Share this post
Authorised push payment (APP) fraud has been steadily climbing the charts of global payment frauds with nearly £240m lost to UK consumers and businesses in the first six months of 2023.
The Payment Systems Regulator’s (PSR) announcement in June 2023 highlighted the urgency to counter this issue by proposing a new reimbursement framework. The Payment Association’s , published in collaboration with Form3, offers insights into the industry’s preparedness and concerns as we edge closer to the regulatory deadline.
Unravelling the institutional landscape
Among the respondents, a significant 68.8% operate as selling participants directly connected to the Faster Payments Service (FPS). At the same time, 18.8% navigate their financial transactions using a Nostro account with a different entity. Another 6.2% favour agency banking. The diversity in institutional operation modes suggests that the PSR’s proposed obligations might be perceived and implemented differently across the spectrum. With varying operational frameworks, the capacity to counter APP fraud and align with the PSR’s requirements might differ significantly.
Final legal instruments will be published in December 2023, finalising the mechanism for refunding victims and the definition of gross negligence and customer vulnerability, which further adds to the complexity of ensuring uniform understanding and implementation across various institutional types.
Ticking clock: Anticipated readiness for new PSR obligations
The 7 October 2024 deadline stands as a significant marker for the industry. However, there’s a pronounced call for clarity. A dominating 81.2% believe that the PSR must provide more explicit guidance, revealing an industry that’s looking for direction. Moreover, only 12.5% of banks responded positively about being prepared for the PSR’s obligations by October 2024. This implies that the majority of banks need clarity in order to expedite their efforts to align with the regulations.
Drawing a parallel with the survey’s primary objectives, we aimed to gauge institutional readiness for the impending APP rules. The substantial uncertainty reflected in the 81.2% underlines the necessity for enhanced communication from regulatory bodies. A significant 36% or respondents are concerned about their ability to fund reimbursements, especially among the smaller participants of the faster payments network.
“Will mandating the cost of fraud to institutions reduce the overall fraud cost to the UK economy? The rules will have a much larger impact on institutions which do not currently have comprehensive financial crime solutions from others. As well as mandating the cost aspect, more needs to be done to create national solutions for better fraud identification, investigation, and prevention, requiring banking and tech industry collaboration,” says Nick Fleetwood, head of data services, Form3.
The challenge spectrum
The survey sheds light on multiple challenges. The complexity of processing reimbursements stands out for 64.3% of the respondents, driven by the lack of clarity around this instrument before the final publication from the PSR . Half the institutions highlight concerns related to internal resource constraints and tooling, indicating potential scalability and efficiency issues as the rules come into play. Nearly 30% of those surveyed emphasised challenges around screening inbound transactions for fraud risk.
Furthermore, a substantial 50% underscore the challenge of meeting new reporting requirements to Pay.UK. This sentiment echoes the survey’s objective to understand what tools or resources are necessary for institutions to be ready by April 2024. Clear, streamlined reporting processes are evidently high on the industry’s wish list. However, there’s a shared concern that manual processes might be introduced to facilitate the rules, while many respondents favour comprehensive industry-wide technical solutions, which should ideally be tested before October 2024.
A call for clarity
One can’t help but notice the recurring theme of ‘clarity’ resonating through the survey. Institutions seem particularly keen on gaining insights into the ‘gross negligence’ definition (81.2%), liability positions (68.8%), and the intricacies of vulnerability (62.5%). These figures might suggest that while institutions are not against the spirit of the PSR’s legislation, they find its current form somewhat nebulous.
Given the backdrop, this theme aligns with the open questions the PSR or Pay.UK have yet to clarify or finalise. The evergreen debate on defining ‘gross negligence’, discerning ‘prompt reporting’, and understanding ‘vulnerability’ are evident pain points, potentially acting as stumbling blocks to seamless implementation.
The transitioning phase: A split vote
Our survey participants seemed divided on the preferred transition period post the rules’ clarification. It’s intriguing that while 50% advocate for a minimum of a 12-month period, 31.2% feel that half that time should suffice. The variance here possibly hints at a split in institutional confidence or perhaps operational agility.
“The PSR’s proposals overlook the support needed by small innovative payment firms facing heavy regulatory burdens. This could drive some out of business, missing an opportunity for regulator-encouraged collaboration in preventing financial crime, rather than making it a competitive issue,” says Jane Jee, lead of project financial crime at The Payments Association.
Post the rule’s potential enactment, concerns seem to revolve around first-party fraud, the survival of smaller PSPs in a potentially less competitive environment, and the overarching responsibility of defining APP fraud cases. These anxieties, especially regarding smaller PSPs, might be indicative of fears that compliance costs and challenges could lead to industry consolidation, reducing consumer choice.
Charting the path ahead
Responses suggest a unanimous call for more proactive measures. Strengthening data sharing mechanisms, intensifying education efforts for payment users, and establishing shared financial and technical liabilities with tech platforms are some of the focal recommendations. These reflect a broader sentiment: while institutions are ready to adapt and align, they hope for an environment that fosters collaboration, knowledge sharing, and shared accountability.
“Financial fraud is a national emergency needing effective preventive measures. Bringing every player, including big tech and merchants, to the table with state-of-the-art data sharing solutions is crucial. Mandating reimbursement doesn’t solve fraud issues but could encourage more first party fraud,” says Riccardo Tordera, head of policy and government relations at The Payments Association.
In conclusion, the survey paints a vivid picture of an industry standing at the crossroads of innovation, regulation, and adaptation. While the PSR’s intentions are unanimously acknowledged as vital, the journey to October 2024 seems rife with challenges, calls for clarity, and a collective aspiration for a collaborative road ahead. The ball is now in the court of regulatory bodies to respond, guide, and collaborate for a fraud-resistant future.
Nick Fleetwood is head of data services at Form3.