They do do it properly
I will concede your point for the reasons you give - they do regulate. To a fashion.
My point is that they have it in their gift to make the structure of courses, appointment of FTOs and candidates' responsibilities to themselves more accountable at one level.
I have no desire to have heavy handed regulation - that way leads to the jobsworth mentality so prevalent in the Nu Labour (and now, I fear, the Nu Conservative) world.
Perception is all; is there a mechanism to say, up front 'yes, we have done due diligence on the training manuals, but we are not responsible for monitoring the financial aspects of this company - despite their having made a cock of it in the past.'?
While the CAA has the ultimate say in dictating who is allowed to extract vast sums of money from students, I believe there is a moral imperative to include the fiduciary element in their considerations. It appears to me this is not the case.
My perception of the whole mixup is that different parts of different bodies are accountable. Any lawyer worth his/her rations will turn any case down involving an animal that can point anywhere other than itself.
I maintain: time for change!