2025

The complaint related to allegations that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) failed to exercise its regulatory responsibilities in respect of Firm X, a consumer credit provider. It was alleged that Firm X misled consumers by advertising low interest rates while charging significantly higher APRs, thereby causing financial detriment and creating barriers to market entry. The complainant further argued that the FCA failed to act on the evidence provided and relied on confidentiality provisions to avoid meaningful engagement. Following investigation, the Commissioner reviewed the FCA’s handling of the matter and concluded that the information submitted had been appropriately shared and considered within the organisation. However, due to statutory restrictions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, details of the FCA’s actions could not be disclosed. On this basis, the Commissioner concluded that the FCA had acted reasonably, therefore the complaint was not upheld.

The Complainant raised a complaint with the Complaints Commissioner in relation to the FCA’s oversight of the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) and whether the FCA had discretion to direct the FOS to follow FOS guidelines relating to compensation.  The FCA had confirmed to the Complainant that the FCA could not intervene in the decisions FOS makes on individual complaints including in relation to compensation.  The Complainant was dissatisfied with this as it was of the view that the FOS’s compensation guidelines were set by the FCA and should therefore be enforceable by the FCA. The Commissioner did not uphold the Complainant’s allegation as the FCA cannot intervene in the decisions the FOS makes on individual complaints including whether compensation will be awarded in any given case.  The Commissioner commented that it would have been helpful if the FCA had clarified to the Complainant when describing its oversight role of the FOS that the FOS Guidelines were not set by the FCA but were in fact FOS’s own guidelines relating to compensation.  Although the FCA has a (limited) oversight role of the FOS, it is not in the FCA’s remit to get involved in individual complaints to the FOS and the FCA’s rules do not extend to setting out Guidelines for FOS as to when to award compensation.

The complaint concerned the FCA’s refusal to investigate a regulated firm’s challenge to an annual regulatory fee, on the basis that the complaint was submitted more than 12 months after the firm became aware of the relevant issue. The complainant contended the reason for the delay in submitting the complaint was lack of awareness of the time limitations for submitting a complaint. The Commissioner did not uphold the complaint, finding that lack of awareness of the published 12-month limitation period for submitting complaints did not constitute a valid ground for delay. The Commissioner also noted that, irrespective of any alleged administrative delays, which according to the complainant amounted to about 12 days, the firm’s cancellation request was lodged in July 2023, well after the 31 March deadline, with the consequence that the firm remained authorised beyond 30 June 2023 and was thus liable for the full annual fee in any event.

The complainant raised concerns with the Commissioner about the FCA’s intervention in the Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) insurance market, alleging it caused a period when no GAP insurance was available. They also complained about the FCA’s handling of the complaint. The Commissioner concluded that the issues fall within the scope of the Scheme and that the complainant is an eligible complainant, therefore the complaint will be considered alongside other related complaints in a consolidated report about the FCA’s intervention in the GAP insurance market. The FCA accepted this. On the complaints handling, the Commissioner found that the FCA’s nine-month delay, misleading assurances that the complaint was within scope, and ultimate exclusion of the complaint represented multiple process failures. While the FCA had offered £100 for distress and inconvenience, the Commissioner considered this inadequate and recommended an increase to £200, which the FCA also accepted.

The Commissioner reviewed a complaint about FCA’s regulation of two insurers involved in ongoing legal disputes between the complainant and two educational service providers. The complainant alleged the FCA failed to ensure insurer cooperation during legal proceedings. The Commissioner found that the FCA acted within its remit and responsibilities, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Commissioner has upheld a complaint regarding the FCA’s supervision of a regulated payment services Firm. The investigation found that the FCA failed to act on red flags and delayed regulatory intervention. The FCA recognises that there were missed opportunities and apologises to customers of the Firm. The FCA proactively conducted a comprehensive “lessons learned’’ review with a view to improving their work for the future. They have made several changes as a result. The FCA also recently published a Policy Statement which sets out their work to strengthen the safeguarding regime to minimise customer losses. The issues raised in this case are serious. The Commissioner very much welcomes the FCA’s response, which demonstrates its commitment to learning from mistakes and improving the regulatory regime. The Commissioner regards it as an important part of the Complaints Scheme that, when issues are identified, the FCA makes changes to reduce the risk of future harm. She would like to thank the FCA for their proactive approach to improvements in this case. On the subject of compensation, the Commissioner has the power to make a recommendation that the FCA award compensation when she considers it “appropriate’’ to do so.  In this case the Commissioner felt that due to the extent of the FCA failings, it was appropriate for the FCA to make a contributory compensatory payment. It is important to note that the Commissioner can only recommend compensation and cannot require the FCA to make such payments. In this case, the FCA applied the provisions in the Scheme which provides that they will normally not make a payment for financial loss where they are not the sole or primary cause of it. Clearly, the actions of the Firm itself were also relevant here. Although the FCA has discretion to make payments where others, the Firm in this case, have contributed to the loss, the circumstances have to be ‘exceptional’. The FCA does not believe this test has been met in this case (although it has not specified the criteria of the test it has applied). It has, however, offered a £500 discretionary payment for non financial loss to the complainant to acknowledge the impact of its handling of this case. This is in recognition of the FCA’s contribution to the complainant’s distress and inconvenience.

The Complaints Commissioner has upheld parts of a complaint against the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) relating to its handling of pension transfer issues and its response to the complainant. The Commissioner found that the FCA’s Complaints Team wrongly excluded concerns about provider Firm X’s refusal to accept a pension transfer and recommended that these be reviewed and passed to supervision, which the FCA has now done, and the Commissioner considers the FCA appropriately considered the matter. The Commissioner also raised concerns about potential systemic issues in how the pension transfer market handles “insistent clients” and recommended that the FCA carry out a broader review of available evidence to determine whether consumers are facing undue barriers. In addition, the FCA was found to have inappropriately referred the complainant to the police when they raised concerns with the Supervision Hub. The Commissioner upheld that part of the complaint and recommended an apology and better quality assurance in future, which the FCA has accepted.

The Complaints Commissioner did not uphold a complaint against the FCA concerning its oversight of Firm Y and Firm X, part of the same corporate group. The complainant alleged the FCA failed to act appropriately after suffering a loss in a crypto fraud in December 2023. However, the Commissioner found that the FCA had no duty to intervene, as one firm (Firm Y) has never been regulated, and the other (Firm X) was not regulated at the time of the loss and, in any event, was not the firm responsible for the loss.

The Complaints Commissioner has recommended that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) review a revised version of a consumer’s complaint, after finding that the concerns raised with her introduced new legal arguments that had not previously been put to the FCA. This is not a finding on the substance of the complaint, but a procedural recommendation: the Commissioner concluded that the updated submission fell within the scope of the Complaints Scheme and warranted formal consideration. The FCA has accepted the recommendation, opened a new complaint, and invited the complainant to provide further information.

The Complaints Commissioner did not uphold a complaint against the FCA concerning its handling of three regulated firms following a data breach and fraud affecting the complainant and their daughter. The Commissioner found that the FCA had acted reasonably and appropriately. Allegations regarding failure to refer the matter for criminal investigation were also not upheld. Requests to review Ombudsman decisions were outside the scope of the investigation.

The complainant alleged that the FCA failed to take enforcement action against Bank X after it decided in 2019 to discontinue executor accounts, a decision which prevented the complainant from continuing to operate his account as before. The complaint was not upheld, as the FCA was found to have acted appropriately within its regulatory remit, and the matter was deemed more appropriate for resolution by the Financial Ombudsman Service or the courts.

The Complaints Commissioner has not upheld complaints against the FCA concerning the removal of a firm’s regulatory permissions and the publication of a warning about inaccurate Register information.

The Commissioner has concluded that the FCA should not have applied a time bar to this complaint. The FCA has accepted the Commissioner’s decision and will now proceed with a full investigation.

A complaint about the FCA’s handling of misleading communications by a regulated firm has been upheld. The Complaints Commissioner found that the FCA gave unclear information about its rules and incorrectly advised the complainant to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service. The FCA accepted the findings, apologised, said the case highlighted learnings for it, and offered £150 in compensation.

