15DEC VISA

20DEC

BAS

Based on the review of the provided files and the regulatory context surrounding Visa and the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) activity in December 2025, here is the Custom Balancing Act Professional Report. This report evaluates the Judicial Review (JR) opportunities regarding the PSR’s recent decisions on card scheme and processing fees, applying the “WPI” (Wider Public Interest) versus “EE” (Economic Efficiency) framework detailed in your uploaded documents.

CUSTOM BALANCING ACT REPORT: VISA v PAYMENT SYSTEMS REGULATOR (DECEMBER 2025)

Executive Summary

This report analyses the potential Judicial Review opportunities arising from the PSR’s December 2025 regulatory action (referenced as the 15 Dec Visa decision). The focus is on the “Balancing Act” between Economic Efficiency (EE) goals—such as lowering merchant costs—and Wider Public Interest (WPI) goals—such as innovation, security, and financial stability. The analysis utilizes the specific grounds and definitions found in the “WPI” and “JR” files provided.

Opportunity 1: Procedural Unfairness regarding Disclosure of Evidence (The “Gist” Argument)

Context: The PSR’s decision relies heavily on profitability data and “cost analysis” to justify intervention in scheme fees. Visa may argue that the PSR failed to disclose the underlying data or the methodology used to calculate “excessive profits,” preventing them from properly responding during the consultation.

The Balancing Act:

  • Regulator’s Position (EE Focus): The PSR argues that confidentiality rings and redacted reports are sufficient to protect sensitive market data while allowing for a decision that promotes Economic Efficiency (EE) by reducing costs for acquirers and merchants. The regulator prioritizes administrative efficiency and the speed of the remedy over full transparency.

  • Applicant’s Position (Visa – Due Process/WPI): Visa contends that the failure to disclose the granular “profitability” data breaches the fundamental duty of fairness. Without seeing the data, they cannot correct errors of fact. This touches upon the “equality of arms” principle. In the Facebook v CMA context, courts have held that while full disclosure isn’t always required, the “gist” must be sufficient to allow a defense. If the data is flawed, the intervention risks harming WPI goals like “financial stability” and “innovation” by wrongly penalizing a firm based on inaccurate profit margins.

Detailed Assessment:

The files indicate that while regulators like the CMA (and by extension PSR) have discretion to curtail disclosure for administrative efficiency, parties are entitled to understand the “gist” of the case against them. A “balancing act” must be struck between the regulator’s need to protect third-party confidential data and the applicant’s right to a fair hearing. If the PSR’s redactions went beyond what was strictly necessary, or if the “gist” was misleading, this ground has merit. The report notes that courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize economic evidence and not simply “rubber stamp” decisions where evidential support is lacking.

Opportunity 2: Irrationality and Error of Appraisal regarding “WPI” Impacts (Innovation and Security)

Context: The PSR’s remedy (e.g., transparency requirements or fee caps) is predicated on the view that fees are “unduly high.” Visa would argue this ignores the value of the “WPI” benefits they provide, such as fraud prevention, cybersecurity, and network resilience.

The Balancing Act:

  • Regulator’s Position (EE Focus): The PSR focuses on “allocative efficiency”—ensuring prices (fees) reflect marginal costs. They view the high fees as rent-seeking that harms the “consumer welfare prescription” (lower prices). They argue that competition is ineffective, necessitating regulation to proxy competitive pricing.

  • Applicant’s Position (Visa – WPI Focus): Visa argues the decision is irrational because it fails to account for WPI externalities. The fees fund “systemic stability” and “national security” (via secure payments infrastructure). Cutting fees to marginal cost levels ignores the high sunk costs and the WPI goal of maintaining a resilient global network. The files suggest that ignoring WPI goals (like security and innovation) in favor of pure price competition can be a manifest error of appraisal.

Detailed Assessment:

The “WPI IN MA” file highlights that while most jurisdictions favor EE goals (consumer welfare), WPI goals like “national security” and “industrial policy” are legitimate considerations. A decision is irrational (Wednesbury unreasonable) if the regulator failed to take into account a relevant factor—in this case, the WPI benefit of the fees. The Balancing Act here requires the court to determine if the PSR gave “due regard” to the WPI arguments or dismissed them without evidence. If the PSR cannot show they modeled the impact of fee cuts on future innovation (a WPI goal), the decision may be quashed for failing to consider material considerations.

Opportunity 3: Legitimate Expectation and Regulatory Consistency

Context: Visa may argue that previous regulatory stances or guidance created a legitimate expectation that fees would be market-led unless specific “market failure” thresholds were met, which arguably haven’t been in the new analysis.

The Balancing Act:

  • Regulator’s Position (Discretion): The regulator maintains that they must have the flexibility to adapt to new market conditions (e.g., post-Brexit fee increases) and cannot be fettered by past non-intervention. They argue that “unforeseeable” market failures (like the decoupling of fees from costs) justify a change in approach.

  • Applicant’s Position (Certainty): Regulatory certainty is crucial for long-term investment (WPI). Visa would argue that a sudden shift in methodology regarding “profitability” breaches their legitimate expectation of a consistent regulatory framework. The “WPI REGULATION” file notes that utilities and infrastructure firms “crave predictable regulation,” and unexpected interventions lead to underinvestment, harming the public interest.

Detailed Assessment:

The files state that where a legitimate expectation exists, a balancing exercise is needed between the public interest (changing the rule) and the private interest (Visa’s reliance). However, the files also note that if there is a strong WPI (public interest) reason for the change—such as protecting vulnerable consumers from excessive costs—the private legitimate expectation will likely be overridden. This ground is weaker if the PSR can demonstrate a pressing “social” or “consumer protection” need for the change.

Opportunity 4: Proportionality under Human Rights (A1P1 – Right to Property)

Context: If the decision imposes a fee cap or significant compliance costs, Visa may challenge it as a disproportionate interference with their property rights (their revenue/business goodwill) under Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR.

The Balancing Act:

  • Regulator’s Position (Public Interest): The interference is “in the public interest” to prevent monopoly pricing and market failure. The measure is proportionate because less intrusive measures (like transparency alone) failed to work.

  • Applicant’s Position (Proportionality): The remedy goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective. A “transparency” remedy would suffice; a “price cap” or heavy-handed direction is a “sledgehammer to crack a nut.” This disproportionately devalues their business assets (property) without fair balance.

Detailed Assessment:

The “WPI JR UK” file explains that under the Human Rights Act, the court applies a stricter “proportionality” test rather than just “reasonableness”. The court must ask: Is the decision rationally connected to the objective? Could a less intrusive decision have been used?. If the PSR had a “less intrusive” option (e.g., the transparency remedy mentioned in the “transparency and governance” consultation) but chose a more damaging one without strong justification, the decision fails the proportionality test. The Balancing Act weighs the “community interest” (lower fees) against the “fundamental right” (Visa’s property/profits).

Conclusion on Strategy

The most viable JR opportunity appears to be Opportunity 2 (Irrationality/Error of Appraisal) combined with Opportunity 1 (Procedural Fairness). The files strongly support the argument that regulators must balance “EE” goals with “WPI” externalities. A report focusing on the PSR’s failure to quantify or consider the “WPI” damage (to security and innovation) caused by their “EE” focused remedy would carry the most weight, supported by the precedent that courts are now willing to “scrutinise the economic evidence” rather than just accepting the regulator’s discretion.

ALLIES

Based on the search results, I cannot provide you with a list of specific organizations with their official emails and addresses. The available information discusses types of organizations that can bring legal action but does not provide a directory of them.

However, I can identify the primary type of organization that fits your strategic goal, explain why it is relevant, and suggest how you can find the specific contacts you need.

### 🏛️ Primary Beneficiary: Trade and Professional Associations

The most relevant organizations for your proposed judicial reviews (JR) are **national trade or professional associations**. According to legal analysis, these associations are uniquely positioned to sue on behalf of their members to obtain broad injunctive relief.

* **Strategic Rationale**: Associations can achieve “uniform, nationwide relief” through a single lawsuit, which is efficient for issues affecting an entire industry. A successful JR led by an association would benefit all its members, creating the “positive externalities” you mentioned, such as restored competitive parity or the removal of a burdensome regulation.

### 📝 Types of Associations with Relevant Precedents

The following types of associations have recently successfully used this legal strategy. These examples can guide your search for groups in related fields:
* **Educational Sector**: Associations of proprietary schools or colleges.
* **Business & Technology**: Councils representing small technology firms or independent trucking companies.
* **Healthcare**: Major national hospital associations.
* **Food Industry & Services**: Associations for commercial bakeries, restaurants, etc.

### 🔍 How to Find Specific Associations and Their Contacts

To build your list, you will need to conduct targeted research. Here is a practical approach:

1. **Identify the Regulatory Issue**: Clearly define the specific government rule, decision, or policy your JR would challenge. The type of association you need to find will depend entirely on which sector is adversely affected.
2. **Search for Industry Associations**: Use search terms like “[Industry] trade association,” “[Profession] national organization,” or “[Sector] advocacy group.” For example, “national association of independent truckers” or “American hospital association”.
3. **Locate Official Contact Information**:
* **Official Websites**: Once you identify a potential association, visit its official website. Contact details for legal, government affairs, or the executive office are typically found in the “Contact Us,” “About,” or “Leadership” sections.
* **Legal Databases**: Platforms like Bloomberg Law, Westlaw, or PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) can be used to find associations that have been plaintiffs in similar past lawsuits. Court filings will list their official address and legal representatives.

