2025

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