Should the FCA Tighten the Payday Loan Cap?

- by Elizabeth Redfern
Guide: The Effects of Payday Loan Regulation – Chapter 13

In the first part of the conclusion, we discussed why the FCA’s review concluded not to loosen their cap on the payday loan industry. However, there was also another side to the story: should the FCA tighten the payday loan cap?

2 people talking about whether the fca should tighten the payday loan cap - cashfloat

Why don’t the FCA Tighten the Payday Loan Cap?

When the details of the proposed cap were first released in April 2014, many activists were of the opinion that the cap was too loose. If the cap is meant to protect vulnerable consumers from the astronomical interest rates and charges, they reasoned, it should be set much tighter. Payday lenders are still allowed to charge exorbitant rates – not as high as previously. It is still far higher than mainstream credit products. Many felt that if the FCA are putting in caps, they should do it properly. They should provide a full protection to the consumers and tighten the payday loan cap.

In this article, we’ll explore the main potential reasons for tightening the cap.
  • What actually happened
  • Explain the reasoning behind the FCA’s decision not to change the current cap.
  • Are borrowers suffering financially after taking out payday loans?
  • Are applicants who can’t really afford the loan still being approved?
  • Should the scope be extended to cover other high-cost credit markets?

Do HCSTC Borrowers Suffer Financially?

In order to answer this question, the review looked at the financial situation of HCSTC borrowers in the 3-12 months following their loan. In comparison to people who did not take out a payday/short term loan, borrowers tend to be more at risk of missing a loan payment or another type of bad credit ‘event’, even with their credit history taken into account.

This could be a warning signal, indicating that short term loans UK are having a negative impact on consumers’ finances. If this is so, it would make a strong case to support tightening the cap.

However, comparing these statistics to data from before the cap lead the FCA to conclude that the risks have stayed roughly the same. While HCSTC borrowers do tend to experience a decline in their financial stability in the year after they take out their loan, this does not seem to have been affected by the cap. Therefore, the FCA is not of the opinion that tightening the cap would make a significant difference.

the fca dont want to tighten the payday loan cap - apply now with higher acceptance - cashfloat

Can Borrowers Afford their Loans?

One of the outcomes of the cap that the FCA had hoped for was that payday lenders would redesign their business model to stop lending to high-risk consumers. The idea was that these people couldn’t afford the loan anyway, so they should not be approved for one. The stricter the regulations, the more people would be declined. We discussed this idea in great detail in Chapter 9.

The question now is: should more people be getting declined? As we saw in Chapter 10, being declined was for the consumer’s benefit in the majority of cases. Furthermore, the people who did take out a payday loan are still more likely to suffer a financial decline afterwards. To tighten the payday loan cap would force lenders to narrow their eligibility criteria further. Consequently, more people would be declined for a loan. Is this a move the FCA should make?

At the time of the cap, however, the FCA explained that the risk involved in taking out HCSTC products applies even to customers with decent credit scores. They, therefore, consider that to tighten the paydya loan cap would not eliminate this risk.

caps are not tightened - cashfloat

Should the Scope be Extended?

There was another concern with the current cap, regarding the scope of the regulations. If they only covered HCSTC, would declined applicants just move on to other high-cost credit products such as rent-to-own and doorstep lending? Or even worse, would payday lenders just ‘jiggle’ their products so that they no longer fall under the category of HCSTC, thereby avoiding the cap?

If this was indeed the case, then extending the scope of the cap to cover more products would provide a greater level of security to vulnerable consumers.

We looked into the matter of other HCSTC products in great detail in Chapter 11. There, we discussed how the FCA had not found a movement towards these products. Additionally, although there was some need for an investigation, simply extending the caps would not work as each market had different requirements.

Concerning new products appearing, this did in fact occur. The FCA had not expected the rise of instalment loans, a product which is becoming increasingly popular today. However, as we explored in Chapter 8, this does not seem to be a serious change. Traditional instant payday loans are still on offer. And instalment loans allow consumers a more significant deal of flexibility, lowering the chances of them missing repayments over the course of the loan.

After looking into these two points, the FCA has decided not to extend and tighten the payday loan cap. While other markets do still pose a significant danger to vulnerable consumers, the board will take a more in-depth look into each individual market. They will then decide how to regulate each one best. Jiggling the products was not widespread, and where it did happen (with instalment loans), it does not seem to have caused any harm to its consumers.

Apply now and benefit from the FCA raising the cost caps

Further Considerations

The FCA also considered the ramifications that tightening the cap would have on HCSTC lenders. When setting the cap, they had predicted that a huge proportion of the market would shut down (see Chapter 6 for more details). While this did happen, the numbers of lenders in the HCSTC market now is still higher than the FCA had predicted.

If the FCA would tighten the payday loan cap, it would cause a further reduction in lenders’ profits. This would make it even more difficult to stay afloat in the HCSTC market. It would result in more lenders closing their doors, in line with the FCA’s original predictions.

However, the number of lenders is likely to shrink, as many lenders are currently operating at a loss and will soon close. This is particularly true of high street lenders, who have a higher fixed operating cost. Taking this into account, the FCA has decided that the large amount of operating lenders is currently not a cause to tighten the payday loan cap.


Conclusion

In this final chapter of the series, we looked at why the FCA have decided that the cap was not set too high. We examined the concerns about risks for consumers as well as the limited scope of the cap and explained how the FCA reached their conclusion.

At Cashfloat, we think that the cap has worked brilliantly. Consumers are now more protected than ever before and are far more aware of their rights. While we always promoted Treating Customers Fairly as an essential component of our business model, we’re happy that all UK citizens are now protected even if they choose to borrow elsewhere. At Cashfloat, we truly care for our customers.

Cashfloat - Apply now and benefit from the FCA raising the cost caps
Share
About The Author
Elizabeth Redfern
Elizabeth Redfern is a born and bred Londoner who loves the city life. She is a proud chocoholic who enjoys reading, jogging and eating - especially chocolate! Elizabeth attained a first class degree in Mathematics but chose to make a career out of her real passion, writing. She has published many poems and short stories, but decided to join the Cashfloat educational channel writing team because she is passionate about helping people take care of their finances leaving them free to enjoy the finer points of life - most notably (in her opinion), chocolate!
Blog disclaimer

We do all we can to bring you interesting, practical and valuable information. However, please understand the following:

Information and data on this blog are for information purposes only. While we work hard to ensure it is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, suitability or validity of any information provided on the blog. We will not be liable for any errors, omissions, losses, injuries or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided with no warranties and confers no rights.

If you feel that any of the information published on our blog is not accurate, please notify us via email at compliance@cashfloat.co.uk

Cashfloat is rated 4.82 stars by Reviews.co.uk based on 601 merchant reviews

4.82 / 5 Rating
601 Reviews
Thank you cash flow very quick and easy application very helpful staff no hassle
Miss J
This has been very helpful to me and my family thank you
Anonymous
Zero hassle accepted me with bad credit file got me out of a right financial muddle thank you so much
Anonymous
Bottom content

Cashfloat is a trading style of Western Circle Limited - Company Registration Number: 7581337. We are fully authorised and regulated by The Financial Conduct Authority. FCA full permission license: 714479. ICO Registration Number: Z3305234


* Cashfloat terms and conditions apply. Applicants must be 18 or over. All loans are subject to affordability, applicant verification and traditional credit checks via various national databases by Cashfloat responsible lending policy. In most cases, loan decisions may take up to 30 minutes during office working hours. If your bank does not support Faster Payments, funds will be sent to your account the same day as approval so long as you’re approved by 16:30.


Representative example: Borrow £600 for 4 months, 4 monthly repayments of £247.68. Total repayment £990.71, interest rate p.a. (fixed) 270.10%. RAPR 997%.

Warning: Late repayment can cause you serious money problems. For help, go to moneyadviceservice.org.uk

This site uses cookies. Find out more.