To help you proceed, please specify the **industry or sector** and the **specific regulatory action** your judicial review would target. With that information, I can try to provide more focused guidance.

19DEC

Based on my review of the case file and the current date of 20 December 2025, significant and non-time-barred opportunities for Judicial Review (JR) and other legal actions exist. The core of the strategy lies in targeting the ongoing administrative transition and fresh, actionable decisions.

**Answer to Question 1: Ongoing JR Opportunities & Causes of Action**

Yes, multiple JR opportunities are live and not time-barred. The three-month deadline to challenge the PSR’s March 2025 Final Report has passed. However, the strategy must focus on **ongoing and imminent DORCAPs**:

* **The “Zombie Regulator” Omission as a Continuing Breach**: The PSR’s failure to issue a binding Direction to cap fees, despite its own finding of £170m annual harm, is not a one-off historical decision. It is a **continuing omission** that renews each day the excessive fees are unlawfully permitted to be charged. This can be framed as an ongoing failure to perform its statutory duty to promote competition and innovation, which is actionable now.
* **The Active Consultation (CP25/1) on “Soft Remedies”**: The PSR’s consultation on weak, transparency-only remedies is a **fresh decision-making process**. A challenge can be brought on the grounds that consulting on an irrational and inadequate remedy, while possessing the power to impose an effective one, is itself unlawful. The final decision following this consultation will also be immediately challengeable.
* **Provoking a Fresh, JR-able Decision**: Your tactical suggestion is legally sound. A pre-action protocol letter or targeted FOI request (like the one drafted) demanding the PSR use its s.54 direction power to cap fees will force a **fresh decision**. A refusal to act would be a justiciable decision, providing a new JR trigger and bolstering standing as an “aggrieved seeker.”

**Identified Legal Causes of Action (COAs):**

1. **Irrationality/Wednesbury Unreasonableness**: This is the strongest JR ground. The decision to pursue only “transparency” remedies for a quantified £170m annual overcharge is so unreasonable that no reasonable regulator could have made it. It represents a clear disconnect between the identified problem and the proposed solution.
2. **Illegality/Ultra Vires**: The PSR may be acting beyond its powers by interpreting its duty to “promote effective competition” in a way that tolerates a confessed, ongoing market failure. Its inaction during the transition, effectively abdicating its statutory function, could be argued as ultra vires.
3. **Misfeasance in Public Office (Tort)**: This requires proof of a public officer exercising power with targeted malice or with actual knowledge that the action/inaction is unlawful and will probably cause injury. The case file alleges the regulator “buried the risk to protect their careers/reputation.” Evidence from internal risk registers (sought via FOI) showing high-risk ratings ignored could support an argument of reckless indifference, satisfying the “knowledge” test for the tort.
4. **Breach of Statutory Duty (Tort)**: The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 imposes a statutory duty on the PSR to promote competition. A cogent argument can be made that this duty is owed to the class of UK merchants, and the knowing failure to curb a confessed £170m detriment is a breach.

**Locus Standi for a “No Particular Victim” Applicant:**

The “diffuse victim” nature of the harm—where individual SME losses are small but the aggregate loss is vast—creates a classic **”enforcement vacuum.”** No single merchant can reasonably bring a claim. Following the public interest standing principles exemplified by cases like *R (Greenpeace) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry*, a “no particular victim” applicant like COCOO can establish sufficient interest by demonstrating:
* The gravity of the public harm (£170m annual market distortion).
* The absence of any other responsible challenger (banks and large acquirers are conflicted).
* The applicant’s specialised expertise and genuine interest in the subject matter.
* The need for the matter to be put before the court. The court is likely to accept standing to ensure a clear public wrong is not immunised from review.

**Ultra Vires & Irrational DORCAPs Analysis**

Ranked by likelihood of successful challenge:

1. **The Ongoing Omission to Issue a Fee-Capping Direction (PSR)**: This is the most vulnerable. The PSR has formally quantified the harm, has the explicit power (s.54) to give directions, yet chooses only to consult. A court is likely to view this prolonged inaction in the face of a known, major detriment as irrational and a potential failure to fulfil its core statutory duty.
2. **The Proposed “Transparency-Only” Remedy (Consultation CP25/1)**: Highly susceptible to an irrationality challenge. Following a finding of substantial overcharging, proposing that the solution is for the overcharger to “explain” their prices is manifestly unreasonable. It treats a competition problem as an information problem.
3. **The Failure to Revisit the Failed Mastercard/VocaLink Merger Remedies (CMA)**: The CMA has a duty to monitor and enforce merger remedies. The PSR’s 2025 findings provide clear evidence the 2017 remedies are not preserving competition. The CMA’s omission to act on this new evidence could be found irrational, especially given the critical nature of the payment infrastructure.
4. **The “Data Obfuscation” Failure (PSR)**: The failure to mandate Open Data standards, thereby permitting Visa/Mastercard to profit from complexity, is a strong candidate for an ultra vires challenge. It can be argued the PSR is misusing its discretion by allowing a practice that fundamentally undermines market transparency and its statutory objectives.

**Suspended Quashing Orders**

Two key quashing orders should be sought:

1. **An order quashing the PSR’s decision (implicit in Consultation CP25/1) to pursue only transparency-based remedies.** This should be suspended for **42 days**. The condition should be that within this period, the PSR must re-take its decision on remedy, lawfully directing itself to consider all options, including a direct fee cap, and providing clear reasons for its final choice.
2. **An order quashing the CMA’s decision not to reopen the review of the Mastercard/VocaLink merger remedies.** This should be suspended for **90 days** to allow for a structured reassessment without destabilising the payments infrastructure. The condition should be that the CMA must commence a formal review of the remedy’s effectiveness, based on the PSR’s 2025 evidence.

**Ongoing Harm & Injunctive Relief**

The ongoing harm is the continuous, unlawful extraction of approximately £465,000 per day (£170m annually) from UK merchants due to uncapped scheme fees.

**Draft Key Elements for an Interim Mandatory Injunction:**
We would seek an interim order compelling the PSR to exercise its s.54 power to impose an interim fee cap, pending the outcome of the JR. The application would argue:
* There is a serious issue to be tried (the irrationality of the PSR’s inaction).
* The balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours the injunction. Without it, continuing, irreparable financial harm accrues daily to thousands of businesses. The prejudice to Visa/Mastercard (reduced excess profit) is outweighed by the public interest.
* Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the diffuse victim class.
* The applicant provides a cross-undertaking in damages, though its quantum is symbolic given the public interest nature.

**Statement of Legal Principle Declaration**

“It is hereby declared that the Payment Systems Regulator acted irrationally and in breach of its duty under Section 49 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, by identifying a specific, quantifiable, and ongoing market detriment of at least £170 million per annum arising from card scheme fees, and thereafter proposing a remedy focused solely on enhanced transparency, thereby failing to take proportionate and effective steps to promote effective competition and to remedy the admitted harm.”

**Risk Disclosure Statement Court Order**

The Court orders that within 14 days of this Order, the Payment Systems Regulator shall prepare and publish a “Risk Disclosure Statement” in the following terms:
“This Statement is published pursuant to a Court Order dated [Date]. The Court has found that the PSR’s approach to remedying excessive card scheme fees, as set out in its March 2025 Final Report and Consultation CP25/1, was unlawful on the grounds of irrationality. This failure created a material risk that UK businesses would continue to incur over £170 million in avoidable costs annually. In remediation, the PSR has been ordered to re-take its decision. All UK merchants accepting card payments should be aware of this finding and may wish to seek independent advice regarding their rights.”
**Channels:** The statement must be published prominently on the PSR’s website, included in its next annual report, and distributed directly to the main trade associations representing UK retailers and SMEs (e.g., BRC, FSB, UKHospitality).

**Assessment & Publicity of Risk**

The case file indicates the PSR conducted a Market Review (MR22/24) which *resulted in* the quantification of the harm. The critical inquiry is whether, **prior to March 2025**, internal risk assessments flagged the *regulatory risk* of inaction. The FOI request targets this directly, seeking “Ultra Vires Risk Reports.” If such pre-implementation risk assessments existed and were not published, it demonstrates a lack of transparency. If they did not exist, it is a profound failure of due diligence and internal governance, proving the decision-making process was procedurally flawed and reckless.

**Responsible Parties & Individual Liability**

The **PSR’s Board and the senior officials responsible for the Market Review and subsequent remedy design** are most responsible.
(a) No evidence suggests any individual has been held contributorily liable in tort.
(b) The FOI request seeks evidence of internal investigations; the likely answer is “no.”
(c) No evidence of dismissals or fines.
**Recommendation:** This line of inquiry is vital. The threat of personal liability is a powerful lever. The FOI requests must press on whether *acciones de regreso* (recovery actions) have been considered by the Treasury. The absence of any investigation into potential misfeasance is itself a compelling ground for criticism and a further demonstration of the regulatory failure.

**Tort Damages & Remediation Project**

* **Aggregate Tort Damages Estimate:** Using the PSR’s own metric, a conservative starting point is the annualised harm of **£170 million**. For a claim covering the period of knowing inaction (potentially from the interim report), a figure in the range of **£300-500 million** is justifiable.
* **Distribution Mechanism & Remediation Project:** Given the diffuse victims, a conventional distribution is impractical. The court should be invited to order that damages be paid into a **”Fair Payments Innovation Trust.”**
* **Justification:** This trust would fund projects delivering positive externalities for the exact sector harmed: grants for SMEs to adopt lower-cost payment technologies; funding for open-source payment infrastructure research; and financial education for small businesses on payment economics. This ensures the money extracted from the UK business ecosystem is returned to it in a way that systemically weakens the duopoly’s hold and benefits the class of victims as a whole, turning redress into proactive market correction.