The Complainant raised four issues with the Complaints Commissioner in relation to the FCA’s handing of a Part 4A application for authorisation: a concern that the FCA had not considered evidence in support of the application, dissatisfaction with the FCA’s communications during the application, service failures in processing the application and an allegation regarding bias in the FCA’s investigation of the Complainant’s concerns.  The decision-making process in relation to the Part 4A application was not investigated by the Commissioner as this is not within the remit of the Complaints Scheme.  The Complainant had received an apology from the FCA regarding the communications and the Commissioner thought this was sufficient and therefore did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.  The Commissioner agreed that the FCA should have provided the Complainant with updates within the required timescales however the FCA apology in relation to this was sufficient and no further action was required. The Commissioner did not uphold the Complainant’s allegation regarding the investigation of the complaint as there was evidence that a thorough investigation was carried out.

A complaint about the FCA’s oversight of peer-to-peer (P2P) lending and MoneyThing has not been investigated. The Complaints Commissioner confirmed that systemic concerns about the P2P sector are being addressed separately and that there was no new evidence to justify reopening a concluded investigation into MoneyThing. A new allegation regarding MoneyThing’s permissions is being reviewed by the FCA, and the complainant may refer the outcome for independent review once that process is complete.

A complaint about the FCA’s role in relation to losses suffered through a cryptocurrency scam on Exchange 1 has not been upheld. The Complaints Commissioner found that Exchange 1 is not FCA-regulated, and that the FCA acted reasonably in its oversight of UK-authorised firms Firm A and Firm C. There was no evidence linking either firm to the complainant’s losses. The Commissioner concluded that the FCA was not at fault and could not assist in recovering the funds.

A complaint about the FCA’s decision to list Entity A as an unauthorised firm was referred back to the FCA for initial review. The Complaints Commissioner confirmed it is standard practice for the FCA to consider complaints in the first instance. The FCA had closed the matter as an enquiry due to not receiving confirmation that the complainant was authorised to act on Entity A’s behalf.

A complaint about the FCA’s handling of regulatory concerns following Bank X’s acquisition of Bank Y has not been upheld. The Complaints Commissioner found the FCA acted appropriately and that no further action could be taken under the Complaints Scheme. Concerns about the Financial Ombudsman Service were outside the Scheme’s scope.

A complaint about the FCA’s handling of penalties against former partners of Firm X has not been upheld. The Complaints Commissioner agreed with the FCA that the level of financial penalties imposed was outside the scope of the Complaints Scheme and that the complainant was not directly affected. A complaint that the FCA failed to review a director’s financial evidence was not upheld, as the Enforcement team had considered it. However, the Commissioner upheld a related complaint about the Complaints Team’s handling and communication of the evidence. The FCA accepted a recommendation to update their process and will ensure investigators record when relevant information has already been shared with the appropriate FCA area in future.

The Complaints Commissioner did not uphold a complaint about the FCA’s handling of an alleged error on the Financial Services Register, where the complainant’s firm was listed as an Appointed Representative (AR) of Firm X from 11 to 26 September 2024. Although the FCA maintained that it had “followed the correct process and what is recorded on the Register is correct,” it acknowledged that the presence of two Firm Reference Numbers (FRNs) for the firm may have caused confusion for those searching online. As a result, the FCA merged the firm’s records under a single FRN and offered £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its administrative error.

The complainant raised three issues with the FCA: a privacy concern over a police welfare check, dissatisfaction with how their email queries were closed, and frustration over the FCA’s refusal to intervene in a dispute with two banks. The privacy issue was not investigated due to GDPR limitations but the FCA was found to have acted reasonably. The handling of email queries was upheld as a valid complaint, though no further action was required. The complaint about the bank dispute was excluded, as it falls under the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The complainant alleged misconduct by an FCA lawyer during court proceedings. The FCA declined to investigate under paragraph 2.11(b) of the Complaints Scheme, on the basis that the matter would be more appropriately dealt with through court proceedings. The Commissioner agreed and additionally found no evidence of wrongdoing by the FCA lawyer.

The complainant alleged that the FCA colluded with the court to delay the processing of an appeal and falsely claimed not to have received appeal documents. The FCA declined to investigate, citing the 12-month time limit in the Complaints Scheme. The Commissioner agreed the complaint was out of time and, in any event, found no evidence to support the allegations.

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

 

2017

 

2016

2015

2014

2013