View more on these topics

FCA gives banned network boss two weeks to pay £86,000 fine

charlie palmer
Former Financial Limited chief executive Charlie Palmer

Banned former network boss Charlie Palmer must pay a more than £86,000 fine to the FCA within two weeks, the regulator said today.

The FCA published a final notice on 19 September, after Palmer’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal was unsuccessful, which says that his £86,691 fine must now be paid within 14 days.

If any or all of the fine is not paid within that timeframe the FCA can recover it as debt owed by the former Financial Limited chief to the FCA.

In August, the regulator succeeded in its its battle to ban and fine Palmer after the Upper Tribunal rejected his appeal. The initial FCA decision was given to Palmer in September 2015.

FCA wins battle to ban former network boss

The fine is the second Palmer has received, after being investigated by previous regulator the Financial Services Authority in 2009 and then fined £49,000 a year later over risks of unsuitable pension switching advice at the firm.



Ex-Financial Ltd adviser under fire over missing £500k redress

A former Financial Ltd adviser has failed to pay around £500,000 in compensation to clients after recommending they buy into an unregulated collective investment scheme investing in waste and recycling. The Sunday Times reports MFS Partnership partner Paul Herd owes David and Sheila Solomon a total of £497,177 after a Financial Ombudsman Service decision ruled […]


Failed network Financial Ltd faces £90k in claims

Bankrupt advice network Financial Ltd is facing £90,000 in claims that are being handled by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The company’s liquidators Moore Stephens published documents on Companies House that show two claims were made against Financial Ltd to 4 July 2016 with the FSCS listed as the contact address. The first claim is […]

charlie palmer

‘One in 50 cases missold is acceptable’: Ex-Financial Ltd chief Charlie Palmer opens up

Former Financial Ltd chief executive Charlie Palmer has defended how he operated the troubled business, including a board policy anticipating one in 50 clients would experience misselling. In an interview with Money Marketing he gives his side of a story that saw the network face the full force of the regulator’s microscope and eventually be […]

Standard Life changes default pension fund for a million customers

Standard Life is changing the investment strategy of its default pension fund which would affect more than a million existing customers. Standard Life customers who are invested in older lifestyle profiles which were created pre-auto enrolment and pensions reform will soon be informed of the changes in the asset allocation of their default funds. The […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 11 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Having been hit with (and presumably forced to pay) the fine of £49,000 imposed by the FSA, it seems reckless in the extreme for Mr Palmer not to have realised that he was going to have to change his ways and toe the line. Instead, he seems just to have carried on regardless, not least throwing petrol on the fire by posting his derogatory opinions of the regulator on social media. How can he have possibly believed that the FCA would look the other way and do nothing?

  2. Hi is still CEO of IFA Compliance and their website proudly states;

    ‘We are specialists in compliance.

    We will help you obtain your FCA authorisation and we will assist you with the filing of your FCA returns. At IFAC, we will act as your compliance support function and we will ensure that your returns are completed on time. We will assist you in keeping compliant with the guidelines set down by the FCA. These are our most requested services.’

    Anyone using this service still, needs their heads looking at.

    The guy needs to be booted out of all aspects of this industry.

  3. The case relates to events going from nine to five years ago when I founded the Financial Network.

    The tribunal held that the Firm’s culture was indeed one of regulatory compliance; that the business model was not inappropriate; that I did not fail to ensure adequate systems and controls were in place to deal with the risks; and that I did not fail to supervise my co-directors appropriately.

    The Firms’s AR files fell short in UCIS and pension switching, but overall consistently outperformed the FCA’s thematic review on suitability conducted earlier this year. Overall suitability of advice was above 90%, and overall suitability of disclosure above 75% even five to seven years ago. For IFAs less than 50% of the files the FCA reviewed across the industry in their thematic review were deemed suitable on these counts just this year.

    Despite the differences in view between us, at no stage, has the FCA ever challenged my honesty and integrity or questioned my belief that I was acting in the best interests of my clients and the AR clients. I am pleased also that at no stage has the FCA ever suggested that I was not a fit and proper person to continue to work as a consultant or adviser within the industry.

    I support the FCA’s agenda, they have a difficult job to do as the complexities of this case has shown.

    • That’s all very well Charlie but, to quote FCA executive director of enforcement and market oversight Mark Steward: “Mr Palmer’s conduct fell well below the standards the FCA expects of a senior manager of an authorised firm. His conduct was made worse by the fact that he did not learn lessons from, and address the failings highlighted to him in, 2010.”

      As I read it, that and your fine of nearly £87,000 suggest pretty unequivocally that the FCA does not consider you to be a fit and proper person to hold any position of significant influence with any regulated firm. You were instructed by the FCA to mend your ways and put your house in order but chose wilfully to ignore that instruction.

      The FCA has no control over or particular interest in what you may do from now on in an unregulated capacity as a consultant or adviser.

  4. This is the verdict:

    “The Tribunal determined that Mr Palmer failed to act with due skill, care and diligence in breach of Statement of Principle 6 and upheld the Authority’s decision to impose a financial penalty of £86,691.

    The Tribunal dismissed Mr Palmer’s reference in respect of the Authority’s decision to make a prohibition order against him and directed that it was open to the Authority to make such a prohibition order against him. As a consequence,
    pursuant to section 56 of the Act, the Authority has decided to make a prohibition order against Mr Palmer, prohibiting him from performing any significant influence function in relation to any regulated activities carried on by any authorised or exempt person or exempt professional firm on the grounds that he is not a fit and proper person to perform significant influence functions.”

  5. What have the regulators doing since 1987? Bugger all it would appear.

    • I think they’ve been doing plenty, no doubt about that (and they’ve certainly spent tanker loads of OPM doing it).

      The problem with the FCA, like its predecessors, is its constitutional inability to prioritise, as a result of which it tends to go humungously (and often detrimentally) OTT in some areas, whilst completely (and also detrimentally) neglecting others (such as failing to prevent the mis-selling of UCIS and the industrial-scale mis-selling of PPI).

      Hence my occasional calls for the FCA itself to be regulated by an external body. The need for this is self-evident. But nobody seems to be interested in trying to make it happen, least of all APFA or PIMFAA. Maybe Libertatem will step up to the plate.

Leave a comment