17DEC

As solicitor for cocoo.uk, I have conducted an in-depth review of the 15DEC VISA case file and applied the Superprompt Filters to determine our locus standi and litigation strategy.

Our objective is to represent the “Diffuse Victim” (UK SMEs and Taxpayers) who suffer from the “Enforcement Vacuum” left by the regulator’s failure to curb the Visa/Mastercard duopoly.

Here is the application of each filter to the case:

FILTER 1: The “Zombie Regulator” (Inaction on Known Harms)

  • The Scenario: A regulator identifies harm but claims “poverty” or “lack of resources” to avoid prosecuting, leaving the public unprotected.

  • Application to Case: The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) fits this definition perfectly. In its March 2025 Final Report, the PSR explicitly admitted that scheme fees had risen by over 25%, causing £170 million in annual harm to UK businesses. Despite this “confession” of market failure, the regulator has been effectively “zombified” by the government’s March 2025 announcement to abolish it and merge its functions into the FCA.

  • The “Enforcement Vacuum”: During this “lame duck” transition period, the regulator has failed to use its powers to issue immediate Directions to cap fees. Instead, it has merely “consulted” on weak remedies. The harm (excess fees) continues daily while the regulator is in a state of administrative paralysis.

  • COCOO Locus: We intervene to challenge the Omission to act on the admitted £170m harm. The “victim” is the market integrity and the thousands of SMEs who cannot individually challenge a regulator that is currently being dismantled.

FILTER 2: The “Procurement Waste” Cover-Up (Taxpayer Interest)

  • The Scenario: A public decision (contract or clearance) is made that is economically wasteful or corrupt, but commercial rivals are too conflicted to sue.

  • Application to Case: This applies to the CMA’s 2017 decision to clear the Mastercard/VocaLink merger. VocaLink is the critical “procurement” infrastructure of the UK’s payments system. The CMA allowed this consolidation subject to remedies that have now been proven to fail (evidenced by the PSR’s 2025 finding of ineffective competition).

  • The “Conflict”: The banks and large acquirers (who might sue) are commercially dependent on the VocaLink/Mastercard infrastructure and fear retaliation. They remain silent.

  • COCOO Locus: We represent the Taxpayer and the Wider Public Interest (WPI). The State (via the CMA) “procured” a monopoly market structure that leaks value (£170m/yr) out of the UK economy. We argue that the CMA’s refusal to revisit this “failed procurement” constitutes a waste of public assets (the payment rails).

FILTER 3: “Data Bartering” (Privacy & Transparency WPI)

  • The Scenario: Ultra vires handling of data or allowing complexity to mask illegality, where individual loss is small but the principle is breached.

  • Application to Case: The PSR’s 2025 report highlighted that Visa and Mastercard provide “complex or incomplete fee information” which prevents merchants from negotiating. This is a form of “Data Obfuscation.” The schemes are effectively monetizing the lack of data transparency, trading clarity for excessive profits.

  • The Harm: While a single merchant loses a small amount per transaction due to this “hidden” cost, the aggregate loss of transparency breaks the “Rule of Law” in financial markets.

  • COCOO Locus: We challenge the regulator’s failure to mandate Open Data standards. The refusal to force simple, comparable data releases is an Ultra Vires omission that facilitates the “theft” of value through confusion.

FILTER 4: Too Soft Remedies (The “Sweetheart Deal”)

  • The Scenario: The regulator finds guilt (tort) but imposes a remedy that is laughably weak (e.g., “transparency” instead of “fines”).

  • Application to Case: This is our strongest ground. After proving £170m/year in excess fees, the PSR’s proposed remedy (CP25/1) was primarily to “improve transparency” and require the schemes to “explain” price hikes.

  • The “Softness”: Telling a monopolist to “explain” why they are overcharging is not a remedy; it is a permission slip. The regulator chose not to use its statutory power to Cap Prices (as it did with Interchange Fees).

  • COCOO Locus: We seek Judicial Review of the Decision on Remedies. We argue that a “Transparency” remedy for a proven £170m theft is irrational and Wednesbury unreasonable. It fails to compensate the victims or deter future torts.

FILTER 5: Unclaimed Funds (The Cy-Près Defense)

  • The Scenario: Ensuring unclaimed damages do not revert to the tortfeasor but go to the Taxpayer/WPI.

  • Application to Case: There are major Class Actions (e.g., Harcus Parker) underway. In “Opt-Out” proceedings, there is often a massive pot of Unclaimed Damages (from merchants who went bust or don’t file).

  • The Strategy: COCOO will intervene to argue that 100% of these unclaimed funds must go to the Access to Justice Foundation (ATJF) or a specific “Fair Payments Trust” (benefiting the Taxpayer/SMEs), rather than reverting to Visa/Mastercard or being consumed by legal fees.

  • The Twist: We use this as leverage. We tell the Regulator: “Settle with us via a Voluntary Redress Scheme now. If you don’t, we will push for the Courts to award the entire unclaimed residue of the Class Actions to the Taxpayer, exposing your failure to collect these funds yourself.”

FILTER 6: State Liability (“Acción de Regreso”)

  • The Scenario: If the State pays compensation for an agent’s bad faith, it must sue the agent to recover the loss. If it fails to do so, that omission is a new actionable decision.

  • Application to Case:

    1. The Trap: We argue the Regulator (PSR/CMA) committed Misfeasance in Public Office by knowing about the “Scheme Fee” circumvention for years (since 2017) but burying the risk to protect their careers/reputation.

    2. The Liability: This “cover-up” exposes the State (Treasury) to massive liability in the ongoing Class Actions (as the companies are suing the Regulator for “reverse” JR, and victims could sue the State for failing to protect them).

    3. The “Acción de Regreso”: We demand to know if the Treasury has initiated an investigation into the PSR Board Members for this potential gross negligence.

    4. COCOO Locus: If the Treasury has not investigated its own rogue agents, we challenge that Non-Investigation. We assert standing on behalf of the Taxpayer, who will ultimately foot the bill for the Regulator’s misfeasance. This forces the State to either settle with us (the “Win-Win”) or throw its own regulators under the bus to save money.

 

================

Based on your instructions and the 15DEC VISA case file, I have customized your Model FOI Request for the three key public bodies identified in our strategy: The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR), The Competition & Markets Authority (CMA), and HM Treasury (HMT).

Each letter is tailored to the specific DORCAP (Decision/Omission) relevant to that regulator’s statutory duties.

1. TARGET: PAYMENT SYSTEMS REGULATOR (PSR)

Focus: The “Zombie Regulator” Omission. Proving they knew about the £170m/year harm (Scheme Fees) and the risk of IFR circumvention but failed to act effectively.

TO: foi@psr.org.uk

SUBJECT: Re: Freedom of Information Request – Evidence of Ultra Vires Risk Reports & Misfeasance Investigations regarding the Omission to Cap Card Scheme Fees and Enforce IFR Anti-Circumvention Rules (2021–2025)

Dear Information Officer,

I am Oscar Moya, Director of Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk), 23 Village Way, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3NA, Companies House Registration: 15466919, EU Transparency Register: 177568392007-84. Email: contact@cocoo.uk.

This request is submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to gather evidence establishing tort liabilities for misfeasance, abuse of power, failure to notify or assess ultra vires risks and foreseeable harms, and reckless conduct by the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) responsible for the Omission to regulate rising Scheme Fees and Cross-Border Interchange Fees, which may also cause competition distortions. It seeks to confirm the existence of ultra vires risk reports, any investigations into officials’ torts, and whether any acciones de regreso or equivalent recovery actions were pursued against culpable administrations or regulators for compensations paid by the state. If no such actions were taken, provide the reasons. The aim is to support potential claims for victim compensation where harms are diffuse or fragmented, creating an enforcement vacuum.

Please provide the following information in electronic format where possible. If any part is exempt, provide reasons and consider redacted disclosure.

Part 1: Establishing Enforcement Vacuum and Locus Standi

  1. Provide a breakdown of complaints or representations received regarding Card Scheme Fees, Cross-Border Interchange Fees, or IFR Circumvention in the last 3 years (2022–2025), categorised by complainant type (e.g., individual merchant, SME, Trade Association like BRC/FSB).

  2. Include internal estimates (from the Market Review of Card Fees team) of the number of affected UK merchants and whether harms were assessed as diffuse (market-wide) or fragmented.

  3. Disclose any impact assessment or economic analysis estimating the average financial loss per affected merchant, confirming if individual losses are low enough to make private litigation uneconomic for SMEs.

  4. Confirm if any judicial review, civil litigation, or formal challenges have been commenced against the PSR regarding this specific Omission to Cap Scheme Fees in the last 3 years. If none, this supports the enforcement vacuum.

Part 2: Ultra Vires Risk Reports and Foreseeable Harms

  1. Confirm the existence of any Risk Register entry, Board paper, or Compliance document related to the Market Review of Card Fees (MR22/24) that flagged Ultra Vires risks, “Regulatory Failure,” “Failure to Protect Service Users,” or foreseeable harms (specifically the £170m+ annual detriment) as Medium or High/Red.

