View more on these topics

FCA could pay more redress after incorrect warning notice ruling


The Complaints Commissioner has said the FCA might have to pay out more compensation after incorrectly listing a firm on its warning webpage, and should clarify what evidence it needs from the firm to prove it suffered financial loss.

“Company C” was wrongly listed on the FCA’s warnings webpage as being unregulated between September 2013 and April 2015.

An initial complaint to the regulator seeking financial compensation was upheld in November 2015. The FCA asked the complainant for more evidence on how many clients Company C would expect through its website as well as further evidence about initial and ongoing fees.

According to a decision from the Complaints Commissioner, the complainant told the FCA in February 2016 that if the warning had not been published, Company C would have had 17 additional clients between 2013 and 2015 worth more than £2.48m.

The FCA responded that it was reasonable to assume that there were 17 unique visitors to Company C’s website between 2013 and 2015, but it wanted proof of the firm’s actual losses.

The regulator offered a £500 payment for distress and inconvenience, which in its complaint to the commissioner, the complainant said was a “derisory offer” because of the possible losses suffered by Company C.

Complaints Commissioner Antony Townsend acknowledged the FCA compensation offer, but said it might have to offer an additional payment for direct financial loss if it received evidence of an actual loss.

Townsend says: “The FCA undertook a thorough investigation into your complaint and openly admitted its errors. It offered a payment for distress and inconvenience, but concluded that it did not have sufficient evidence of direct loss to consider a payment for financial compensation.

“While I consider that it was right to reach that conclusion, I also consider that the FCA could have specified more clearly the evidence which it considered was missing.”

He has recommended the FCA writes to the complainant setting out the following factors: that it is prepared to consider further the claim for compensation for loss, the evidence it requires, the assumptions it would use to calculate a payment if it receives evidence, and the limitations on making a payment.

Townsend says: “I have some sympathy with the FCA’s position that, despite requesting evidence to demonstrate direct financial loss, Company C had not supplied sufficient evidence. However, I consider the FCA might have made it clearer what evidence was required.”

In its response to the Complaints Commissioner report, the FCA says: “The FCA has noted that the commissioner agrees with the FCA in his findings and accepts the recommendations. The FCA will write to the complainant with the requested information.”

The commissioner did not uphold the part of the complaint related to the length of time it took the FCA to investigate.



Another 12 pension introducer firms reported to FCA

Unregulated pension introducers continue to fall foul of the FCA, new data shows. The regulator continues to see a steady stream of cases related to unregulated introducers, with 12 new cases reported from September to the end of November 2016. According to a Freedom of Information Act request from Money Marketing, of the 12 new […]

FCA logo glass 620x430

FCA data protection breaches revealed

Details of a number of data protection breaches at the FCA have been revealed. A Freedom of Information request by The Times shows security failures including losing confidential enforcement-related papers and displaying personal details of 2,000 individuals applying for controlled function status. Alongside smaller data protection issues like failing to reply to data requests in […]

HMRC helping to remove artificial gains

An investment bond offers investors certain tax advantages, one of which is the ability to take partial surrenders from the investment. This facility allows the policyholder to withdraw amounts up to 5% of the amount invested each policy year on a tax deferred basis, without incurring any immediate tax liability. This tax deferred allowance can […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The whole system of the FCA is an absolute joke. They have the power to wreck innocent peoples lives through their immunity of accountability. They can point their finger, you can prove them wrong and still you lose…is this justice! The independent complaints commissioners office is too a joke – they are all in bed together. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

  2. “have to”? The FCA doesn’t have to take a scrap of notice of any recommendation from the Complaints Commissioner and, in a recent case on which Mr Townsend recommended that the FCA should pay redress to a whistle blower whom it had treated appallingly, it simply didn’t. Is this case likely to be any different?

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm