Complaints Handling: The FSA prohibited the managing director of a company which had mishandled complaints relating to mortgage endowment policies from exercising significant influence over any person in relation to any regulated activity carried on by any other authorised person or exempt person. In handling complaints, Mr Hardie was found to have failed to investigate the complaints, to have handled them unfairly in among other things referring the complainants to FOS rather than giving them p ...
|
Systems and Controls: The FSA fined HFC Bank £1,000,000 for selling payment protection insurance to more than 160,000 customers between January 2005 and December 2007 without checking the customers’ need for the insurance. HFC Bank had also failed to keep adequate records of its PPI sales and did not investigate cases of misselling. The fine represented a 30% discount for early settlement.
|
Unauthorised Trading: For the first time the FSA fined and banned a stockbroker at Square Mile Securities for deliberately misleading clients and risking their money in unauthorised trades. The fine was for £21,000.
|
The FSA fined Square Mile £250,000 for persistently using high pressure sales tactics and misleading information to sell customers shares they did not want or could not afford. The failings warranted a fine of £1.5 million. This was reduced because of Square Mile’s agreement to settle at an early stage (30% reduction) and Square Mile’s financial circumstances.
|
The FSA issued a public censure against the mortgage broker for poor record keeping and publishing unclear advertising material. The broker could not demonstrate why it had recommended certain mortgages or if customers had been offered the cheapest deal even though many of its customers were in the sub prime or self-certified market.
|
The Financial Ombudsman had jurisdiction to review a complaint against a former member of the PIA even where he had ceased to be a member of the PIA before the transition period. The PIA rules required the co-operation of retiring and former members with its own ombudsman and thus on the relevant date the chartered surveyor remained susceptible to investigation by an ombudsman.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |