The FSA imposed a financial penalty of £70,000 (but gave a 30% reduction for early settlement which brought the figure down to £49,000) on Wills & Co for misconduct following the breach of principles 3 and 7 of the Principles for Business, in particular, for failing to ensure that its customers understood the risks involved with penny shares, and for being unclear, unfair and misleading when advising on the shares.
|
Fox Hayes approved financial promotions for overseas companies. The promotions took the form of letters to private investors offering a free research report into a company in which the investor already held shares. The FSA considered that Fox Hayes had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the financial promotions were clear, fair and not misleading and imposed a penalty of £150,000. Fox Hayes referred the matter to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the FSA also argued that Fox Hayes had not ...
|
The firm gave an undertaking to re-word its description of its remuneration clause to clearer language in accordance with the Unfair Terms Regulations.
|
The firm gave an undertaking to re-word its description of its remuneration clause to clearer language in accordance with the Unfair Terms Regulations.
|
The FSA imposed fines of £10,500 on Lawrence Scoffield and Council Homebuyers and gave Mortgage Network a public censure in respect of management failings. The first two had failed to ensure that systems were in place so that only suitable mortgages were recommended and customers treated fairly. Mortgage Network did not have a system for keeping proper records relating to customers’ needs and circumstances and adequate training records.
|
The FSA imposed fines of £10,500 on Lawrence Scoffield and Council Homebuyers and gave Mortgage Network a public censure in respect of management failings. The first two had failed to ensure that systems were in place so that only suitable mortgages were recommended and customers treated fairly. Mortgage Network did not have a system for keeping proper records relating to customers’ needs and circumstances and adequate training records.
|
Mr Laury was not sufficiently identified in the FSA’s Final Notice in respect of his employer to permit him to refer the Notice pursuant to FSMA s. 393.
|
The FSA cancelled the Firm’s permission having withdrawn the approval granted to the Firm’s managing director and sole mortgage adviser. The Firm had been used to submit a number of fraudulent mortgage applications to lenders.
|
The FSA fined the Independent Financial Advisers £42,000 for management and complaints handling failings. The FSA found that the Firm had not been treating its customers fairly because it had not been responding to complaints in good time.
|
The Financial Ombudsman does not have the power to make a direction that would require a firm to make a payment that exceeds the statutory cap. If the cost of compliance with a direction is unknown at the time when the direction is made it is subject to an implicit limitation that it will not be enforceable beyond the statutory cap once reached. An order by the Ombudsman for a loss assessment and redress in accordance with regulatory guidance is not an order for the payment of money particularly ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |