A fair shake for the people who’ve been scammed out of their hard-earned cash? Apparently, that’s an idea too radical for the Treasury and FCA to stomach.
You see, the PSR didn’t just conjure this up overnight. They consulted, deliberated, and in true bureaucratic fashion, probably had endless meetings about it for over two years. Yet, when they finally made a decision that prioritised consumers over corporate profits, the reaction from those in power was nothing short of a tantrum. The Treasury, ever the champion of the financial elite, started fretting about the impact on the poor, beleaguered banking sector. After all, we must protect competition, even if it means hanging fraud victims out to dry, right?
Not to be outdone, the FCA also jumped in, wringing its hands about the potential “long-lasting damage” to the industry. Because heaven forbid we do anything that might inconvenience the banks or, worse, their shareholders. It’s almost as if the FCA has forgotten that their mandate includes protecting consumers. But then again, it’s easy to lose sight of that when you’re busy making sure the bankers are well taken care of.
The whole situation has exposed what many have suspected all along: the Treasury and FCA are more interested in preserving the status quo than in doing what’s right by the public. They dress it up as “competition preservation,” but let’s call it what it really is—protectionism for the banking industry, plain and simple. And when the PSR dared to put consumers first, they were met with all the grace of a toddler denied a second helping of pudding.
Even Labour’s City minister, Tulip Siddiq, couldn’t resist getting in on the act, echoing concerns about the October deadline being “too tight.” It’s almost comical how quickly politicians find their voices when it comes to defending the interests of big business. But when it’s time to stand up for the little guy, suddenly it’s all too difficult and complicated.
Let’s not forget the dramatic exit of Chris Hemsley, the former head of the PSR, who stepped down amidst this kerfuffle. According to industry gossip, the Treasury wasn’t too happy with him either—rumour has it they even wanted to “fire” him. But, of course, Hemsley’s departure had “nothing at all” to do with the backlash over these new rules.
Sure, and I suppose pigs will be flying over the Thames any day now.
The Treasury, FCA, and their allies in the banking sector may huff and puff, but the fact remains that the PSR has done something truly commendable. They’ve put the interests of fraud victims ahead of the profits of bankers. It’s a rare win for the public, and one that exposes just how far removed our so-called regulators are from the people they’re supposed to protect.
In the end, what this debacle really shows is the true colours of those in power. When faced with the choice between standing up for consumers or preserving the profits of their banking buddies, they’ve made it clear where their loyalties lie. It’s not with the victims of fraud, that’s for sure. But for once, the PSR has shown that it’s possible to do what’s right, even if it means upsetting a few people in high places.
And to the Treasury and FCA, I say this: maybe it’s time to grow up and accept that protecting consumers sometimes means upsetting the status quo. Or, at the very least, try not to throw such a public tantrum the next time an independent body dares to do its job.
Comments