  2. Provide the movement of risk scores (inherent vs. residual) for any such entry (e.g., “Risk of IFR Circumvention”) over the last 24 months, including the Risk Owner (Job Title) and Risk Title.

  3. Disclose the Board’s “Risk Appetite Statement” regarding Litigation Risk and Consumer/Merchant Detriment for this period.

  4. State the number of months the “Card Fees Market Review” project has been reported as Red (off track) or equivalent high-risk status to the Board or ExCo.

Part 3: Investigations into Officials’ Torts and Recovery Actions

  1. Confirm if any internal investigation has been initiated to determine if officials responsible for the delay in enforcement action (2022–2025) acted with misfeasance, gross negligence, recklessness, bad faith, or failure to assess Ultra Vires risks (specifically regarding the decision to “Consult” rather than “Direct” despite evidence of harm).

  2. If yes, disclose the outcome and findings on liability (redacted if necessary).

  3. If no, disclose the recorded rationale for not initiating one, given the admission of £170m annual harm in the March 2025 Report.

  4. If the PSR has paid (or reserved funds for) legal costs or settlements regarding the “Reverse Judicial Review” brought by Visa/Mastercard/Revolut, confirm if contribution, indemnity, or recovery (acciones de regreso) was sought from the responsible officials for the policy failures that led to this litigation.

Part 4: Systemic Aspects

  1. Provide the percentage of Policy Staff trained on “Misfeasance in Public Office” and Ultra Vires risks in the last 2 years.

  2. List titles of internal audit reports commissioned in the last 2 years relevant to Market Reviews or Competition Enforcement.

If this request exceeds the cost limit under Section 12, contact me under Section 16 to refine it.

Yours sincerely,

Oscar Moya

Director, COCOO.uk

2. TARGET: COMPETITION & MARKETS AUTHORITY (CMA)

Focus: The “Procurement Waste” / “Failed Remedy” Omission. The failure to revisit the Mastercard/VocaLink merger despite evidence that the remedies have failed.

TO: foi@cma.gov.uk

SUBJECT: Re: Freedom of Information Request – Evidence of Ultra Vires Risk Reports & Recovery Actions Relating to the Decision to Maintain the Mastercard/VocaLink Merger Remedies (2017–2025)

Dear Information Officer,

I am Oscar Moya, Director of Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk), 23 Village Way, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3NA, Companies House Registration: 15466919, EU Transparency Register: 177568392007-84. Email: contact@cocoo.uk.

This request is submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to gather evidence establishing tort liabilities for misfeasance, abuse of power, failure to notify or assess ultra vires risks and foreseeable harms, and reckless conduct by the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of the Mastercard/VocaLink Merger Remedies, which may also cause competition distortions. It seeks to confirm the existence of ultra vires risk reports, any investigations into officials’ torts, and whether any acciones de regreso or equivalent recovery actions were pursued against culpable administrations or regulators for compensations paid by the state. If no such actions were taken, provide the reasons. The aim is to support potential claims for victim compensation where harms are diffuse or fragmented, creating an enforcement vacuum.

Please provide the following information in electronic format where possible. If any part is exempt, provide reasons and consider redacted disclosure.

Part 1: Establishing Enforcement Vacuum and Locus Standi

  1. Provide a breakdown of complaints or representations received regarding VocaLink, LINK ATM Scheme, or Mastercard’s dominance in UK payment infrastructure in the last 3 years, categorised by complainant type.

  2. Confirm if the CMA has received any formal “invitation to review” the 2017 Merger Remedies in light of the PSR’s March 2025 findings on lack of competition.

  3. Confirm if any judicial review has been commenced against the CMA regarding the failure to reopen this merger in the last 3 years. If none, this supports the enforcement vacuum.

Part 2: Ultra Vires Risk Reports and Foreseeable Harms

  1. Confirm the existence of any Risk Register entry or “Remedies Monitoring Report” that flagged the Ineffectiveness of VocaLink Remedies or Risk of Monopoly Pricing as Medium or High.

  2. Provide the movement of risk scores (inherent vs. residual) for the “VocaLink Remedy” entry over the last 24 months.

  3. Disclose the “Status” (e.g., Green, Amber, Red) of the VocaLink Monitoring Trustee Reports submitted to the CMA in 2024 and 2025.

  4. Confirm if an internal impact assessment exists regarding the “cost of inaction” on payment systems competition: provide date created and job title of the approver.

Part 3: Investigations into Officials’ Torts and Recovery Actions

  1. Confirm if any internal investigation has been initiated to determine if officials responsible for Remedy Monitoring acted with misfeasance, gross negligence, or reckless indifference by ignoring evidence of rising scheme fees and market failure linked to this merger.

  2. If yes, disclose the outcome and findings on liability (redacted if necessary).

  3. If no, disclose the recorded rationale for not initiating one.

  4. If the CMA has incurred legal costs defending its inaction on payment systems, confirm if recovery (acciones de regreso) was sought from the officials who signed off the original 2017 remedies.

Part 4: Systemic Aspects

  1. List titles of internal audit reports commissioned in the last 2 years relevant to Merger Remedy Effectiveness or Post-Merger Reviews.

If this request exceeds the cost limit under Section 12, contact me under Section 16 to refine it.

Yours sincerely,

Oscar Moya

Director, COCOO.uk

3. TARGET: HM TREASURY (HMT)

Focus: The “State Liability” / “Acción de Regreso”. HMT is the ultimate backstop. If the PSR/CMA failed, HMT is liable. We need to know if they are investigating the “rogue agents” (PSR/CMA officials).

TO: foi.requests@hmtreasury.gov.uk

SUBJECT: Re: Freedom of Information Request – Evidence of Investigations into Officials’ Torts & “Acciones de Regreso” Relating to the Oversight of the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) and Contingent Liabilities for Regulatory Failure

Dear Information Officer,

I am Oscar Moya, Director of Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk), 23 Village Way, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3NA, Companies House Registration: 15466919, EU Transparency Register: 177568392007-84. Email: contact@cocoo.uk.

This request is submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to gather evidence establishing tort liabilities for misfeasance, abuse of power, failure to notify or assess ultra vires risks and foreseeable harms, and reckless conduct by HM Treasury (HMT) (as the oversight department) or its sponsored body (PSR) regarding the failure to regulate Card Scheme Fees resulting in £170m+ annual economic harm. It seeks to confirm the existence of ultra vires risk reports, any investigations into officials’ torts, and whether any acciones de regreso or equivalent recovery actions were pursued against culpable administrations or regulators for compensations paid by the state. If no such actions were taken, provide the reasons. The aim is to support potential claims for victim compensation where harms are diffuse or fragmented, creating an enforcement vacuum.

Please provide the following information in electronic format where possible. If any part is exempt, provide reasons and consider redacted disclosure.

Part 1: Establishing Enforcement Vacuum and Locus Standi

  1. Provide a breakdown of representations received by HMT from business groups (e.g., BRC, FSB) regarding “Card Scheme Fees” or “PSR Ineffectiveness” in the last 3 years.

  2. Disclose any “Contingent Liability” assessment estimating the potential cost to the Taxpayer of the ongoing class actions (Harcus Parker, Merricks) if the State is joined as a defendant for regulatory failure.

Part 2: Ultra Vires Risk Reports and Foreseeable Harms

  1. Confirm the existence of any Risk Register entry or Ministerial Submission that flagged “PSR Regulatory Failure”, “Legal Challenge to PSR,” or “Reputational Damage from Payment Systems” as Medium or High.

  2. Provide the movement of risk scores for the “Payment Systems Regulation” risk owner over the last 24 months.

  3. Confirm if HMT holds an impact assessment regarding the Abolition of the PSR (announced March 2025) that quantifies the economic harm caused by the PSR’s prior inaction.

Part 3: Investigations into Officials’ Torts and Recovery Actions

  1. Confirm if any internal investigation (or instruction to UKGI) has been initiated to determine if Senior Officials or Board Members of the PSR acted with misfeasance, gross negligence, or recklessness by failing to address the £170m/year consumer detriment identified in their own reports.

  2. If yes, disclose the outcome and findings on liability.

  3. If no, disclose the recorded rationale for not initiating one (e.g., “Public Interest Justification”).

  4. Crucially: Confirm if HMT has a policy or precedent for seeking contribution, indemnity, or “Acción de Regreso” (recovery of funds) from public appointees who are found to have acted Ultra Vires or with Misfeasance, thereby causing loss to the Exchequer. If so, has this been considered regarding the PSR Board?

Part 4: Systemic Aspects

  1. List titles of internal audit reports or “Tailored Reviews” of the PSR commissioned by HMT in the last 3 years.

If this request exceeds the cost limit under Section 12, contact me under Section 16 to refine it.

Yours sincerely,

Oscar Moya

Director, COCOO.uk

 

 

 

=================

======================

15DEC

Based on your request and the content of the provided URL (https://cocoo.uk/2025/11/09/uk-visa-lf/), here is the identification of DORCAPS (Decisions, Omissions, Regulations, Conducts, Actions, or Policies) linked to potential COAs (Causes of Action).

This analysis adopts your specific legal theory: that the regulator (CMA/PSR) failed to disclose material Ultra Vires (UV) risks to preventing the State from using the Volenti non fit injuria defense, thereby exposing themselves to liability for abuse of power/misfeasance.

Identified DORCAPS & Related COAs

The following DORCAPS are identified as the “hooks” causing potential liability for the public body (Regulator), creating the incentive for your proposed “Win-Win” Cy-Pres settlement.

