View more on these topics

FCA sanctions IFA firm over pension transfer concerns

FCA05

The FCA has ordered an advice firm to stop conducting regulated activities after it became concerned over its pension transfer business.

The firm also breached the terms of a voluntary agreement with the regulator that was imposed on its Sipp activities.

A supervisory notice released by the FCA late yesterday says Bank House Investment Management can not not dispose of, deal with, or diminish the value of any of its assets without the FCA’s consent and that it must “secure all books and records” relating to its regulatory activities.

The FCA first became concerned about the suitability of Bank House Investment Management’s advice around pension switching after it visited the firm in July 2015.

As a result, the FCA asked Bank House to apply for a requirement that would mean it would not undertake any activities in relation to pension switches or pension transfers in to Sipps until independent verification was given to the FCA relating to compliance around the advice.

The “voluntary requirement” took effect in September 2015 and also stipulated that all new pension Sipp switching advice would be subject to independent checks until the FCA was satisfied such a process was “embedded” in the firm. It also said Bank House should not “dispose of, deal with, or diminish” the value of any of its assets without the FCA’s consent.

The supervisory notice explains that, around August 2016, the FCA became aware that Bank House might have been conducting pension switches to a Sipp account that were not in keeping to the terms of the voluntary agreement.

Sipp switches

The new business register Bank House gave to the FCA showed 30 transactions involving pensions after the voluntary requirement, however it did not show that any of these involved customers switching to a Sipp account.

The FCA also received information from the Sipp provider that showed Bank House had advised 72 customers on 78 transactions involving pension switches to a Sipp account totalling £2.65m between from 5 October 2015 to 13 October 2016.

According to the supervisory notice, Bank House’s business register only recorded 29 per cent of the 78 transactions reported by the Sipp provider up to 21 September 2016.

Bank House had also advised five customers to switch pensions to a Sipp account offered by two other providers between October 2015 and November 2016.

The supervisory notice says: “When questioned by the [FCA] about the pension switches done to the account offered by the Sipp provider, the firm said it understood that the account ‘was not a Sipp, it was personal pension with a deferred Sipp option’. The authority has confirmed with the Sipp provider that it does not offer the option of a deferred Sipp in any of its accounts and that all 78 switches on which the firm advised were to a Sipp account.”

It adds: “The firm also said that it understood that the authority had agreed it could conduct pension switches where customers would be investing in a ‘platform’. This does not reflect the wording of the voluntary requirement and is not consistent with the authority’s correspondence with the firm about the voluntary requirement in which the authority repeatedly stated that the firm was not permitted to do any pension switches involving Sipps.”

Introducer agreement

Bank House sourced its pension switching customers through a third party firm and the supervisory notice says “misleading” information was given to the FCA about its relationship with that company.

It also sold customer data to the third party and did not tell the FCA about this arrangement when it was asked about the relationship.

The supervisory notice says: “When questioned in October 2016, the firm said that the third party firm paid the firm between £50,000 and £70,000 in September 2015. The authority subsequently required the firm to provide details of the payments. These showed that the third party firm had in fact paid the firm’s holding company approximately £163,000 between 3 August 2015 and 24 November 2015.

“The firm told the authority that these monies all relate to the sale of the customer data referred to above. Some of the monies were used to pay for the salary costs of staff employed by the firm, who were previously employed by another unauthorised firm which was also involved in the pension switching business that gave rise to the authority’s initial concerns about the firm. It is unclear if there was in fact an arrangement for the third party firm to cover the costs of those staff.”

Bank House had not paid regulatory fees worth £22,859.29 that were due to the FCA in August 2016 due to its financial circumstances. Its draft management accounts show it made a loss of £137,087.39 in the year ending 31 May 2016.

Recommended

FCA logo new 3 620x430
2

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 […]

Nigel-Stockton-whitebg-700.jpg

Bellpenny chief: FCA review not behind independence move

Bellpenny chief executive Nigel Stockton says the FCA’s review of consolidator business models was not behind its decision to set up an independent advice arm. The regulator began writing to advice consolidators requesting information on suitability processes when acquiring new firms last September. Bellpenny and Succession were among a number of consolidators contacted by the […]

4

FCA spends £38k on asset management consultants

The FCA has spent at least £38,791 on external consultants who advised on the interim report for its asset management market study. A Freedom of Information Act request by Money Marketing reveals that five organisations advised on the damning 200-page report published by the regulator in November, which hit out at high fund charges and […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. Stripped the regulated company of assets which could be used to pay fees and levies and potential compensation perhaps? S P Financial Services comes to mind…..

  2. I’m always amazed that so many directors of companies that seem to get in trouble or receive sanctions from the regulator appear to be directors of multiple companies.

    Now whilst there is no law against this, I am always in awe at how they are able to manage so many companies when I find running my single business a full time job. I thought I would just check to see what the situation was for Bank House Investment Management Ltd.

    There are two directors listed, the youngest having been born the month I started work, (March 1979) so I was bound to dislike him on age grounds alone. I checked to see if he held any other directorships and interestingly he does;

    Edgington Park Wealth LLP
    Leander Wealth LLP
    Bank House Financial Planning Ltd
    Bank House Corporate Ltd
    Huntingdons Management Ltd
    Bank House Investments Ltd
    Bank House Securities Ltd
    Chester Ferguson Investment Management Ltd
    Racing Bananas Ltd

    That’s enough to keep anybody busy and may explain why the eye went off the target slightly.

    • I think your being kind John, from what’s been said, this is not “accidental” this is quite deliberate by the directors and I imagine they will shortly fold, then phoenix as something different and carry on as before.

      Maybe I’m being cynical, but if i had to make a bet, I know which I’d bet on.

      • I think you’ve found me out Duncan. Sarcasm is known to be the lowest form of wit, but alas is my only option. I hope from my amateur sleuthing, our august regulator will be ahead of the phoenix this time.

  3. John – I know of these two individuals. Even employed them…. The FSA should apologise for ever allowing this firm to operate especially given our concerns expressed to them in 2006.

  4. Neil F Liversidge 18th January 2017 at 4:24 pm

    Brace yourselves for another FSCS top-up levy for yet another failure of regulation.

  5. Haha
    What does a regulator do when regulated people don’t act like gentlemen.
    It must be very upsetting.
    A couple of years door knocking for business would have made them a little more street wise I think.

  6. Whilst I understand the point you are trying to make, it’s bizarre that you would openly discriminate against someone because of his age. What next, colour of their skin? Religion? Car they drive?

    Yuk!

  7. Wouldn’t “car they drive” be a bit different to colour of skin or age? Why bracket those together?

  8. peter mulholland 20th January 2017 at 9:23 pm

    I think John was subtly putting himself down Andy on account of him being (likely to be) an old git *like myself
    *
    Am I discriminating against myself ?

  9. peter mulholland 20th January 2017 at 9:26 pm

    I think we should also go with car discrimination – let’s throw it all in to be safe

Leave a comment