FOS gives examples of complaints involving consumers with mental health issues

Ensuring fair treatment of vulnerable customers should be a priority for authorised firms in all sectors. Firms need to have documented procedures explaining how they identify a vulnerable customer, and what safeguards they have in place when dealing with such customers.

A customer with mental health or mental capacity issues should certainly be treated as being vulnerable. Firms would therefore do well to read the December 2016 issue of Ombudsman News, which gives examples of how the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has dealt with complaints regarding this issue.

The cases summarised in Ombudsman News include:

• A bank who were forced to write off a man’s outstanding debt, after they failed to query information he supplied during the application process. The fact that he didn’t need to pay council tax, and that his driving licence had expired after only being renewed for a one-year period were actually both indicators of his schizophrenia
• A mortgage lender was ordered by the FOS to pay £1,000 in compensation after the firm continued to contact a woman by phone to discuss her arrears situation. It did this even though it should have been aware that telephone contact of this type would exacerbate her severe depression and anxiety
• A bank had to pay £250 in compensation after sending a number of aggressively worded debt collection letters to a woman with serious mental health issues. The FOS judged that the firm had not made sufficient attempts to engage with the woman’s son, who was willing to act as an intermediary on this issue
• A lender was forced to write off a man’s loan after they offered him a second loan only a short time after he had told them over the phone he did not wish to enter into additional borrowing. The lender failed to recognise that the man’s mother had been forced to pay off his first loan, which should have alerted them to the fact he might have difficulties in repaying a further loan. The man was suffering from a gambling addiction and other mental health issues at the time

The publication also gives examples of cases where the FOS decided that a firm’s actions had been sufficient, including:

• A bank who froze the overdraft interest and charges on the account of a woman suffering from depression as soon as she informed them of her issues. The FOS rejected her complaint that the bank should have done more to help
• A short-term high-interest lender who agreed to write off the outstanding loan when it became aware of a man’s mental health issues. His complaint also asked the firm to refund repayments he had already made, but the FOS sided with the firm on this, recognising that the firm had received no indication at the time of the application that he had any issues of this nature

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


FCA writes to debt management CEOs over annual review concerns

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has written to the chief executive (or equivalent) of all debt management firms it regulates. The FCA is concerned that some firms are not carrying out annual reviews of customers’ Debt Management Plans (DMPs), as required under FCA rules, and that other firms are not carrying out these reviews to the correct standard.

Firms must review all their DMPs at least annually, and also whenever they become aware of a material change in a customer’s circumstances.

A review must include a re-assessment of a customer’s financial position – income, capital, expenditure and other personal circumstances. The firm must then consider carefully whether the DMP remains suitable for that customer. If the firm concludes that the plan is still suitable, it must then inform the customer of the reasons why it believes the debt solution is still appropriate.

Where an annual review is conducted via telephone, a summary of the review must be sent to the customer in written form.

If a customer does not co-operate with a firm’s initial attempt to carry out an annual review, the firm cannot just accept the customer’s wishes and not carry out any sort of review. Firstly, the firm should attempt to persuade the customer to engage with the review process. If these attempts are unsuccessful, and the firm cannot then be confident that any debt management solution remains suitable for the customer’s circumstances, then it must give serious consideration to terminating its agreement with that customer.

Where a DMP is terminated, firms must pay any sums due to the customer as soon as practical.

The letter was also accompanied by a warning that the FCA could take action against firms that fail to comply with their obligations in this area – for example the regulator could impose a fine and/or a ban on the firm, or on some of its senior management. Debt management firms that currently hold interim permission, and for whom the FCA is still considering an application to upgrade to full permission, were also warned that any failure to carry out the reviews to the required standard could affect the chances of their applications being accepted.

