Related provisions for DISP App 1.3.5
21 - 37 of 37 items.
(1) If an obligor approach is being taken with respect to retail exposures (that is, the application of the definition of default at an obligor level rather than at a facility level as set out in BIPRU 4.6.21 R,) a firm should ensure that the PD associated with unsecured exposures is not understated as a result of the presence of any collateralised exposures. A firm should be able to explain to the FSA, if asked, how it has ensured that its estimate of PD is appropriate for both
To be an eligible complainant a person must also have a complaint which arises from matters relevant to one or more of the following relationships with the respondent:127(1) the complainant is (or was) a customer of the respondent;(2) the complainant is (or was) a potential customer of the respondent;(3) the complainant is the holder, or the beneficial owner, of units in a collective investment scheme and the respondent is the operator or depositary of the scheme;(4) the complainant
This appendix sets out the approach and standards which firms should use when investigating complaints relating to the sale of endowment policies for the purposes of achieving capital repayment of a mortgage. It is not intended to be comprehensive. It is primarily concerned with the assessment of whether the complainant may have suffered financial loss, and if so, how much that loss is, and therefore what amount a firm should consider offering by way of fair and appropriate compensation
Some typical examples where the business test is unlikely to be satisfied are:(1) when an individual enters into or administers a one-off mortgage securing a loan to a friend or member of his family whether at market interest rates or not; or(2) when a person provides a service without any expectation of reward or payment of any kind, such as advice given or arrangements made by many Citizens Advice Bureaux and other voluntary sector agencies (but see PERG 4.3.8G (3) where payment