Wonga - what, no fine?

wonga sign Wonga is to pay compensation to customers it sent letter to from fake law firms

The immediate question to strike you when you look at the announcement this morning on Wonga is why has the payday lender not been fined?

It would seem a pretty open and shut case. Wonga sent out fake lawyers' letters to 45,000 people who were in arrears threatening legal action.

The letters had bogus letterheads claiming they were from firms with exotic names such as "Chainey, D'Amato & Shannon" and "Barker and Lowe Legal Recoveries". No such businesses existed.

The Financial Conduct Authority also found evidence that Wonga added charges to people's accounts to cover "administration fees" for the letters which it had written itself.

That takes some chutzpah.

Insufficient controls

The second part of the FCA's findings it published this morning concerns over-charging people for the loans they had taken out. It seems that 200,000 people fall into this category - though the over-charging sums are relatively small at less than a fiver.

Such was the confusion at the company that Wonga actually lost more money under-charging people than it gained from the over-charging. Understandably, the company is not going to chase those who haven't paid enough.

The cases cover a period between 2008 and 2010 when the business was growing rapidly. And, clearly, with insufficient controls.

Wonga has agreed to pay compensation to the victims which the FCA says could total £2.6m. "Could" is the operative word - it depends on people coming forward and claiming as well as Wonga pro-actively finding them.

People move around. Many people who take out Wonga loans are students or young, highly mobile workers.

The compensation is all very well, and indeed the FCA has praised Wonga for co-operating with the inquiry.

'Pretty ridiculous'

But shouldn't there be a fine as well?

Well, the explanation for why there isn't could well make an episode of Yes Minister.

The original investigation into Wonga was started in 2011 by the Office of Fair Trading. The OFT was disbanded this year and its functions for consumer credit companies handed to the FCA.

The FCA does not have the power to fine a company for errors it made before it was regulated by the FCA.

Which might strike some in this case as pretty ridiculous.

Firstly, why did the OFT take so long to come to any conclusions about Wonga that the government had already decided to close it down?

Maybe the two issues are linked. OFT was certainly rarely described as "fleet footed".

Secondly, why weren't some reserve powers contained in the legislation changing the role of the OFT to allow the FCA to retrospectively fine organisations in certain, carefully prescribed situations?

Of course, retrospective action has to be carefully controlled. But as in the Payment Protection Insurance debacle, even if the rules against the behaviour may not have existed at the time, financial institutions can still be obliged to pay redress.

Compensation is one thing. A fine on top of that is supposed to be the punishment for bad behaviour.

Kamal Ahmed Article written by Kamal Ahmed Kamal Ahmed Business editor

Lloyds’ results will focus on the dividend and pay

The chief executive’s remuneration has been sparked by the success of the bank.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Kamal

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 66.

    Never mind the Newcastle United player's, what about all the ignorant people walking around the city advocating Wonga for free.

    I often wonder just how many of them know who Adrian Beercroft is ( Wonga share holder and Tory advisor) the person who advised they changed employment rules to make it easier for companies to sack people.

    Their association to my city makes the blood boil.

  • rate this

    Comment number 65.

    61. Man in London 
    1 HOUR AGO

    Stop this fine nonsense. 

    Criminal prosecutions of the people involved. 

    Anything else is worthless.
    True, since the fines will be paid from the proceeds of this fraud.

    Just like the rest of them who live the high life on our money.
    When they get caught out, they pay out from our own money.

    A good crack to be on.

  • rate this

    Comment number 64.

    Why bother fining companies?
    They just pass it on to the customers they ripped off in the first place- a double whammy.
    Limied liability companies are just that- vehicles to protect the guilty, so that directors can act awfully with impunity.

    But why does the BBC go along with the joke?

    Criminal prosecution and heavy sentencesare the answer.

  • rate this

    Comment number 63.

    IDS seems to be able to write his own retrospective legislation if the need arises, as in the poundland ruling.

  • rate this

    Comment number 62.

    All Pay Day loan companies are preying on the weakest and less able in our society. Why not outlaw the whole concept of commercial payday loan companies and build up/support Credit Unions who could provide the finance at a fraction of the cost.


Comments 5 of 66


Features & Analysis

From BBC Capital


  • BatteriesClick Watch

    More power to your phone - the lithium-ion batteries that could last twice as long

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.