All debt management firms should review the content of the FCA’s letter, consider carefully whether any changes need to be made to their practices and procedures, and seek professional advice from their compliance consultant if they are unclear as to what their obligations are.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


FCA reveals concerns over crowdfunding firms and suggests tough new rules

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued interim feedback on its September 2016 call for input into the crowdfunding sector. The tone and content of the feedback suggests that firms operating in this sector could soon be subject to much stricter regulatory requirements.

The FCA has still not formally proposed new rules for the crowdfunding sector – that may come sometime in 2017, when the regulator is expected to issue a formal consultation paper – but it is already strongly suggesting that major changes lie ahead. For example, the FCA press release suggests that loan-based crowdfunding firms (peer-to-peer lending firms) could be subject to similar lending standards to those that currently apply in the mortgage sector.

The FCA has concerns over loan-based crowdfunding firms’ activities in areas such as:

• The way they represent the risks associated with the transaction to their clients
• Their plans for a wind-down in the event of business failure – according to a 2015 study by AltFi Data and law firm Nabarro, one in five crowdfunding firms ultimately fail
• Their handling of client money

The following are all areas where the regulator has concerns relating to both loan-based and investment-based crowdfunding firms:

• How easily investors can compare different crowdfunding platforms, and how they can compare crowdfunding with other asset classes
• Whether investors can properly assess the risks and returns associated with crowdfunding
• Whether their financial promotions meet the requirement to be ‘clear, fair and not misleading’ – once again the FCA’s feedback has highlighted firms who are still describing a crowdfunding investment as being akin to a savings product
• Their risk management strategies and handling of conflicts of interest

Whether investors are aware of the risks of entering into a crowdfunding transaction appears to be of particular concern to the FCA. The feedback statement refers to “inadequate disclosures about risk and loan performance” by loan-based crowdfuding firms; and “inadequate disclosures … and the downplaying of risk” by investment-based crowdfunding firms.

Andrew Bailey, Chief Executive of the FCA, said:

“Our focus is ensuring that investor protections are appropriate for the risks in the crowdfunding sector while continuing to promote effective competition in the interests of consumers. Based on our findings to date, we believe it is necessary to strengthen investor protection in a number of areas. We plan to consult next year on new rules to address the issues we have identified.”

For now, crowdfunding firms need to ensure that they fully comply with the FCA’s existing rules. They also need to keep a close eye on any announcements regarding possible new rules in this area. The crowdfunding sector has grown massively in recent years and it appears that the FCA has responded to this by proposing greater levels of investor protection.

As well as a requirement for loan-based crowdfunding firms to abide by the lending standards that apply to mortgage firms, other new requirements that might be proposed include:

• Forcing firms that pool investment risk to follow rules similar to those that currently apply to asset managers
• Imposing more stringent capital adequacy requirements
• Requiring loan-based crowdfunding firms to assess investor understanding, similar to the existing requirement for investment-based crowdfunding

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


FCA confirms PPI proposals delay

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has revealed that it will not be making an announcement regarding a payment protection insurance (PPI) complaints deadline before the end of 2016.

When the regulator issued its consultation paper proposing a deadline of June 30 2019 for making a PPI complaint, it said it expected to be in a position to proceed with new rules and guidance prior to the end of the year. This latest announcement reveals that the FCA has in fact not yet reached a final decision on the matter, apparently because of the large number of responses to the consultation paper, and that it now expects to make another announcement regarding PPI before the end of the first quarter of 2017.

In addition to a claims deadline, the consultation was also concerned with new rules allowing consumers to table PPI complaints on the grounds that a large commission was not disclosed by the seller. This follows the landmark court ruling in the case of Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance.

There is no indication in the FCA’s statement that the deadline will be extended from the original proposed date of June 30 2019, or that the deadline will be scrapped entirely. However, The Guardian is amongst the media outlets suggesting that it is likely that the deadline will now be set for later in 2019.

The consultation proposed allowing firms to reject PPI complaints submitted to them after mid-2019, unless the complaint concerned a policy sold in recent years, or was concerned with claims and/or administration rather than a possible mis-sale of the insurance. The firms that sold the most PPI would be required to fund a publicity campaign informing consumers of the impending deadline. Also contained in the paper was a proposal to allow customers to submit a complaint where they were sold single premium PPI and were not informed of a commission payment that exceeded 50% of the premium.

PPI complaint volumes have reduced slightly in the last few years, but it still accounts for almost seven times as many complaints as any other financial product, according to data for the third quarter of 2016 published by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The likelihood of a deadline being imposed has however led to predictions of a spike in PPI complaint numbers, prompting Lloyds Banking Group and Barclays Bank, amongst others, to increase their PPI compensation reserve once again. Lloyds has now set aside £17 billion to settle mis-selling claims and the industry’s total bill for the PPI scandal has topped £40 billion.

Just days before the latest FCA announcement, Santander was subject to action by the competition watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), for failing to follow its rules on PPI. The CMA requires banks to send ‘annual review’ letters to certain customers – letters which inform them of the cost of PPI and remind them of their right to cancel the policy. Santander failed to do this in the case of more than 500 customers, and has now been forced to enter into an agreement with the CMA under which it will write to affected customers apologising for its oversight and offering refunds if policies are cancelled within six months of the date of the apology letter.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


Two more companies fined by ICO over spam texts concerning loans

At the end of November 2016, the data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) fined two more firms for sending spam texts concerning loans.

Like so many firms fined by the ICO recently, both Dorset-based Silver City Tech Ltd and London-based Oracle Insurance Brokers Ltd attempted to deflect the blame for sending the unsolicited messages onto third party marketing firms they had engaged. Once again, the ICO was not persuaded by this argument, as firms always retain responsibility for ensuring their marketing campaigns are conducted in accordance with the law, even if responsibility for delivering the messages is sub-contracted to another party.

Silver City was fined £100,000 after it sent more than three million texts over a five-month period. A typical message read:

“Maxine, we have received your details and could arrange £500 over six months. Click for cash. 1270% rep APR, 292% int. Stop2 opt out.”

Firms cannot send marketing text messages unless all recipients have previously given clear and explicit consent to receiving them. Inviting people to reply to opt out of future messages, as in the example message above, will never be sufficient to ensure compliance with the law.

Silver City continued to send large numbers of unsolicited texts even though the ICO had warned the firm about this practice.

Oracle sent around 136,000 texts, and received a fine of £30,000 for its actions. An example of one of its marketing messages was:

“Richard You’ve been accepted for a loan today! Nothing to pay back for 6mths, no credit checks – get funds now at www.payday2day.co.uk to stop txt stop”

If the firms choose not to appeal and settle the fines by January 5 2017 then they will be reduced by 20% to £80,000 and £24,000 respectively.

Andy Curry, ICO enforcement group manager, said:

“Affiliate firms are like postmen, delivering the message. It’s the people behind the message whose job it is to make sure it complies with the law. They must make rigorous checks to ensure the rules have been followed.”

Mr Curry added:

“Hundreds of people have complained to us about spam texts relating to payday loans this year, showing it is a real problem for the public. These reports help inform our investigations so we can take action against the wrongdoers.”

The ICO currently has the power to fine companies up to £500,000 for breaches of the law regarding marketing communications. However, amid concerns that some firms are putting themselves into voluntary liquidation to avoid paying, the Government is now proposing that the ICO is also allowed to fine individual company directors as well. Hence from next spring, firms who break the law regarding marketing communications could be fined, whilst also seeing one or more of their directors hit with a monetary penalty for the same offence.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


FCA seeks to ban and fine advice firm director over SIPP transfer advice

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has announced its intention to ban and fine an advisory firm boss over his firm’s sales practices when advising on Self Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPs).

Unless he is successful in his appeal to the Upper Tribunal, Alistair Rae Burns, Chief Executive at TailorMade Independent Limited (TMI), will be prohibited from carrying out any significant influence or senior management roles in the future, and will need to pay a fine of £233,600.

TMI advised a number of customers to transfer funds from occupational pension schemes, including final salary (defined benefits) schemes, to SIPPs that invested in unregulated, high-risk areas such as biofuel oil, farmland and overseas property. Although TMI did carry out an assessment of clients’ financial circumstances, and assessed their attitude to risk, they still ended up recommending a transfer to a SIPP in almost all cases that the FCA reviewed. This runs contrary to 19.1.6 of the FCA’s Conduct of Business Rules, which states that:

“When advising a retail client who is … a member of a defined benefits occupational pension scheme, or other scheme with safeguarded benefits, whether to transfer, convert or opt-out, a firm should start by assuming that a transfer, conversion or opt-out will not be suitable. A firm should only then consider a transfer, conversion or opt-out to be suitable if it can clearly demonstrate, on contemporary evidence, that the transfer, conversion or opt-out is in the client’s best interests.”

Many clients were still recommended to transfer to a SIPP even though they were not assessed as having a high attitude to risk.

Over a three-year period, 1,661 TMI clients invested a total of £112,420,985 in SIPPs. 923 of these clients invested in overseas property developments. 517 were advised to transfer funds out of a final salary scheme.

Furthermore, the vast majority of TMI’s clients were referred to the firm by an introducer firm, of which Mr Burns was a director. Mr Burns was therefore receiving his share of both fees paid to TMI for the advice to invest in the SIPPs, and commission paid to the introducer firm for supplying the lead in the first place. Mr Burns failed to inform clients of the existence of this conflict of interest, and failed to put in place a process for managing it.

The regulator comments that:

“Mr Burns failed to ensure that TMI provided suitable advice to its clients and failed to ensure that TMI managed fairly and clearly disclosed his own personal conflicts of interest and the conflicts of interest relating to other individuals at TMI.”

In August 2015, the FCA prohibited TMI director Robert Shaw from senior management functions, and fined him £165,900, for similar issues. Mr Shaw did not appeal against these sanctions.

TMI is now in liquidation.

The cases of Mr Burns and Mr Shaw further illustrate the risks incurred by firms that choose to offer SIPPs. The product had the highest uphold rate in the latest complaints data published by the Financial Ombudsman Service, with even more complaints about SIPPs being upheld than those about payment protection insurance.

SIPP mis-selling is also having a significant impact on the amount of compensation the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is having to pay out to clients of firms that are now insolvent.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


FCA suggests price caps on other forms of high cost credit

The UK’s payday lenders have been subject to a price cap for almost two years now. The regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has now launched a call for input to examine the possibility of extending the concept of price caps to other forms of credit.

The paper published by the regulator in November 2016 is a ‘call for input’ as opposed to a ‘consultation paper’, so specific rule changes are not being proposed. However, the suggestion made in the call for input is that the FCA may be minded to impose some form of price cap on forms of lending such as: home-collected credit, catalogue credit, rent-to-own arrangements, pawn-broking, guarantor loans, logbook loans, motor finance, credit cards and overdrafts. Rent-to-own borrowers can, for example, sometimes end up paying almost twice the amount borrowed in interest and charges.

Responses to the call for input should be submitted by February 15 2017. A consultation on formal proposals may then take place later in 2017.

The FCA also promises to use its competition powers to study the overdrafts market in more detail.

It also says it will conduct a review of the payday loan price cap during the first half of 2017, and consider whether the cap should be changed in any way, and whether the cap has led to an increase in illegal lending. Since January 2015, payday lenders have been unable to impose daily interest rates of more than 0.8%, and have been unable to ask borrowers to repay more in interest and charges than the amount originally borrowed.

The FCA says that, since it became the consumer credit regulator in April 2014, arrears rates are down by a quarter, and the number of people taking out a payday loan has fallen by 800,000 over an 18-month period. It also claims there has been a 20% fall in loan approval rates from the start of 2014 to the middle of 2015.

Andrew Bailey, Chief Executive of the FCA, said:

“This is a significant moment for our approach to consumer credit regulation as we continue to ensure that this market works well for consumers.

“As an organisation, we have already taken many steps to address the risk of consumer harm by putting in place new rules for high-cost short-term credit firms and taking action against non-compliance across all credit markets.

“We have come up to the point of reviewing the cap on payday lending, making now the right time to take a broader view of the issues around high-cost credit, including unarranged overdrafts, and to consider whether our requirements remain appropriate.”

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


‘New generation’ payday lender reveals survey findings about the payday sector

Self-styled ‘new generation’ payday lender Cashfloat – a trading style of Western Circle Limited – has issued the results of its recent research, which reveals some stark truths about who the typical payday loan borrower is, suggests that the public’s knowledge of payday loans and their regulation remains limited, and shines some light on the practices of some of the less scrupulous lenders.

The firm’s findings include:

• Only 34% of respondents were clear as to the difference between a lender and a credit broker
• 15% were unaware of the lending caps that payday lenders are subject to, and believed that they could charge whatever they liked in interest and fees. Only 30% were aware of the specific rule prohibiting lenders from asking borrowers to repay more than the amount they have borrowed. Cashfloat suggests less reputable lenders could use consumers’ lack of knowledge in this area to their own advantage
• 71% of payday loan applicants were not in a marriage or civil partnership, possibly indicating that finances can become more stretched where there is only one breadwinner
• More than 10% of applications were from people working in the health and social care sectors, suggesting that this is a profession where employees are particularly struggling to manage their finances
• 18% of people with disabilities have resorted to payday loans and other arrangements that meet the Financial Conduct Authority’s definition of ‘high cost credit’, compared to just 5% of the non-disabled population
• 14% of respondents incorrectly believed security was required for a payday loan
• Around a quarter of people did not know what the abbreviation APR stood for (it’s Annual Percentage Rate, and allows consumers to compare the overall costs of borrowing, including all fees to be charged)
• Average debt per person in the UK rose by more than £1000 in the 12 months to September 2016. Total personal debt in the UK has now topped £1.5 trillion
• 4% of pension pots had more than 10% of their value withdrawn in 2016, suggesting that some older people are withdrawing more than they ideally should in order to address short-term financial difficulty

The firm’s news post regarding the survey comments:

“We were pleasantly surprised at how many people responded [top the survey], but when we looked at the results… well, we were shocked, to say the least. People just didn’t know the basics about payday loans. Even worse, many were people who were looking at our website and considering whether to take a loan or not didn’t know how to identify safe and responsible lenders. That got us thinking…. If the UK public don’t know the basics about payday loans, we had better do something about it.“

Cashfloat’s website says:

“Our goal is to redefine the payday loan industry with fundamentally good morals.”

The news section of its website celebrates the fact that the number of complaints about the firm made to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) during the first six months of 2016 was lower than in the second half of 2015. This is despite the overall number of payday loan complaints to the FOS more than tripling over the same period. Cashfloat also had less than 40% of its complaints upheld by the FOS, compared to 53% for the sector as a whole.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


FCA issues booklet on financial crime issues for consumer credit firms

In November 2016, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a booklet entitled ‘Consumer credit: Protecting your business from financial crime’. The regulator says that its contents are particularly aimed at credit firms who are new to FCA oversight.

The booklet begins by saying that firms in all areas of consumer credit, and indeed all firms regulated by the FCA, have a high-level obligation to put in place systems and controls to reduce the risk of the firm being used to facilitate financial crime.

It then goes on to say that the FCA’s detailed money laundering regulations do not apply to most types of credit firm. They apply however to most firms that enter into credit agreements as a lender. Exceptions include firms that only offer fixed sum credit with deferred payments of less than 12 months; and firms offering cheque cashing, currency exchange or money transmission services. Firms in the latter category are subject to the supervision of HM Revenue & Customs for money laundering purposes.

Firms that are subject to the detailed FCA money laundering rules must appoint a Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO). This individual must be a senior manager with the skills and experience to assess money laundering risks, to decide if transactions are suspicious and to know how to respond to reports of suspicious activity. The MLRO must report to the firm’s board on at least an annual basis on the effectiveness of the firm’s money laundering systems and controls.

Firms subject to the detailed rules are also required to consider money laundering risk whenever they:

• Develop new products
• Start doing business with new customers
• Change their business profile

Firms are expected to conduct an assessment of the financial crime risks posed by their business model, and to repeat this risk assessment on a regular basis.

All authorised firms should also have documented anti-money laundering procedures, and staff should be trained on the contents of this procedure, and on how to report a suspicious transaction.

Senior management must take responsibility for establishing and maintaining effective financial crime controls, and must keep up to date with financial crime issues.

Financial crime risks also exist as a result of the fact that authorised firms need to hold customer data. Firms must therefore have written data protection procedures and must have systems in place to ensure the security of customers’ data with which they are entrusted. Again, a senior manager should take responsibility for data security issues.

Examples of good data security practice, as mentioned in the booklet, include:

• Having individual user accounts for all systems containing customer data
• Restricting access to areas where customer data is stored
• Encrypting customer data which is held in electronic form

Finally, firms are reminded of the need to maintain evidence of verification of a customer’s identity for five years after the end of the business relationship with that customer.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


The Autumn Statement – guide for financial services firms

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond MP, has delivered his first major Commons speech since assuming the role in the summer. His Autumn Statement to the House of Commons suggested growth in the UK economy would only be 1.4% next year, down from the 2.1% previously predicted. As a result of Brexit and other factors, Mr Hammond said the Government was abandoning its target to run a budget surplus by 2020.

The UK’s financial firms may notice that their clients have less money to spend in the coming years. The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) has predicted that real terms wages in 2021 will be no higher than they were immediately before the 2008 financial crisis.

Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, said:

“One cannot stress how extraordinary and dreadful that is, more than a decade without real earnings growth. We have certainly not seen a period remotely like it in the last 70 years and quite possibly the last 100.”

The threshold for paying income tax will rise to £11,500 from April 2017, and to £12,500 by 2020. Mr Hammond also outlined plans to gradually raise the threshold at which higher rate income tax is paid, so that it will reach £50,000 by 2020. In the shorter term, this threshold will rise from £42,385 to £45,000 in the next tax year.

As expected, there was the announcement of consultations into banning pensions cold calling and into limiting the cash compensation that can be paid for whiplash suffered in motor accidents. However, any money consumers might have expected to save in premiums from the latter proposal may be swallowed up by the Chancellor’s announcement of another rise in Insurance Premium Tax. This tax – paid on motor, pet, medical and household insurance premiums – will rise two percentage points to 12% from June 2017.

One less well reported announcement in the Statement is one that has still attracted much criticism from the pensions industry. The money purchase annual allowance – the amount someone can contribute to a money purchase pension plan once they have started to access the pot flexibly – will be cut from £10,000 to just £4,000 from April 2017.

Another less welcome announcement was that anyone earning more than £43,000 per annum will pay £200 more per year in National Insurance contributions.

Use of salary sacrifice will be severely restricted in the future. From 2017, most employees who receive benefits-in-kind from their employer, such as gym memberships and mobile phone deals, will pay the normal rate of tax on these benefits. Salary sacrifice – where an employee gives up part of their salary in return for a benefit that is taxed at a lower rate – will still be permitted for employer pension contributions, childcare, ultra-low emission cars and cycle to work schemes however.

The Chancellor confirmed he remains committed to the previously announced plan to reduce corporation tax to 17% by 2020.

Mr Hammond also announced a change to the way he will deliver major statements to Parliament. There will no longer be an Autumn Statement, instead the Chancellor will deliver a Budget in both March and November of next year. From 2018, the Budget will take place annually in the autumn, with a Spring Statement earlier in the year.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.

Posts navigation