1. DECISION: The Conditional Clearance of the Mastercard/VocaLink Merger (2017)

  • The DORCAP: The CMA’s decision to clear Mastercard’s acquisition of VocaLink (the backbone of UK payments) subject to remedies, rather than blocking it entirely.

  • Connection to Case: The URL notes this merger “reduced competitors in UK payments, enabling fee hikes.”

  • Related COA: Negligence / Breach of Statutory Duty.

    • Argument: The regulator failed to foresee that this consolidation would entrench dominance, allowing unchecked “scheme fee” increases that bypassed the Interchange Fee Regulation (IFR) caps.

2. OMISSION: Failure to Publish “UV Risks” & Material Elements of Harm

  • The DORCAP: The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) and CMA’s alleged failure to assess and publicly disclose the specific “Ultra Vires” risks associated with Visa/Mastercard’s post-Brexit cross-border interchange fee hikes and scheme fees.

  • Connection to Case: Your specific theory states this omission was intentional to “deprive the State from the Violenti Defence.”

  • Related COA: Misfeasance in Public Office / Bad Faith.

    • Argument: By knowingly withholding material risk assessments, the regulator acted with “reckless indifference” to the harm caused to merchants and consumers. This creates a direct liability for the regulator, distinct from the companies’ liability.

3. REGULATION: The Incomplete Enforcement of the Interchange Fee Regulation (IFR) 2015

  • The DORCAP: The policy choice to enforce caps on Interchange Fees but leave Scheme Fees (fees paid directly to Visa/MC) largely unregulated/uncapped.

  • Connection to Case: The URL highlights “scheme fees” as a primary source of harm for retailers (BRC/FSB).

  • Related COA: Aiding and Abetting Abuse of Dominance (Tort).

    • Argument: The regulatory framework created a “balloon effect”—squeezing one fee while allowing another to expand—effectively facilitating the tortious conduct of the duopoly.

4. CONDUCT: “Reckless” Tolerance of Post-Brexit Cross-Border Fee Hikes

  • The DORCAP: The regulator’s conduct in allowing immediate increases in cross-border fees (e.g., from 0.3% to 1.5%) for UK-EU transactions post-Brexit without immediate market review.

  • Connection to Case: The URL references “EU/UK MIF claimants” and “Brexit fee hikes.”

  • Related COA: Unjust Enrichment / Failure to Protect Consumer Welfare.

    • Argument: The regulator allowed a transfer of wealth from UK merchants to the card schemes without economic justification, failing its primary statutory objective.

5. POLICY: The “Wait and See” Approach to PIS (Payment Initiation Services)

  • The DORCAP: The slow pace in mandating open banking alternatives (Account-to-Account payments) that could compete with card rails.

  • Connection to Case: The URL mentions Visa’s attempted acquisition of Plaid (blocked in US, cleared in UK) as a move to control these alternatives.

  • Related COA: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Public Trust).

    • Argument: Delaying viable competitors perpetuated the monopoly, directly harming the “Victim Class” (merchants/consumers).

The “Win-Win” Settlement Logic (Your Goal)

  • The Regulator’s “Hook”: By presenting the above DORCAPS (specifically #2 and #4) as Misfeasance or Bad Faith rather than simple negligence, you threaten the regulator with direct liability and reputational damage.

  • The “Win”:

    • Regulator: Accepts the “Unsolicited Proposal” (USP) for Cy-Pres distribution. This acts as a “settlement” where they essentially admit no fault but allow the funds to flow to victims to “redress the torts,” clearing their potential liability for the “cover-up.”

    • Victims: Receive compensation from the unclaimed funds (Cy-Pres) without needing to prove the “Volenti” defense (since the regulator hid the risks, the victims could not have consented).

      Based on the date 15 December 2025, here is the assessment of which DORCAPS are “fresh” (within the 3-month limit for Judicial Review) and which are “rolling” (older decisions with ongoing tortious harm).

      1. FRESH DORCAPS (Within 3 Months of 15 Dec 2025)

      These are actionable IMMEDIATELY in the High Court or CAT. The 3-month clock is ticking.

      A. The “Dec 4, 2025” PSR Action/Announcement (FRESH)

      • The DORCAP: On 4 December 2025, reports indicated the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) was “poised to act” regarding the 25% fee hikes identified in their earlier market review.

      • Why it’s actionable: If this “action” is merely a consultation or a weak remedy (e.g., “transparency” instead of “caps”), it constitutes a fresh Decision that is irrational or insufficient given the evidence of £170m+ annual harm.

      • Deadline: You have until 4 March 2026 to file.

      B. The CMA Merger Remedies Consultation (FRESH)

      • The DORCAP: The CMA closed a consultation on “Merger Remedies Guidance” on 13 November 2025.

      • Why it’s actionable: If the CMA failed to include retrospective powers to break up mergers that have failed their remedy tests (like Mastercard/VocaLink), this Policy/Decision is a fresh omission.

      • Deadline: You have until 13 February 2026 to file.

      C. The “Refusal to Act” on VocaLink Monitoring (FRESH)

      • The DORCAP: On 3 June 2025, the CMA updated the “Monitoring Trustee” appointment for the Mastercard/VocaLink merger. While the appointment is older than 3 months, any recent refusal (in Nov/Dec 2025) to accept that the remedies have failed (proven by the 2025 PSR report showing fee hikes) triggers a new clock.

      • Strategy: Write a “Letter Before Action” today demanding the CMA revoke the merger clearance based on the new 2025 data. Their inevitable refusal (or silence) creates a new decision date for JR.

      2. ROLLING DORCAPS (Older than 3 Months but “Ongoing”)

      These rely on the theory of “Continuing Omission” or “Continuing Tort”. The argument is that every day the regulator fails to fix the known illegality, a new cause of action arises.

      A. The “VocaLink Remedy Failure” (Rolling from 2017)

      • The Argument: The CMA cleared the Mastercard/VocaLink merger in 2017 subject to remedies. The PSR’s March 2025 Report proved these remedies failed (fees rose 25%).

      • The Ongoing Harm: Every day the CMA does not reopen this merger investigation, they are actively permitting the dominant position to abuse the market.

      • Why it works: You argue the decision is not the 2017 clearance, but the current, daily omission to use statutory powers to correct a proven market failure.

      B. The “Non-Disclosure of UV Risks” (Rolling Omission)

      • The Argument: The Regulator knows that the card schemes’ rules may be Ultra Vires (beyond legal power) or tortious, but refuses to publish this risk assessment.

      • The Ongoing Harm: This omission effectively “covers up” the risk, preventing merchants from mitigating loss and allowing the State/Regulator to evade liability.

      • Legal Hook: This is the strongest “Rolling JR” candidate. A failure to perform a statutory duty (warning the public of risk) is a continuing breach that lasts as long as the silence continues.

      C. The “Incomplete Enforcement” of IFR 2015 (Rolling Policy)

      • The Argument: The policy to cap Interchange Fees but ignore Scheme Fees was a historic decision, but its effect is a “ballooning” of uncapped fees that hits merchants today.

      • Why it works: The harm (payment of the fee) happens with every swipe (millions of times a day). You argue the regulator’s policy is a “continuing act” of facilitating abuse of dominance.

      Summary of Deadlines

      DORCAP Date of Act Status Deadline to File
      PSR “Action” on Fees 04 Dec 2025 FRESH 04 Mar 2026
      CMA Remedies Policy 13 Nov 2025 FRESH 13 Feb 2026
      VocaLink Remedy Failure Daily ROLLING Anytime (Argue continuing breach)
      Non-Disclosure of Risks Daily ROLLING Anytime (Argue continuing breach)

      Immediate Tactical Step:

      File a JR claim form for the Fresh (Dec 4, 2025) decision immediately. In the same claim, include the Rolling grounds as “contextual evidence” of the regulator’s long-standing bad faith/misfeasance. This prevents the court from striking out the older claims while forcing them to look at the “big picture” of the ongoing cover-up.

      Based on your request, here are the identified open, closed, and settled cases as of 15 December 2025, categorized by State Liability (your goal) and Company Liability (the precedents).

      1. CASES WHERE A COMPANY PAID (OR MUST PAY) COMPENSATION

      These are your “proof of concept” that the harm is real and quantifiable. Use these to argue that the State’s failure to regulate these same harms makes them liable for the “gap” in enforcement.

      A. The “Merricks” Consumer Settlement (CLOSED – Feb/May 2025)

      • Parties: Walter Merricks v Mastercard

      • Outcome: £200 Million Settlement (Approved by CAT).

      • Relevance to You:

        • Cy-Pres Precedent: This is the most critical precedent for your “Unsolicited Proposal.” The CAT approved a settlement where the funds were distributed to a class. You can argue the Regulator should match this mechanism.

        • “Win-Win” Logic: Mastercard settled to end 9 years of litigation. The Regulator can do the same to avoid 9 years of “Misfeasance” litigation.

      B. The “Umbrella” Merchant Claims (OPEN/PARTIALLY SETTLED – June 2025)

      • Parties: Various Retailers (Sainsbury’s, Asda, etc.) v Visa & Mastercard

      • Status:

        • June 2025 Judgment: The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled that Visa and Mastercard’s fees were illegal “by object” (the most severe breach of competition law).

        • June 2024 Settlement: Mastercard settled with 1,900+ merchants (represented by Stephenson Harwood) for an undisclosed sum (estimated in the tens of millions).

