View more on these topics

Alan Hughes: FCA’s new duty of care rules are a waste of time

The FCA has released some interesting papers recently and generally seems to be demonstrating a more interventionist approach – or, at least, earlier intervention.

For instance, it has decided it needs to impose more detailed regulation and governance on P2P platforms, as the market is putting consumers at risk of serious detriment. It is also considering more intervention on cash savings, as that market does not appear to be working for consumers either.

In among all this, it has released DP18/5 which considers whether introducing an overriding duty of care on firms could reduce harm by avoiding conflicts of interest and supporting longer-term cultural change.

FCA opening more cases than ever before

Essentially, it is asking whether there is a gap in the existing regulatory framework which, if filled by a duty of care, would result in better consumer outcomes.

The existing framework comprises statute, rules, guidance and the Principles.

Recent years have seen the FCA take more enforcement action based on breach of Principles for the simple reason it is difficult to cover all possible circumstances with detailed rules.

The Principles give it the ability to take action where there is no obvious rule breach but it is clear a firm’s conduct has fallen below the expected standard and consumers have suffered as a result. Some of the FCA’s rules are drafted in very broad terms – for example, the “client’s best interests” rule.

It is also introducing the Senior Managers & Certification Regime, imposing more individual accountability within firms, and issues detailed guidance on the application of rules and Principles (for example, The Responsibilities of Providers and Distributors for the Fair Treatment of Customers) to provide more clarity to firms on their approach in particular areas.

Alan Hughes: The price to pay for cultural change in financial services

Given the broad nature of the Principles and the FCA’s willingness to use them, it is questionable what additional benefit imposing a duty of care would have.

The Principles already include the following:

  • Principle 2 Skill, care and diligence: A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.
  • Principle 6 Customers’ interests: A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.
  • Principle 7 Communications with clients: A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.
  • Principle 8 Conflicts of interest: A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers, and between a customer and another client.
  • Principle 9 Customers – relationships of trust: A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer entitled to rely upon its judgment.

Surely these already impose a wide-ranging duty on regulated firms to put their clients’ interests first, and to expect to be held accountable if they do not.

Adding a further duty of care on top could create confusion for both consumers and firms as to exactly what it means. It would likely end up being down to the FCA and/or the courts to interpret that on a case-by-case basis.

Simon Collins: How to prepare for FCA’s DB transfer investigation

The addition of such a duty would therefore be a mistake and a waste of the regulator’s resources. In fact, those resources would be much better spent producing additional guidance on how it understands its Principles apply to different firms.

It appears the FCA is considering the imposition of a new duty of care in response to feedback on its Mission 2017. It has a responsibility to consider new and alternative approaches that address such concerns but it is difficult to see from the content of DP18/5 what a new duty of care would add.

I hope the FCA can reach the same conclusion and instead concentrate on operating the existing regulatory framework more effectively.

Alan Hughes is partner at Foot Anstey LLP 

Recommended

1

Caerus to compensate over Ucis investment

The Financial Ombudsman Service has upheld a complaint against Caerus from a client who lost money after he transferred £50,000 into a suspended unregulated collective investment scheme. The Fos ruling says Caerus, which was acquired by Quilter-owned network Intrinsic in 2017, is responsible for the unsuitable advice its appointed representative, Matrix Wealth Consultancy, gave to Mr J in […]

4

Steve Bee: The elephant in the room on workplace pensions

Employers providing DC pensions pay far less into them than those providing DB schemes Sooner or later, we will have to accept the fact the golden age of company pension provision in the UK is over. It has been for some time now, yet the pensions industry and the government are still in denial. The […]

Global energy: positioning for a recovery in the oil price Š

Richard Hulf explains how he and John Dodd have positioned the Artemis Global Energy Fund and where they are finding opportunities. Richard explains how he and John are changing the complexion of the fund to focus on the most efficient oil producers. As he tells journalist Alexis Xydias, in this environment of lower prices, he […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I agree entirely.

    If the FCA feel that their existing principles do not have sufficient clout to pick up somebody not showing a duty of care then they really need to examine who drafted their own rules in the first place.

    It’s a bit like politicians who say that they need to deal rigorously with knife crime by introducing new legislation. Isn’t there a current law that says stabbing people is illegal!

  2. As I understand t, this is currently out for consultation. I hope that Alan Hughes, and any others with views, responds to the consultation.

    • That would be largely pointless as this argument is already in the CP – the author seems to have just lifted it from pages 9-11 of the consultation paper.

      The interesting points I think should be discussed are related to the conflicts of interest and competition issues which this proposed imitative purports to impact. There are several arguments for the new rule which are not covered in this article.

  3. Show me six lines written by an honest man……

  4. seonaid mackenzie 22nd August 2018 at 5:51 pm

    Love to speak to you Alan!!

Leave a comment

Close

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

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com