SMCR+ View – Q1 2026 Round-up

After a bit of a pause, we’re back! We hope everyone is enjoying the longer days, and hints of spring.

This is a packed edition. Our focus initially is, perhaps predictably, on the actions firms will need to be considering in order to implement the FCA’s new non-financial misconduct (“NFM”) related rules and guidance ahead of 1 September 2026. We’re aware that the FCA is speaking to some firms about their NFM and conduct frameworks as part of their broader supervisory activities. Given the 1 September 2026 deadline coming straight after the summer holidays, we’re already working with clients who are looking to get ahead and start on their implementation projects now. Being clear with staff about expectations regarding NFM is especially important, as it will become increasingly necessary to demonstrate that any dismissal for misconduct is fair, which includes ensuring that the firm’s expectations are communicated clearly. We are doing lots of work in this area and we’d be delighted to discuss next steps with you, what we’re seeing in the market, and how we can help with your implementation projects. We are also seeing a number of firms revisit their Reasonable Steps frameworks in light of the length of time since the regime came into force for both solo and dual regulated firms. Please let us know if we can support you.

Other topics we touch on in this SMCR+ View are:

• Latest data on the timing for FCA approvals of SMFs, with an interesting FOI response in relation to the number of SMFs in different age brackets.
• The latest publications in relation to AI, including the FCA’s focus on Senior Managers and how they can discharge their responsibilities under the SMCR in the advent of AI.
• HMT’s consultation bringing Appointed Representatives into the scope of the SMCR (among other things).
• The latest whistleblowing data.
• FCA Consultation Papers on the regulation of cryptoassets, including the proposed requirements for categorising cryptoasset firms as “enhanced” firms under the SMCR.
• The PRA’s Dear CEO Letters to UK deposit takers, international banks and designated investment firms and insurance firms, setting out its supervisory priorities for 2026.
• Other updates, including good and poor practice on identifying and rectifying harm, recent data on the number of Skilled Persons Reports commissioned, the FCA’s response to a complaint on addressing poor consumer outcomes, a PRA speech on banks’ management of risks from principal trading firms, the Bank of England, PRA and FCA report on 2025 annual CBEST thematic review and certain Dear SMF letters.
• The latest enforcement actions, including the FCA’s first Enforcement Watch.As always, please reach out to us with any feedback or questions you have.

1. FCA - Non-financial misconduct

By way of recap, in July 2025 the FCA published (among other things) a final rule applicable to non-banks which (in summary) outlines that harassment and violence in relation to firm staff (and those in the group) will fall within scope of COCON as of 1 September 2026. The FCA followed this with its second NFM Policy Statement on NFM in December 2025 (which we summarised here). Some key next steps for firms to consider are:

• If you are a non-bank and have a NFM incident before 1 September 2026, carefully assess whether it falls within the scope of the Conduct Rules, considering the FCA’s new rule.
• If challenged by a current or former employee about a past NFM-related disciplinary or regulatory outcome, you may reconsider it in light of the new rules/guidance, but you are not required to do so proactively.
• Review and update your SMCR-related policies and procedures (e.g., your compliance manuals, F&P policies/procedures, regulatory references, employee handbook, disciplinary and escalation procedures, conduct frameworks, social media, whistleblowing, and device use policies) to ensure they:
  • appropriately include relevant staff within the Conduct Rules;
  • reference NFM as both a fitness and propriety (“F&P”) and Conduct Rules issue; and
  • clarify when NFM may be relevant under the Conduct Rules and/or F&P (e.g., for F&P, NFM inside and outside of work is relevant).

The extent of updates needed depends on current references to NFM, the detail in your documents, how explicit you wish to be on the firm’s approach to NFM and how matters will be handled in practice.

• Provide updated training or communications to staff on the expanded/clarified scope of the Conduct Rules. This can be done through formal training (which is what most of our clients are looking to do), but there are other means of communicating the relevant messages – e.g., via townhalls, or staff emails. The education of staff is clearly a key expectation of the FCA’s and firms should therefore look to ensure there is an ‘education’ element to their implementation programmes.
• If relevant, firms might consider updating employment contracts or templates to reference NFM as a potential Conduct Rules or F&P breach, though this is not mandatory. Some firms are introducing more robust procedures outlining how misconduct, including, NFM will be handled and the process that will be taken. Some firms are also updating guidance provided to decision makers on what they need to consider when making Conduct Rule breach determinations.