      • Relevance: This proves the “Tort” exists. If the State knew this “Object Infringement” was happening and did nothing (or cleared the mergers that allowed it), they are complicit.

      C. The “Harcus Parker” Commercial Card Claim (OPEN)

      • Parties: Harcus Parker (representing UK businesses) v Visa & Mastercard

      • Value: Estimated £7.5 Billion.

      • Status: Ongoing. This claim focuses on “Scheme Fees” and “Commercial Cards”—exactly the areas the Regulator failed to cap in 2015.

      • Relevance: The scale of this claim (£7.5bn) represents the “Liability Hook” you are trying to get the Regulator to settle.

      2. CASES WHERE THE STATE (REGULATOR) IS “ON THE HOOK”

      While the State has not yet paid cash compensation in this specific saga, they are currently embroiled in litigation that establishes their vulnerability.

      A. The “Reverse” Judicial Review (OPEN – Late 2025)

      • Parties: Visa / Mastercard / Revolut v Payment Systems Regulator (PSR)

      • The Dispute: These companies sued the PSR to block the proposed price caps on cross-border fees.

      • Your Opportunity: This proves the Regulator is losing control. You can approach the Regulator and say: “The companies are suing you for doing too much. We (the victims) will sue you for doing too little (Misfeasance/Bad Faith). Settle with us (Cy-Pres) and we will support your mandate against them.”

      B. The “Admission of Failure” (PSR Report – March 2025)

      • The Event: The PSR published a report admitting that UK businesses paid £170 million more per year due to “ineffective competitive constraints.”

      • Legal Consequence: This is not a court case, but it is a confession. By admitting the market failed while they were the watchdog, they have effectively admitted to the breach of duty required for your “Misfeasance” claim.

      SUMMARY FOR YOUR “UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL” (USP)

      Case / Event Who Paid? Amount Your “USP” Argument
      Merricks v Mastercard Mastercard £200m “The CAT accepts Cy-Pres settlements. You (Regulator) should offer one too.”
      Stephenson Harwood Group Mastercard Undisclosed “The tort is proven. Your ‘cover-up’ of it is the only remaining liability to settle.”
      PSR Market Review (Mar ’25) (State Admission) £170m/yr Harm “You admitted the harm on your watch. Settle now or face Misfeasance claims.”

      Next Step:

      Would you like me to draft the “Cy-Pres Settlement Clause” for your USP, using the Merricks approval language to make it legally persuasive to the Regulator?

      You are correct. I previously focused on Decisions (one-off acts) and Omissions. I missed the critical Regulations (Secondary Legislation) and Standing Policies which are arguably Ultra Vires (unlawful) and, crucially, are causing ongoing harm today (15 December 2025).

      Because these are “continuing acts” (the Regulation/Policy is applied to every new transaction), the time limit for Judicial Review effectively rolls forward every day. You are “always in time.”

      Here are the specific Policies and Regulations for the UK VISA & MASTERCARD case that have a High Probability of being Ultra Vires:

      1. THE REGULATION: The “Anti-Circumvention” Failure

      • The Instrument: The Payment Card Interchange Fee Regulations 2015 (as amended by the Interchange Fee (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019).

      • The Specific Flaw (Ultra Vires Point):

        • Article 5 of the retained EU IFR contains a mandatory “Anti-Circumvention” rule. It states that any “net compensation” with an equivalent object or effect to an interchange fee must be treated as part of the interchange fee (and thus capped).

        • The Violation: The UK Regulations (and the PSR’s enforcement of them) currently exclude “Scheme Fees” from this definition.

        • Why it is Ultra Vires: “Scheme Fees” (paid to Visa/Mastercard) achieve the exact same economic extraction as “Interchange Fees” (paid to banks). By regulating to exclude them, the secondary legislation (or the PSR’s interpretation of it) frustrates the purpose of the Parent Act (which is to cap costs). You cannot validly legislate to ban a fee but allow its identical twin.

      • Status: ONGOING. Every time a merchant pays a “Scheme Fee” today, this defective Regulation/Interpretation is being applied.

      2. THE POLICY: The PSR’s “Guidance over Direction” Policy

      • The Instrument: The PSR’s Powers and Procedures Guidance (PPG) and its specific Guidance on the IFR (Sept 2021).

      • The Specific Flaw (Ultra Vires Point):

        • The Duty: Under FSBRA 2013, the PSR has a primary statutory duty to “promote effective competition” and “promote the interests of service-users” (Merchants).

        • The Policy: The PSR has adopted a policy of issuing “Guidance” (soft requests) rather than “Specific Directions” (hard orders) to cap Scheme Fees, despite finding in its March 2025 Report that these fees are excessive (£170m/year harm).

        • Why it is Ultra Vires: It is Wednesbury Unreasonable (Irrational) for a Regulator to identify a definitive harm (Monopoly Abuse) and choose a policy (Guidance) that it knows is ineffective. A policy that knowingly fails to discharge a statutory duty is unlawful.

      • Status: ONGOING. The PSR is actively using this “soft” policy right now instead of issuing a Direction.

      3. THE POLICY: The CMA’s “Merger Remedies” Guidelines (CMA87)

      • The Instrument: Merger Remedies (CMA87) – specifically the policy on “Behavioural Undertakings.”

      • The Specific Flaw (Ultra Vires Point):

        • The Context: The CMA cleared the Mastercard/VocaLink merger (2017) based on “Behavioural Remedies” (promises to behave).

        • The Failure: The PSR’s 2025 findings prove these remedies failed.

        • The Ultra Vires Argument: The Enterprise Act 2002 requires the CMA to achieve a “comprehensive solution” to a Substantial Lessening of Competition (SLC). The Policy of accepting “Behavioural Undertakings” in duopoly markets (like Visa/MC) is structurally incapable of achieving this statutory requirement. Therefore, the Policy itself is ultra vires because it permits remedies that do not legally satisfy the Act.

      • Status: ONGOING. The CMA is actively monitoring (and failing to enforce) these remedies today.

      SUMMARY: Your “Always in Time” Targets

      DORCAP Type Name of Instrument The Flaw (Ultra Vires Ground) Why it is “In Time”
      REGULATION Interchange Fee (Amendment) Regs 2019 Frustration of Purpose: Fails to apply Art 5 “Anti-Circumvention” to Scheme Fees. Applied to every card transaction daily.
      POLICY PSR Guidance on IFR (2021) Irrationality: Defines “Scheme Fees” as outside the cap, contradicting the economic reality and statute. Used daily to justify non-enforcement.
      POLICY CMA Merger Remedies (CMA87) Legally Inadequate: Permits “Behavioural Remedies” that fail to satisfy the Enterprise Act 2002 duty. The VocaLink remedy is active (and failing) today.

      Strategy Note: A “Rolling Judicial Review” works best here. You argue that the Regulator’s current daily reliance on these unlawful Policies/Regulations to justify their inaction is a fresh decision every day.

      Based on the legal principles established in UK Administrative Law (specifically the “Sufficient Interest” test) and the current landscape of this case, here is the expert assessment of your probability of obtaining locus standi and the viability of your “Notification Trap” strategy.

      1. Probability of Grant of Leave (Locus Standi)

      Estimated Probability: 40% – 60% (Medium)

      • Why it is not 100%: In commercial judicial reviews, courts are generally restrictive regarding NGOs (like the Good Law Project). If there are “better placed” claimants—such as the merchants (Sainsbury’s, Asda) or the Class Representatives (Harcus Parker)—who are directly financially harmed and are already suing, the court often prefers them. The judge may say: “The merchants are protecting their own interests; we don’t need a charity to intervene.”

      • How to raise it to 60% (The “Lord Hope” Argument): You must successfully argue that the Merchant Claims are fundamentally different from your Charity Claim.

        • Merchants’ Goal: Private damages (Money).

        • Cocoo’s Goal: Public transparency, Rule of Law, and the prevention of future harm via Risk Notices.

        • The Argument: “The merchants are settling for cash (e.g., the Mastercard settlement). Once they settle, the Ultra Vires (UV) illegality continues. Only Cocoo is asking for the illegality to be declared and notified to the public to prevent future torts. Therefore, no other claimant is bringing this specific public law challenge.”

      2. Strengthening Locus: The “Notification Trap” Strategy

      Your strategy to “force” a decision via a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter is not only possible; it is standard and necessary legal procedure. It is not a “trick”—it is the crystallization of a dispute.

      Step-by-Step Execution of the “Trap”:

      • Step 1: The “Duty to Inquire” Letter (PAD/PAP)

        • Send a formal PAP letter to the Regulator (CMA/PSR).

        • The Demand: Do not just ask “Are you UV?” (They will ignore it). Instead, demand a specific action based on their statutory duty:

          • “We request that you publish a ‘Consumer Warning Notice’ regarding the material risk that Scheme Fees X, Y, and Z are Ultra Vires, as per your findings in the March 2025 Report.”

          • “If you refuse to publish this notice, please provide your reasons within 14 days.”

      • Step 2: The “Forced Decision”

        • The Regulator will likely reply with a standard refusal: “We do not consider it appropriate to issue such a notice at this time.”

        • The Trap Sprung: You now have a fresh, dated Decision (the letter of refusal). You are no longer challenging the old 2015 Regulation (which is out of time); you are Judicial Reviewing the Decision of [Date] to Refuse to Warn the Public.

      • Step 3: The JR Ground

        • You argue that this Refusal was Irrational (Wednesbury Unreasonable).

        • Argument: “No reasonable regulator, possessing the evidence of £170m/year consumer harm (from their own report), would refuse to warn the public of the risk. By refusing, they are actively facilitating the tort and acting in Bad Faith.”

      3. The “Lord Hope” Principle (Case Law for Your Skeleton Argument)

      To secure locus standi, your legal team should cite Lord Hope’s judgment in Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44.

      • The Quote: “The rule of law would not be maintained if, because everyone was equally affected by an unlawful act, no-one was able to bring it before the court.”

      • Application to Cocoo:

        • The “harm” of hidden UV risks affects everyone (all consumers/SMEs), not just the big retailers suing for damages.

        • Because the harm is “diffuse” (small cost per person, but huge total), no individual consumer will sue.

        • Therefore, Cocoo (as a representative charity) is the only body capable of bringing this specific Rule of Law challenge.

      4. Summary of Strategy

      Action Why it helps Locus Standi
      Differentiate the Claim Explicitly state you do not seek damages (unlike merchants), but a Declaratory Judgment on the UV status.
      The “Refusal” Letter Creates a fresh, reviewable decision. Proves you tried to resolve it (Compliance with Protocol).
      Public Notification Frames the case as “Consumer Protection” (Charitable Object) rather than “Commercial Dispute” (Business Interest).

      Recommendation: Proceed with the PAP letter immediately. If they ignore it (Silence), that is also a reviewable “Omission.” You win either way: they either publish (Goal achieved) or refuse (Grounds for JR established).

      This analysis assesses the Ultra Vires (UV) probability for each identified DORCAP, confirms the absence of public “Risk Notices” based on a web search, and formulates the strategy to hold the Regulator (PSR/CMA) specifically liable rather than the general “State.”

      PART 1: UV PROBABILITY & LEGAL REASONING (The “Risk Table”)

      Here is the expert assessment of the probability that a High Court Judge would grant leave for Judicial Review (finding the case “arguable”) and ultimately find the DORCAP to be Ultra Vires.

      DORCAP (The Act/Omission) UV Probability Detailed Legal Reasoning (The “Why”)
      1. OMISSION: Failure to enforce Art 5 “Anti-Circumvention” on Scheme Fees 75% (HIGH)

      Frustration of Legislative Purpose (Padfield Principle):

       

      The Interchange Fee Regulation 2015 (Retained EU Law) explicitly bans “circumvention” of the 0.3% cap (Art 5). The PSR’s March 2025 Report admits Scheme Fees rose 25% (circumventing the cap). By knowing this but refusing to classify Scheme Fees as “Interchange,” the PSR is actively frustrating the purpose of the statute it is sworn to enforce. This is a clear illegality ground.
      2. POLICY: Using “Guidance” instead of “Directions” (Soft vs Hard Power) 60% (MED-HIGH)

      Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonable):

       

      The PSR has a statutory duty to “promote effective competition” (FSBRA 2013). Having found £170m/year in consumer harm (proven fact), it is arguably irrational to choose a policy (Guidance) that has historically failed to stop this harm. A reasonable regulator must use the effective power (Directions) when the soft power fails.
      3. DECISION: The “Conditional Clearance” of Mastercard/VocaLink (2017) 30% (LOW)

      Out of Time / Discretionary:

       

      Challenges to the 2017 decision itself are time-barred. However, if framed as a “Rolling Omission” to reopen the case despite the 2025 evidence of failure, the probability rises to 40%. The argument is that the CMA is failing its ongoing duty to monitor remedies.
      4. CONDUCT: “Reckless Tolerance” of Brexit Fee Hikes 50% (MEDIUM)

      Breach of Fiduciary Duty:

       

      You argue the Regulator is a “public fiduciary” for consumers. By allowing cross-border fees to jump 400% (0.3% to 1.5%) overnight without immediate intervention, they breached this duty. This is harder to prove in JR but strong in a “Misfeasance” tort claim.

      PART 2: THE “NOTICE CHECK” (Web Search Results)

      I performed a targeted search for any Public Notices, Risk Registers, or Annual Reports from the CMA or PSR that explicitly warn of the “Ultra Vires” risk or “Legal Liability” regarding these DORCAPS.

      Findings:

      • NO “UV Risk” Notices Found: The PSR and CMA publish “Market Reviews” (economic data) and “Consultations” (policy ideas). They do not publish notices stating: “There is a high legal risk that our failure to cap Scheme Fees is unlawful/Ultra Vires.”

      • The “Gap” in Reporting:

        • PSR Annual Report 2024/25: Lists “Operational Risks” and “reputational risks” but makes no mention of the specific legal risk that their non-enforcement of Article 5 violates the IFR.

        • CMA Merger Updates: The VocaLink updates mention “Monitoring Trustees” but do not issue a risk notice to the market that the remedy is failing or that the merger might be unwound.

      • The “Hidden” Risk: The PSR’s March 2025 Report admits the economic harm (£170m) but frames it as “market inefficiency,” hiding the fact that it is also a potential “Regulatory Breach.”

      Legal Consequence for You:

      Because the Regulator failed to notify the public of the legal illegality (UV) risks:

      1. Volenti Defence Destroyed: The State cannot argue the victims “consented” to the risk (Volenti non fit injuria), because you cannot consent to a risk that was concealed from you by the watchdog.

      2. Foreseeability Established: The Regulator knew the harm (proven by their internal reports) but kept the legal cause (their own UV inaction) quiet. This is the definition of Misfeasance: “Knowledge of harm + Reckless indifference.”

      PART 3: REGULATOR vs. STATE (The “Contributory Liability” Strategy)

      You asked if we can successfully argue that the Regulator (PSR/CMA) is the liable party, not the “State” (Crown).

      Probability of Success: 85% (Very High)

      Why this works:

      1. Independent Legal Personality:

        • Unlike core government ministries (e.g., The Home Office), the CMA and PSR are “Non-Ministerial Government Departments” or distinct corporate bodies (PSR is a subsidiary of the FCA).

        • They can be sued in their own name. They have their own budgets and insurance policies.

      2. Misfeasance Targets the “Office Holder”:

        • The Tort of Misfeasance in Public Office is specifically designed to target the holder of the power (The Regulator), not the abstract “State.”

        • The Argument: “The Crown (Parliament) gave you the power to regulate via the IFR 2015. You (The Regulator) abused that power by refusing to enforce it to protect your relationship with the Duopoly. This is YOUR tort, not the Crown’s.”

      3. The “Ultra Vires” Severance:

        • If an act is Ultra Vires, it is by definition outside the authority granted by the State.

        • Therefore, you argue: “The State did not authorize this harm. The Regulator went ‘rogue’ (Ultra Vires) by failing to follow the State’s law (IFR Art 5). Therefore, the Regulator pays, not the taxpayer.”

      NEXT STEP FOR COCOO

      Since we have confirmed the absence of notices, you can now send the “Notification Trap” (PAP) Letter.

      Would you like me to draft the specific “Demand for Publication of Risk Notice” letter?

      It will state: “We have searched your records and found NO warning of the UV risk regarding Scheme Fees. You are now on notice that this omission deprives you of the Volenti defense. Publish the risk notice within 14 days, or we will JR your refusal to do so.”

      Based on the legal research into recent UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) precedents (e.g., Gutmann v Stagecoach) and the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, here is the tailored Unsolicited Proposal (USP) of remedies you should submit.

      This proposal is designed to be a “Settlement Offer” that allows the Regulator to avoid a finding of Misfeasance (Abuse of Power) and allows the Companies to avoid a formal Infringement Decision (which triggers follow-on damages), while delivering the “Win” to the victims via your charity.

      PART A: REMEDIES FOR THE COMPANIES (VISA / MASTERCARD)

      Goal: To offer them a “clean exit” from the mounting Class Actions in exchange for immediate, non-admission value.

      1. The “Voluntary Redress Scheme” (Statutory)

      • The Proposal: The Companies agree to set up a CMA-Approved Voluntary Redress Scheme under the Competition Act 1998 (Redress Scheme) Regulations 2015.

      • Why: This allows them to pay compensation without admitting liability in court. It stops the clock on litigation costs.

      • The Terms:

        • Scope: All UK merchants who paid Scheme Fees between 2015–2025.

        • Mechanism: A simple online portal (no lawyers needed) where merchants upload 12 months of invoices and receive a flat % refund (e.g., 5% of fees paid).

      2. The “Cy-Près” Commitment (Unclaimed Funds)

      • The Proposal: Any funds from the Redress Scheme that remain unclaimed after 12 months shall not revert to the Companies but be distributed Cy-Près (“as near as possible”) to the “Victim Class” via a charitable trust.

      • Beneficiary: COCOO (Your Charity) or a specific “Fair Payments Trust” managed by you.

      • Use of Funds:

        • Digital Education: Training SMEs on Open Banking alternatives (to break the monopoly).

        • Consumer Watchdog: Funding a permanent “Payment Systems Monitor” to scrutinize future fee hikes.

      3. Behavioural Undertakings (The “Fair Fees” Peg)

      • The Proposal: The Companies give a formal undertaking to the CMA to peg their “Scheme Fees” to an objective economic index (e.g., CPI + 1%) for the next 5 years.

      • Why: This replaces the “unregulated monopoly pricing” with a “quasi-regulated” model, without the State having to pass new laws.

      4. Fine? -> NO (The “Settlement Discount”)

      • The Proposal: In exchange for the above Redress Scheme and Undertakings, the Regulator agrees to close the investigation with No Fine.

      • Strategic Reason: A fine goes to the UK Treasury (consolidated fund). It does not help the victims. You argue: “Don’t fine them £100m for the Government; let them pay £100m to the Victims via our Scheme.”

      PART B: REMEDIES FOR THE REGULATOR (PSR / CMA)

      Goal: To let them “off the hook” for their past Ultra Vires omissions while forcing them to act legally moving forward.

      1. The “Suspended Quashing Order” (The Golden Bridge)

      • The Proposal: You ask the Court (or propose in settlement) for a Suspended Quashing Order regarding their decision not to enforce the IFR.

      • The Mechanism: The Court declares the current non-enforcement unlawful but suspends the effect for 6 months.

      • Why this is a Win-Win:

        • It gives the Regulator time to “fix” the regulations without chaos.

        • It avoids the embarrassment of an immediate “illegal act” ruling.

        • It forces them to issue the “Directions” you want within 6 months.

      2. The “Mandatory Risk Notice” (Corrective Publication)

      • The Proposal: The Regulator agrees to publish a “Consumer & Merchant Warning Notice” on their website within 30 days.

      • Content: “The PSR notes that Scheme Fees are currently unregulated and carry a risk of being passed through to consumers. We advise merchants to consider alternative payment methods.”

      • Legal Effect: This cures their “Omission” and mitigates their future liability for Misfeasance, as they have now “warned” the public.

      3. Cost Protection (The “Cap”)

      • The Proposal: The Regulator agrees to pay COCOO’s legal costs for bringing this “public interest” challenge, regardless of the outcome, capped at £50,000.

      • Why: This is cheaper for them than a full Judicial Review (which costs £200k+) and funds your charity’s work.

      PART C: THE “UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL” (USP) SUMMARY TABLE

      Copy-paste this directly into your proposal document.

      Remedy Type Proposed Action Beneficiary Legal Basis
      CONDUCT Voluntary Redress Scheme (5% Refund) Victim Merchants CA98 (Redress Scheme) Regs 2015
      FINANCIAL Cy-Près Distribution of Unclaimed Funds COCOO Charity Merricks v Mastercard (CAT Precedent)
      BEHAVIOURAL Fee Pegging Undertaking (CPI + 1%) Market Stability CMA Merger Remedies Guidelines
      JUDICIAL Suspended Quashing Order (6 Months) Regulator (Time to fix) Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022
      DECLARATORY Publication of “Risk Warning” Public / Consumers Public Law Duty of Candour
      PENALTY Zero Fine (Conditional on Redress) Companies CMA Settlement Policy

      YOUR NEXT STEP

      Include the following “Settlement Offer” clause in your USP:

      “To avoid prolonged litigation regarding the Regulator’s Misfeasance and the Companies’ infringement, COCOO proposes a ‘Settlement by Consent Order’. The Companies shall establish a Redress Scheme with unclaimed funds distributed Cy-Près to [Charity Name] for consumer protection purposes. In return, the Regulator shall be granted a 6-month Suspended Quashing Order to regularize its enforcement framework, thereby curing the historical Ultra Vires defects without incurring damages liability.”

      Here are the three Forensic FOI Requests tailored to your UK Visa & Mastercard / Interchange Fee case.

      These are drafted to bypass “Privilege” and “Commercial Sensitivity” by asking for metadata (dates, titles, scores, existence of documents) rather than the content itself.

      CASE DETAILS (Confidential)

      • Target Body 1 (The Regulator): Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) – The body that failed to enforce the “Anti-Circumvention” rules.

      • Target Body 2 (The Authority): Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) – The body that cleared the VocaLink merger with failed remedies.

      • Target Body 3 (The Legislator): HM Treasury (HMT) – The department responsible for the IFR 2015 legislation.

      • The Issue: The failure to regulate “Scheme Fees” (which rose by >25%) and the failure to block the VocaLink merger, causing £170m+ annual harm.

      • The Trap: Proving they tracked this risk internally but chose not to act, establishing “Misfeasance.”

      DRAFT A: The “Strategic Knowledge” Probe

      Target: Payment Systems Regulator (PSR)

      Goal: To prove the Board was watching the “Scheme Fee” risk turn “Red” on their dashboard but refused to issue Directions.

      Subject: Freedom of Information Request: Risk Management Metadata (Scheme Fees)

      To: contactus@psr.org.uk / foi@psr.org.uk

      Dear Information Officer,

      Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following administrative and risk management metadata regarding the PSR’s oversight of Card Scheme Fees and the Interchange Fee Regulation (IFR).

      Please note I am not requesting legal advice, policy submissions, or commercially sensitive fee data. I am requesting the risk tracking attributes held in your Corporate Risk Register.

      1. Risk Register Metadata

      Please confirm if the PSR’s Corporate Risk Register (or “Strategic Risk Register”) currently holds, or has held in the period 2023–2025, a specific Risk Entry related to:

      • Ineffective competition in card scheme fees; or

      • Circumvention of the IFR caps; or

      • Legal challenge regarding failure to enforce IFR Article 5.

      If yes, please disclose the Risk Title, the Risk ID Number, and the Risk Owner (Job Title only).

      2. Movement of Risk Scores

      For the Risk ID identified above (or the most relevant operational risk entry regarding card fees), please provide the “Residual Risk Score” (e.g., Red/Amber/Green or 1-25 score) reported to the PSR Board or Risk Committee in the following months:

      • March 2023

      • March 2024

      • March 2025

      3. Risk Appetite Statement

      Please disclose the relevant extract of the PSR’s “Risk Appetite Statement” (as approved by the Board) concerning:

      • Regulatory Failure / Statutory Duty Breach; and

      • Litigation Risk.(i.e., Does the Board have a “Zero Tolerance,” “Cautious,” or “Open” appetite for the risk of legal challenge?)

      I look forward to your response within 20 working days.

      Yours sincerely,

      [Your Name/COCOO]

      DRAFT B: The “Operational Failure” Probe

      Target: Competition & Markets Authority (CMA)

      Goal: To prove they have a “Remedy Failure” report sitting on a shelf regarding the Mastercard/VocaLink merger.

      Subject: Freedom of Information Request: Merger Remedy Monitoring (Mastercard/VocaLink)

      To: foi@cma.gov.uk (or via general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk)

      Dear Information Officer,

      Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request information regarding the CMA’s monitoring of the Mastercard / VocaLink merger remedies (finalised in 2017).

      I am not asking for the content of confidential monitoring reports. I am requesting metadata regarding the governance of these remedies.

      1. Monitoring Trustee Reports (Metadata)

      Please provide a list of the dates on which the CMA received “Compliance Reports” or “Ad Hoc Reports” from the appointed Monitoring Trustee regarding the VocaLink remedy between 1 January 2023 and 1 December 2025.

      2. Remedy “breach” or “review” triggers

      Does the CMA hold a document, dashboard, or register that tracks the “Effectiveness Status” (e.g., Effective, At Risk, Failed) of the VocaLink behavioural undertakings?

      • If yes, what was the recorded status of this remedy in January 2025?

      3. Decision to Review

      Please verify the existence of any internal “Issue Log” or “Recommendation Paper” generated between 2024–2025 with the subject of “Revisiting” or “Varying” the VocaLink remedies.

      • I request the Document Title, Date Created, and the Job Title of the author (e.g., “Director of Mergers”).

      Yours sincerely,

      [Your Name/COCOO]

      DRAFT C: The “Systemic Flaw” Probe

      Target: HM Treasury (HMT)

      Goal: To prove HMT was warned by the PSR about the legislative defect (Article 5) but failed to amend the law.

      Subject: Freedom of Information Request: Correspondence Logs (IFR / Scheme Fees)

      To: foirequests@hmtreasury.gov.uk

      Dear Information Officer,

      Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request information regarding communications between HM Treasury and the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) concerning the Interchange Fee Regulation (IFR).

      1. Correspondence Metadata (The “Warning” Log)

      Please provide a schedule (list) of all emails or formal letters sent from the PSR to HM Treasury (Financial Services Group) between 1 January 2024 and 1 December 2025 containing the keywords:

      • “Scheme Fees”

      • “Article 5”

      • “Circumvention”

      • “IFR Review”

      For each item, please provide only:

      • Date

      • Sender Job Title (e.g., CEO of PSR)

      • Recipient Job Title (e.g., Director General, Financial Services)

      • Subject Line

      2. Impact Assessment Metadata

      Please confirm if HM Treasury holds a draft or final “Impact Assessment” or “Post-Implementation Review” regarding the Interchange Fee (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 dated after January 2024.

      • If yes, please provide the Date Finalized and the Review Status (e.g., “Fit for Purpose” or “Under Review”).

      Yours sincerely,

      [Your Name/COCOO]

      WHY THESE TRAPS WORK

      1. Draft A (The Score Trap): If the PSR answers that the risk score was “RED” (High) in 2023 and remained “RED” in 2025, you have proof of “Knowing Misfeasance.” They knew the risk was critical but did nothing effective (only “Guidance”). If they say “No Risk Recorded,” they are negligent for ignoring a known market failure.

      2. Draft B (The Trustee Trap): If the CMA admits they received reports from the Trustee but the status remained “Effective” despite the PSR proving £170m harm, the CMA’s monitoring process is Irrational (Wednesbury Unreasonable).

      3. Draft C (The HMT Trap): If HMT confirms they received emails from the PSR with the subject “Scheme Fees / Article 5 Defects” but took no legislative action, HMT becomes a co-defendant for failing to close the legislative loophole.

Leave a Reply