View more on these topics

FCA calls on providers to review closed-book policies

Clock money 620 x 430

The FCA has called on providers to review their closed-book policies to make sure customers are still being treated fairly.

Except in “exceptional” cases, products should be reviewed at least every five years, the regulator said in new guidance on how to treat closed-book customers this morning.

The update follows a March review of how long-standing customers in policies closed to new business were being treated. Six providers were referred to FCA enforcement after the regulator uncovered widespread failures as part of the closed-book review, including over the disclosure of exit fees and paid-up charges.

The FCA says: “Firms that have closed-book customers should have well-defined and effective processes to ensure that products continue to meet customers’ reasonable expectations. Firms should also have in place adequate risk management systems to ensure that they can identify where poor outcomes may be occurring, and take appropriate action.”

The regulator said that there may be cases where much more frequent reviews of closed-book products were needed however.

“We feel it would be highly unlikely that a five-yearly review will be sufficient for all products on a firm’s book. There are also likely to be events that occur that give good reason for carrying out an ad hoc review: for example, a firm may highlight that its range of pensions require review due to recent legislative changes promoting increased freedoms to ensure that these products will continue to provide fair outcomes for customers in light of the changes made. If not, firms should take action to address this.”

The FCA said its guidance did not mean firms would be required to amend terms and conditions, but that firms should be doing things like communicating charges and other options available before charges are applied, as well as taking other products into account when performance is poor.

“Due to the long term nature of these contracts we consider a reasonable interpretation of fairness should include a more holistic consideration of the overall outcome being delivered today rather than rely solely on something that was promised many years ago and which is embedded into a contract’s T&Cs.”

The FCA says it expects firms to conduct a business review in the next three months and react to the guidance if they need to, including by dropping any outsourcing contracts that are no longer in customers’ best interests.

The regulator also says that a “voice of the customer” should be heard on key committees to make sure firms adequately consider treating customer fairly principles.

However, the FCA stressed that providers did not need to give full advice to closed-book customers.

“This guidance applies to product providers. Where we refer to firms’ communications with customers, we are referring to provision of information rather than advice. We do not intend there to be any implication in this guidance that product providers should provide advice to customers.”

Recommended

FCA logo new 3 620x430
1

Six providers face FCA enforcement over closed-book failures

Six providers have been referred to FCA enforcement after the regulator uncovered widespread failures as part of its closed book review. Abbey Life, Countrywide, Old Mutual, Police Mutual, Prudential and Scottish Widows will be investigated to uncover the extent of disclosure of exit fees and paid-up charges, including after December 2008. Abbey Life and Old […]

Poyntz-Wright-Nick-FCA-2013 500 x 320.jpg
3

Ex-FCA pensions director Poyntz-Wright joins closed-book firm Phoenix

Former FCA long-term savings and pensions director Nick Poyntz-Wright has joined closed book provider Phoenix as a non-executive director. He will sit on the board of the life company, not the group. In March he was also made a non-executive director at annuity specialist Just Retirement. Poyntz-Wright joined the FSA in 2011 after seven years […]

14

Nic Cicutti: My fury at industry over closed-book pensions rip-off

If you were to ask regular readers of Money Marketing to describe the underlying tone of this column in a single word, my best guess is the term most would use is “rant”. “Rant” is defined in dictionaries as “to speak or shout at length in an angry, impassioned way”. So I can kind of […]

Looking back at 2015

By Fiona Tait, Pensions Specialist 2015 was quite a year for pensions. Change, more change, and proposed changes to the changes. The Spring Budget – pre-election plans With everything that has happened since, it is hard to remember what happened in March. Following on from the bombshell of the 2014 Budget, the Chancellor confined himself […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 6 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. They keep inventing jobs to keep their own don’t they?

  2. Here we go again, the regulator trying to rewrite history and force providers to change the terms written into longstanding contracts. What if they won’t? The FCA can’t shut down closed book providers because they’re neither seeking nor taking on new business.

    And anyway, all contracts started since the advent of regulation 30 years ago would have been marketed with regulatory acquiescence so, if their terms are deemed now to be so unacceptable, why weren’t they then? Regulation by hindsight.

  3. It is not the Regulator re-writing history. It is about companies using historic Mortality Tables instead of applying improved current figures, increasing Bid/Offer spreads and rounding-up etc etc.

  4. Do we know which six Companies were referred to FCA enforcement, what the issues were and what was the outcome of the enforcement process?

  5. My personal take is that it is very difficult for a financial services industry to be competitive, successful and innovative if products which are compliant when created (assuming that was the case) effectively become non compliant due to the passage of time through retrospective standards being applied.

  6. ……“Due to the long term nature of these contracts we consider a reasonable interpretation of fairness should include a more holistic consideration of the overall outcome being delivered today rather than rely solely on something that was promised many years ago and which is embedded into a contract’s T&Cs.”…… So in effect what they are saying is that contracts drawn up should be done-so on an ever changeable basis??????? Interesting concept

Leave a comment