As referenced above, the FCA is conducting some ongoing supervisory work relating to NFM with respect to certain portfolios. This shows the FCA’s continued focus on this area as part of its supervisory activities. There’s also high-profile legal proceedings afoot with relevance to the FCA’s NFM agenda that we’re sure you’re all aware of; it will also be interesting to see how the FCA fare in that challenge. If you’re engaged with the FCA as part of this supervisory work (or more specifically in relation to a specific NFM matter) and would like to discuss how we can support you further, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with Amy Sumaria (Managing Associate), Penny Miller (Partner), and Andrea Finn (Partner).

2. Broader SMCR review and FCA approvals

There’s no news on the exact timing on the SMCR Policy Statement, although Nikhil Rathi does confirm in this letter that this is due in the first half of this year. This message is repeated in the various “Regulatory Priorities” publications from the FCA in March – e.g., here for retail banking, here for mortgages, here for pensions, here for consumer investments, here for insurance, here for Wholesale Buy Side and here for Wholesale Markets. We’ll let you know if we hear anything more on this. Mr Rathi did confirm that “further significant reform” is dependent on legislation. There’s no update on that either…Keir and Rachel have clearly had their hands full with other matters…

One point on the FCA’s latest operating metrics…anecdotally, clients we support with their SMF applications have been receiving approval much quicker than we’ve previously experienced. The FCA’s latest operating metrics state that 99.7% of all applications are processed within the old 3 month target, but under the new 2 month target only 94.7% of applications are processed in that time. Still not as bad as during COVID-19! This webpage was updated towards the end of last year to include additional information in relation to interviews for senior management functions and updates on the withdrawal process – one to bear in mind when submitting any Senior Manager applications.

In what is quite an extraordinary disclosure the FCA seems to have published the number of SMFs within different age brackets as part of their response to an FOI request. The request focussed on certain SMF roles across different sectors, including those relevant to insurance firms. Overall during the period of 2021 to August 2025, there was a contraction in the size of the overall SMF roles held by over 7000. However, during the same period, the data (perhaps naturally) reveals a clear and consistent ageing of the SMF population between 2021 and August 2025 (there are 1000 more SMFs 65+ in August 2025 than in 2021). In August 2025 there were nearly 9000 less SMFs below the age of 65 since 2021 (with contractions across all other age groups). Proportionally the most significant contractions were the number of SMFs in younger age cohorts (18–34). Under-25 SMF holders have declined by 68% over the period and are now virtually absent from control functions, whilst the 25–34 cohort has contracted by almost 35% overall and approximately 25–28% in roles such as Compliance Oversight (SMF16) and MLRO (SMF17) – previously the regulators have talked about a ‘juniorisation’ of Senior Managers in these roles, but this data suggests otherwise. As of August 2025, almost 60% of SMF 16s are aged 45-64. Conversely, as of August 2025 39% of Chairs of the Governing Body (SMF9) are over 65 (up from c. 32% in 2021 (perhaps as those in role grow older)), and c.75% are 55 and over (perhaps not so surprising). In August 2025 50% of Chair of Nominations Committee (SMF13) holders are 65+, with no representation below age 45 by 2025.

3. FCA - AI and SMCR

This report from the Treasury Committee on AI in financial services follows the Treasury Committee’s inquiry examining the opportunities and risks posed by AI for the UK financial services sector which it launched in February last year. The Committee has concluded that the Bank of England (“BoE”), FCA and PRA are not doing enough to manage the risks presented by AI (you’ll remember previously that the regulators said their frameworks were sufficient for managing the risks presented by AI, as they’re designed to be technology agnostic). By taking a "wait-and-see" approach to AI in financial services, the Committee found that the regulators are exposing consumers and the financial system to potentially serious harm.

