Welcome
Please use the buttons below to see whether we can help you with your complaint and, if so, how you should complain.
Can we help you with your complaint?
The Financial Regulator Complaints Commissioner provides an independent assessment of complaints against the Financial Regulators. If your complaint is about one of the financial regulators click the ‘Making a Complaint’ button above to see details about whether we can look at your complaint.
If your complaint is about a bank, an insurance company or a finance firm rather than one of the regulators, you should first complain to the company and then if you remain unhappy to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Complaints Commissioner is not able to look at such complaints under the remit of the Complaints Scheme.
Latest news – 21 March 2025
I have today issued my final report about a complaint in which, as a result of the complainant raising their concerns, it was identified that an FCA IT system was causing emails to be sent which appeared to be from employees of regulated firms but which in fact were from the FCA; this is known as ‘spoofing’. This spoofing activity continued for a number of years without being identified by the FCA. Once the FCA was notified of the issues, the problem was swiftly remediated. It is now understood that the spoofing arose as a result of coding error.
The FCA have accepted my recommendation to carry out a review of its processes applicable to its development and/ or technical teams to ensure that not only are they robust from a technical point of view, but that they are compliant with all relevant laws and security standards and do not create problems in other areas, be that cyber security, data protection or any other.
Please click here to view the final report.
Please click here to view the FCA’s response.
I have today issued my final report on the FCA (and its predecessor, the FSA’s) actions regarding the Connaught Income Fund Series 1 and connected companies (the Fund).
The complainant first submitted a complaint ( https://frccommissioner.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FCA001404-Issued-17-March-2022.-Published-07-April-20221.pdf) that their losses from the Fund were not wholly remedied by the Capita Financial Managers Limited (“CFM”) redress scheme. That Scheme was established to resolve the FCA’s finding that CFM contravened regulatory requirements. The complainant received compensation via the CFM redress scheme in line with the compensation received by other investors, although this did not cover the totality of their losses. Although the previous Commissioner said that scheme was not unreasonable, it is important to note, that Scheme was designed to deal with the default of CFM and the compensation they should pay as a result. It did not consider the failings on the part of the FCA or whether compensation was due from them. That is why the previous Commissioner sent the complaint to the FCA for its consideration of the question of their own liability. It is the last point on which I have opined today.
The complainant then submitted a second complaint that the FCA should pay them a sum compensating for their losses incurred as a result of the FCA’s supervisory failings in relation to the Fund.
The FCA accepted it had made errors in the handling of the Fund but did not accept it should pay compensation, nor did it accept it was the cause of the complainant’s losses.
In reviewing this second complaint, I determined that whilst the FCA was not solely responsible for the complainant’s losses, it ought to take responsibility for its contributory role with respect to the failure of the Fund and the complainant’s related losses. I recommended the FCA offer a compensation payment of the relevant proportion of these losses to the complainant. The FCA has not accepted my recommendation. The FCA and I have a difference of opinion about whether the FCA caused the losses or not.
Please click here to view the final report.
Please click here to view the FCA’s response.
I have today issued my final report about a complaint in which the FCA has accepted that, due to various internal errors on its part, the FS Register displayed incorrect information about a Firm (Firm X). The FS Register described Firm X as being authorised to carry out regulated activities in the UK for a two-year period following the cessation of its authorisation. The FCA missed opportunities to put this right.
The complainant in this case relied on the FS Register and incurred legal fees in relation to a claim against the FOS, believing Firm X to be authorised. The complainant wanted the FCA to compensate her for the wasted legal fees. The FCA accepts that the FS Register was inaccurate but does not accept that the inaccuracy caused the complainant to incur the legal fees.
In reviewing this complaint, I determined that the inaccurate FS Register was the cause of at least part of the legal fees incurred by the complainant and recommended that the FCA award them a compensatory payment for these. The FCA has not accepted my recommendation. The FCA and I have a difference of opinion about whether the inaccuracy of the Register caused the losses or not. Nevertheless, the FCA has offered the complainant an apology and offer an ex-gratia payment of £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the inaccuracy of Firm X’s entry on the Register.
Please click here to view the final report.
Please click here to view the FCA’s response.
I have today issued my final report on the FCA’s oversight of Firm X.
The complainant lost access for a long period of time to his SIPP operated by Firm X due to a complex situation. He consequently complained to the FCA about its oversight of Firm X, however, the FCA did not uphold the complaint. It said that it had acted appropriately in supervising Firm X.
I disagreed with the FCA and determined that there have been supervisory failings on the part of the FCA with respect to certain aspects of its oversight of Firm X for a period of three months in 2023. I acknowledge this has been a complex situation with a number of difficulties, some of which were outside of the FCA’s control, and that the FCA engaged with a number of parties involved to resolve the situation. However, in my view the FCA’s actions failed to achieve its supervisory objective during this period and the complainants amongst others did not gain access to their SIPP pension during this period (and still do not have access to the full). Unfortunately, due to confidentiality restrictions, I am unable to go into more detail.
Please click here to view the final report.
Please click here to view the FCA’s response.
Final Report issued into FCA’s handling of Safe Hands Plans Limited – 11 March 2025
Please click here to read the Final Report
Please click here to read the FCA’s response to the final report.
Group complaints
BSPS update – updated on 17 December 2024. Click here for the latest update.
Collateral – updated on 4 March 2025. Click here for the latest update *NEW*
Recent final reports published
The Commissioner publishes anonymised copies of the final reports she has issued to complainants and the regulators on the first and third Thursday of each month. Occasionally final reports maybe issued on other dates. Click the below links to see the Commissioner’s latest published final reports about each regulator.