View more on these topics

FSA publishes adviser Tribunal cases

The FSA has published two decision notices for enforcement decisions that have been referred to the Upper Tribunal.

These are the first decision notices to be published under a power given to the FSA by parliament in 2010.

In March, the FSA prohibited Stuart Unwin from holding a significant influence function on the basis that he is neither competent nor capable to do so.

In the FSA’s opinion, Unwin failed to ensure that his firm had adequate systems and controls to ensure that occupational pension transfer advice given by his firm was suitable and signed off by a pension transfer specialist, despite being previously warned by the FSA that he must do this.  

The FSA also considers that Unwin delegated compliance responsibilities to an individual that lacked experience and failed to check the standard of work. It says Unwin failed to ensure the effective monitoring of his sales staff, including trainee advisers.  

In February, the FSA prohibited Derek Wright from all regulated activity, on honesty, integrity and competence grounds.

The FSA believes Wright was unwilling to comply with the FSA approved person regime and provided misleading information to the FSA.

The FSA says Wright arranged for his wife, Mary Wright, to take on the FSA approved roles while he actually ran the insurance broker firm, Moorgate Insurance Agencies Ltd.

The regulator says Mrs Wright had no involvement in the running of the business at Moorgate and did not exercise her function as a director properly. This meant that Mr Wright was able to run Moorgate unsupervised and unchallenged by Mrs Wright.

Mr Wright had previously been disciplined by Lloyds of London in 2001 and the FSA believes that this would have been a highly relevant factor in its assessment of his fitness if he applied for approved person status.

The FSA also believes that Mr Wright failed to be open with the FSA about his true role in running the business and although he effectively acted as a director of the firm, he produced poor quality regulatory returns and failed to ensure the firm had adequate resources.

Stuart Unwin and Derek Wright have both referred their cases to the Tribunal. The Tribunal may uphold, vary or cancel the FSA’s decision.

The date for these hearings has not yet been set.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Pot, kettle, black are three words that spring to mind.
    Competent, capable, adequate systems and controls. The FSA needs to look at itself before throwing stones.
    How many £trillions has their lack of understanding of the business of the companies they were supposed to be regulating cost British taxpayers?

Leave a comment