View more on these topics

FCA sets out how and when it investigates firms

FCA logo glass 620x430

The FCA has published detailed criteria for when and how it refers firms to enforcement action.

The regulator says before deciding whether to appoint investigators, it considers which regulatory tool would achieve its statutory objectives most effectively.

The FCA says: “Enforcement action is an expensive and resource-intensive option for the subject of the investigation as well as for the FCA, so we need to exercise our discretion to ensure that in all the circumstances it is the appropriate course of action to take and the best use of our resources.”

Other options the FCA will consider include: appointing a skilled person to carry out a section 166 review; agreeing with firms what action it wants them to take through regular supervisory correspondence; imposing restrictions on particular activities or products; and making firms pay redress to customers.

When deciding whether to take enforcement action, the FCA considers whether an investigation is likely to further its aims and objectives.

This involves considering the strength of the evidence and the proportionality of opening an investigation, and what purpose would be served if the FCA did end up taking enforcement action.

The regulator says its main reasons for taking enforcement action are: deterring wrongdoers from repeating their behaviour; deterring other firms from breaking the rules; holding those responsible to account with proportionate fines and sanctions; and removing wrongdoers from the industry.

FCA acting director of enforcement and market oversight Georgina Philippou says: “Enforcement is not the only tool at our disposal where we see misconduct by firms or individuals, nor is it the most appropriate one to use in every case.

“Today’s publication will make our decision making process more transparent. Firms and the public will now have a clearer understanding of the questions we ask ourselves before we start a formal investigation.”


Regulations for VCTs and EISs tweaked

The Chancellor has announced further alterations around venture capital trusts and enterprise investment schemes. Subject to state aid approval, companies deemed “knowledge intensive” will only be able to receive investments from VCTs, EISs or SEISs if they are less than 10-years old. This has been lowered from the 12-year limit announced in the March Budget. […]


Revealed: FOS complaints mount over pension freedoms

Frustrations over advice requirements and provider delays are dominating calls to the Financial Ombudsman Service in the opening months of the pension reforms, Money Marketing can reveal. A Freedom of Information request submitted by Money Marketing shows the FOS has received 232 enquiries relating to the Government’s pension freedoms since they were introduced in April. […]

Shawbrook hires ex-Yorkshire BS boss as chairman

Shawbrook has appointed former Yorkshire Building Society chief executive Iain Cornish as its new chairman. He replaces current chairman Sir George Matthewson with immediate effect. In March the lender announced Matthewson would be leaving when it revealed its plans to float. Cornish, who has been a founder member of the Prudential Regulation Authority board since […]

Generation Rent

By Denise Wond, marketing manager We’ve heard a great deal about Generation Rent in recent years but what does it actually mean for consumers and advisers and has the face of the typical renter changed? The picture is certainly more diverse than it used to be. Homeownership is at its lowest point in 30 years, […]


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. Steven Farrall 11th July 2015 at 7:54 pm

    So no ‘rule of law’ then? No judgement by your peers? No possibility of having competing arguments made in open Court? Just the arbitrary decisions of capricious and largely self interested bureaucrats.
    Whatever happened to liberty?

  2. Liberty is alive and well in the regulatory space. Of course there’s the “possibility of having competing arguments made in open Court”, because a firm can take its case to the Upper Tribunal and onwards to the Appeal Court & beyond. It’s fatuous demagoguery by Mr F to suggest otherwise.

    As for “judgement by your peers”, well, they’re not people I’d want to be judged by…

Leave a comment