Rosenblatt
  • About
    • Memery Crystal
    • Investors
  • Services

    Services

    Rosenblatt is a disputes powerhouse. Competitive in the best sense, our teams provide incisive specialist expertise and collaborate closely with one another to meet our clients’ needs across the full spectrum of their activities.

    • Dispute Resolution
    • Construction, Engineering and Energy
    • Corporate Investigations
    • Debt Recovery
    • DLT, Digital Assets, and Tokenisation
    • Financial Crime
    • Financial Services
    • Insolvency & Financial Restructuring
    • International Arbitration
    • Probate & Wills
    • Serious & General Crime
    • Tax
    • Non-Contentious & Advisory
  • Insight
  • Events
  • Group Litigation
    • Amazon Legal Action
    • Property Investment Scheme Claims
    • Apple Class Action
  • Contact

UK Local Authorities Could Seek Damages Over Alleged Pre-Paid Cards Cartel as Payment Services Regulator Issues a Statement of Objections Fining Parties £32 Million

7th April 2021

Introduction

The Payment Services Regulator (PSR) issued its first decision enforcing competition law in the payments sector on 31st March 2021. The PSR is a concurrent competition regulator for the payments sector along with the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA). This is the first time the PSR it has used its competition powers since it became a concurrent competition regulator in 2015.

The PSR provisionally decided that five parties were guilty of taking part in a cartel in relation to pre-paid cards used by local authorities to distribute welfare payments to vulnerable members of society, such as the homeless, victims of domestic violence and asylum seekers contrary to Chapter I of Competition Act 1998. The PSR alleged that Mastercard, allpay, APS, PFS and Sulion all engaged in anti-competitive behaviour by agreeing not to compete or poach each other’s clients.

The PSRs provisional decision was in the form of a Statement of Objections (“SO”) served on the parties outlining its case and the penalty it proposes to impose. As it is a provisional decision only it does not necessarily lead to an infringement. Parties now have the opportunity to make written and oral representations on the matters set out in the SO.

If the PSR’s provisional findings are upheld and the parties are found guilty of cartel behaviour their customers most notably local authorities can sue to recover any loss or damage they suffered due to the operation of the cartel. This could include damages for any inflated prices they were made to pay for purchasing the pre-paid cards.

The Parties

Mastercard is a payment system operator which is active worldwide, including in the UK. It operates a four-party card scheme whereby a card payment by a consumer to a merchant is facilitated by a number of intermediary parties, including card issuers and acquirers. Mastercard licences its brand to issuers and acquirers who meet the requirements of the Mastercard membership scheme. Three other parties, APS, Prepaid Financial Services (PFS) Limited (“PFS”) and allpay are all Electronic Money Institutions, licensed issuers of Mastercard and Mastercard Programme Managers (PMs) . They all issued prepaid card services to the public sector. The final member of the alleged cartel, Sulion, provided services to Mastercard for which Sulion was paid. Their mandate was to promote the use of pre-paid cards in the public sector. This was achieved through the setting up of the National Prepaid Cards Network (Network), whose members were the public sector bodies potentially interested in prepaid cards (local authorities, etc) and the Mastercard PMs.

Three out of five parties have already admitted liability for breaching competition rules under the settlement procedure and agreed to pay maximum penalties totalling over £32million as part of settlement.

The Alleged Cartel Behaviour

In its SO the PSR alleges that there were two principal infringements of the Competition Act 1998 that took the form of market sharing/customer allocation. The first lasted over six years (between 2012 and 2018) and involved all five parties. The other lasted two years (between 2014 and 2016) and involving APS and PFS. The parties now have the opportunity to make representations on the provisional findings set out in the SO.

The PSR commenced its investigation in October 2017 and in February 2018, carried out unannounced searches at a number of the companies’ premises. In the SO the PSR provisionally concluded that the parties coordinated their commercial behaviour to share the market and allocate customers in relation to the supply of prepaid card services used for welfare disbursements to public bodies in England, Scotland and Wales. The pre-paid cards operated on just the Mastercard card scheme. Other than for a short period in 2016, Mastercard sponsored and wholly funded the National Prepaid Cards Network (“Network”), whose members were the public sector bodies potentially interested in prepaid cards (local authorities, etc) and the Mastercard programme managers (PMs).

The Network was central to one of the cartel allegations investigated by the PSR, which took place between 2012 and 2018. The PSR provisionally concluded that during this period the five parties arranged for the PMs which were members of the Network not to target or poach each other’s public sector customers that were in contract with other Network PM or were being provided services through a pilot programme by other Network PM. In the early days of the Network, the parties also colluded to exclusively allocate the leads from Network promotional events between the Network PMs.

In relation to the second allegation of cartel activity the PSR provisionally found that between 2014 and 2016 APS and PFS arranged not to target each other’s public sector customers when a contract was up for renewal, including through a public tender.

As a consequence of this alleged collusion, public bodies were limited in the choice of suppliers of pre-paid cards services, and potentially deprived of lower prices and a better quality of service.

Settlement Procedure

In February 2021 Mastercard, allpay and PFS agreed to settle with the PSR and admitted that they took part in the alleged anticompetitive arrangement(s). In the event that the PSR ultimately concludes that that the competition rules have been infringed Mastercard, allpay and PFS have agreed to pay maximum fines totalling over £32million. These fines will be reduced due to their cooperation in the inquiry and admission of their part in the cartel. It is understood that the remaining parties have not admitted liability in relation to the PSR’s allegations in the SO.

Conclusion

The PSR’s current inquiry into cartel activities in the pre- paid card sector targeted the public purse through increasing costs for local authorities in providing welfare payments to some of them most vulnerable in society. The regulator has decided that it is appropriate to use its competition law powers for the first time since becoming a concurrent regulator. Its choice of competition law powers was probably primarily influenced by the fact conduct amounting to customer allocation and market sharing is best dealt with under competition law powers. Secondly but no less importantly it means that should the infringements be proved local authorities adversely impacted by the alleged cartel will be able to bring actions for damages in the UK courts to recover the artificially inflated prices they may have charged as a result of any anti-competitive behaviour.

Post navigation

Rosenblatt Acts as Legal Adviser to ES Global in Flywheel Partners Investment
HMRC Publishes Cryptoassets Manual Replacing Previous Cryptoasset Guidance

Categories

  • Articles
  • News
  • Videos

Topics

  • Banking & Finance
  • Competition & Regulatory
  • Corporate
  • Dispute Resolution
  • DLT, Cryptocurrencies and Crypto Assets
  • Employment
  • Financial Crime
  • Financial Services
  • Insolvency & Financial Restructuring
  • International Arbitration
  • Investigations
  • IP/Technology/Media
  • Real Estate
  • Tax
Rosenblatt
  • +44 (0) 20 7955 0880
  • info@rosenblatt-law.co.uk

Helpful Links

  • Anti-Modern Slavery Statement
  • Complaints Policy
  • Diversity & Equality
  • Interest
  • Pricing
  • Subscribe to our Mailing List

SRA No. 820215, authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Ce Logo
Uk Top Tier Firm 2026

Rosenblatt is a trading name of RBG Legal Services Limited, a company registered in England and Wales (with company number 13287062) and which is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under SRA No. 820215. A list of the directors of RBG Legal Services Limited, together with a list of those persons who are designated as partners of Rosenblatt, is available for inspection at the registered office of the company at 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY.

Rosenblatt uses the word “partner” to refer to a senior employee or consultant. However, Rosenblatt is not a partnership and the use of the term “partner” does not create or imply a partnership amongst or between any of its employees or consultants.

© 2025 Rosenblatt

  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Website by Brighter*IR

link

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

You can find out more about which cookies we are using or switch them off in .

Rosenblatt
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

Performance cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!

Cookie Policy

More information about our Cookie Policy.