From a governance and SMCR perspective, the Treasury Committee raised concerns about accountability within firms for any harm caused to consumers by the use of AI. The Committee heard that Senior Managers are finding it difficult to assess the risks associated with AI models, and the “lack of explainability” in these models makes it hard to meet the SMCR’s requirement to show that they understand and control risks in their areas of responsibility (i.e., comply with their duty of responsibility). The Treasury Committee therefore recommends that by the end of 2026, the FCA should publish comprehensive, practical guidance for firms on the accountability and the level of assurance expected from Senior Managers under the SMCR for harm caused by using AI.

The FCA subsequently published a Call for Input (“The Mills Review”), which seeks views across 4 themes: (i) the future evolution of AI technology, (ii) the future impact of AI on markets and firms, including changes to competition and UK competitiveness, (iii) future consumer trends and how AI could improve outcomes, create new risks, change behaviour and alter demand and provision of financial services, and (iv) future regulatory approach, and how the regulators may need to evolve to continue ensuring that retail financial markets work well (please note the emphasis here on retail financial markets).

In line with the concerns raised by the Treasury Committee mentioned above, this Call for Input includes a specific question as to whether the key regulatory levers, such as the SMCR, are suitable to manage future risks and to enable firms to fully take advantage of AI. The FCA also indicates that as part of limb (iv) above, it will assess how relevant Senior Managers can continue to discharge their responsibilities for the deployment and maintenance of AI systems and how these responsibilities may need to evolve under different future scenarios. The Call for Input closed on 24 February 2026 and it will be interesting to see what’s next – we’re sure Senior Managers will be particularly interested in this and its likely worth flagging to them to the extent firms haven’t done this already.

For more information please contact Amy Sumaria, Managing Associate). or Alannah Mansfield (Associate).

4. HMT – Appointed representatives and SMCR

In February, HM Treasury published this consultation on the appointed representatives (“AR”) regime. Key proposals include authorised firms needing a specific FCA permission to act as principals to ARs, allowing the FCA to assess their suitability and resources for effective oversight. Existing principals would be deemed to have permission initially, but the FCA will have powers to vary or withdraw this as needed. Second, the Financial Ombudsman Service will be able to consider complaints directly against ARs where the principal is not responsible, ensuring consumers have access to redress in all cases involving regulated activities. Most importantly for SMCR+ View, it is proposed that ARs will be brought within the scope of the SMCR (currently they remain subject to the pre-SMCR regime, the Approved Persons Regime) and harmonising conduct and accountability standards with those of authorised firms. This builds on HMT’s earlier Policy Statement on the regime (11 August 2025). The consultation is open for responses until 9 April 2026.

For more information please contact Amy Sumaria, Managing Associate).

5. Whistleblowing – FCA quarterly data 2025 Q4 and FCA Freedom of Information (“FOI”) requests

The latest whistleblowing report published by the FCA outlines that 281 new whistleblowing reports were made October ‘25 to December ’25; marginally fewer than the same period in 2024. In Q4 of 2025, the FCA received 405 reports (!). Most reports for Q4 were made using the online reporting form, with email being the second most common method, and 34% of reports were made anonymously. The top three topics of whistleblows for Q4 were Compliance (109), fitness and propriety (99) and culture (67). Significant action was taken by the FCA to manage harm in relation to 3% of reports (e.g., s.166 report, restricting a firm’s permissions or individual’s approval, enforcement action), and other action taken in respect of 34% of reports (e.g., visiting the firm, asking for information, or asking for firm attestations).

We’ve also come across this redacted FCA report, which (we think) outlines the FCA’s work in relation to whistleblowing (amongst potentially other things). In particular, it highlights the design of a proposed whistleblowing case management tool, resource for improving management information capabilities, building a more intuitive dashboard to identify and analyse trends, and feed into wider FCA strategies, provide insight for tactical work and intelligence development, and track whistleblowing case outcomes more easily. Another FOI request copied the wording from this (a post on how the FCA has improved its whistleblowing process). This might be interesting for whistleblowing champions.

6. FCA - Consultation papers on the regulation of cryptoassets

It’s been an exceptionally busy time in the world of cryptoassets! Safe to say Gordon Ritchie (author of Crypto View) is looking forward to the Easter bank holiday! There’s a lot more detail in this Crypto View (17 December 2025) and this Crypto View (22 December 2025) on all the recent consultation papers.

Most recently, the FCA published a second Consultation Paper (CP26/4), which included the FCA’s proposed requirements for categorising cryptoasset firms as “enhanced” under the SMCR (among other topics). This consultation closed recently on 12 March 2026. The proposed criteria are:

• Stablecoin issuance firms: The total value of the backing asset pool is more than £65bn, calculated as a three-year rolling average.
• Cryptoasset custodians: (i) The sum of the total value of the authorised cryptoasset firm’s ‘client assets’ (the sum of the firm’s qualifying cryptoassets and specified investment cryptoassets, when held on trust), during the firm’s last calendar year, added to the total value of safe custody assets (if any) held in the firm’s last calendar year, is more than £100bn in any given month (these values must be recorded within the same month), or (ii) firm projects holding a cumulative sum of more than £100bn in safe custody.

Do reach out to Gordon Richie (Managing Associate) if you would like to discuss any of the FCA’s proposals further.

7. FCA/PRA/BoE - Operational incident and third party reporting

Very recently, the FCA, in collaboration with the PRA (see PS7/26, SS1/26 and (revised) SS2/21 (among other documents published)) and Bank of England (see here), has published its final rules on operational incident and material third party reporting, following CP24/28. The FCA has published Final Guidance FG26/3 and FG26/4 to support firms with the new requirements, which come into force on 18 March 2027. The new requirements are designed to enhance the regulators’ ability to monitor and respond to serious operational incidents and to gain a clearer view of firms’ dependencies on third parties, including those providing critical technological services such as AI.

The proposals are split into two – (i) rules on operational incident reporting, which are applicable to all firms with Part 4A permissions, among others, and (ii) rules on third party reporting which are applicable to a subset of firms including banks, designated investment firms, Solvency II firms and enhanced SMCR firms (among others). This is another example where the FCA has used firms’ enhanced firm status under the SMCR to determine the application of other rules. Many firms have strongly advocated for the various thresholds by which a firm is scoped into the enhanced regime to be revised and increased as part of the broader regulatory review of the SMCR.

There are other SMCR/governance related matters outlined in the FCA’s Policy Statement. For example, with regards to the threshold for reporting operational incidents, the FCA’s feedback states that reporting thresholds are designed to capture incidents with a significant impact on its objectives. The FCA has said that if a firm escalates an incident to senior management, such as a Senior Manager under the SMCR, this could (alongside other things) indicate an incident meeting their thresholds. The PRA similarly states that if there is escalation to senior management, the SMF 24 (COO), or the Board, this is likely to be indicative of an incident that meets the PRA’s threshold.

The PRA has also outlined their governance expectations in SS1/26. Specifically, the PRA expect the SMF 24 (COO) to hold overall responsibility for implementing the outcomes of the PRA’s incident reporting requirements and expectations (…another ‘quasi-prescribed responsibility’ being sneaked in here despite industry feedback that these are hard to track and should be properly consulted on). If there is no SMF 24, then another suitable SMF should hold the responsibility. The SMF 24 is not required to approve the submission of incident reports, and firms can structure oversight in the most effective manner for their business.

With regards to assessing the materiality of a third party arrangements, the PRA has outlined that an indicator of materiality may include the level of governance the firm determines is required before entering into/significantly changing the proposed third party arrangement. For example, if it requires Board, Executive Committee and/or SMF approvals this might indicate it is a material arrangement.

For more information please contact Alex Ainley (Partner), Amy Sumaria (Managing Associate) or Alannah Mansfield (Associate).

8. PRA - Dear CEO letters – UK deposit takers, international banks and designated investment firms and insurance firms

The PRA has published Dear CEO Letters to UK deposit takers, international banks and designated investment firms and insurance firms, setting out its supervisory priorities for 2026. There’s a lot in here for relevant Senior Managers and the Boards of firms to consider – we have summarised some of the key points below:

• Strategic risk management: The PRA expects Senior Managers and Boards to proactively identify and manage changing risks, maintaining robust risk management frameworks that adapt to evolving business models and the external environment. Key areas of focus include accurate, aggregated exposures (particularly to private equity, private capital and non-bank financial institutions), model risk management remediation, and appropriate senior management engagement in significant risk transactions.
• Operational resilience: Senior Managers and Boards should routinely consider how strategic changes (new products, IT upgrades, outsourcing) affect resilience. The PRA highlights cyberattacks and geopolitical risk as key concerns, and expects firms to maintain and test contingency and exit plans, understand concentration risks, and independently validate critical outsourced services rather than relying solely on third-party assurances.
• Data risk: The PRA expects firms to embed strong data governance and controls, noting that poor data quality undermines regulatory calculations, decision-making and resilience - particularly as reliance on AI increases. Firms should invest in data infrastructure and validation to ensure timely, accurate regulatory submissions.

Other priorities covered include financial resilience, reducing the regulatory burden on firms and certain insurance-specific priorities. The PRA expects firms to consider these priorities alongside any firm-specific feedback received as part of the periodic summary meetings and discuss these with the Board. Please do reach out to Penny Miller (Partner) and Amy Sumaria (Managing Associate) if you have any questions.

9. Other updates

• FCA – Good and poor practice on identifying and rectifying harm: FG26/2 provides guidance to firms on how to comply with the FCA rules and guidance in DISP, and Principles in PRIN (i.e., to take reasonable steps to proactively identify and rectify problems to their customers caused by anything the firms have or have not done) when firms design their redress exercises. Of particular relevance to SMCR+ View is the section in here on appropriate governance.

• FCA skilled persons reports commissioned: The FCA has published the number of Skilled Persons Reports commissioned in 2025/2026 Q3. 11 were commissioned in total, with three relating to the insurance market. 2 related to Lot B: Governance, accountability, strategy and culture and were in respect of portfolio supervision firms (not ones with a dedicated supervisor). In fact, none of the reports commission were in respect of firms with a dedicated supervisor…

• FCA consultation paper on proposed approach to implementing FCA remedies (CP26/7): In this Consultation Paper, the FCA proposes mandatory reporting requirements for firms in the credit and mortgage markets in order to create a regulatory framework for how credit information is shared and used across these markets. From an SMCR+ View perspective, the FCA confirm that relevant senior management will need to ensure firms comply with the proposed rules.

• FCA response to Which? super-complaint on addressing poor consumer outcomes in home and travel insurance: A quick one here on the FCA’s use of Senior Manager attestations in relation to the Consumer Duty – in its response, the FCA indicates that one of the tools it has used to make sure firms give consumers the right outcomes includes requiring firms’ Senior Managers to attest to strengthen their systems and controls, and attest to improve their outcomes monitoring under the Duty.

• PRA speech on banks’ management of risks from principal trading firms (“PTFs”): In this speech by Rebecca Jackson, the PRA Executive Director, Authorisations, Regulatory Technology and International Supervision, the PRA discusses the opportunities and risks of the use of PTFs by banks. From a governance perspective, Ms Jackson indicates that banks’ Boards and risk management committees need to be inquisitive and aware of risks from exposure to PTFs, and firms must seek assurances that control frameworks are adequate and properly resourced. The PRA also expects this to remain an area of focus for banks’ senior management.

• BoE, PRA and FCA report on 2025 annual CBEST thematic review: This report is relevant for Board members, Senior Managers, Chief Information Security Officers, Chief Information Officers, Chief Operation Officers, Chief Risk Officers as well as technology leadership teams, internal audit teams and technical cyber teams, according to the regulators. The 2025 annual CBEST report includes the regulators’ key messages for firms to consider, including: (i) strengthening operating systems to reduce risk of severe cyberattacks, (ii) reducing the impact of unauthorised access to sensitive systems and information through credential management, strong passwords, multi-factor authentication and through appropriate segmentation of networks, (iii) the importance of early detection and effective monitoring, alerting and response processes, and (iv) the implementation of risk-based remediation plans, which should be overseen by risk managers and internal auditors to ensure successful remediation of technical findings. The report also includes additional recommendations and guidance from the National Cyber Security Centre. The report suggests that firms may find it beneficial to consider and embed these findings into their own cyber strategy and / or framework. We would recommend the relevant SMFs formally consider this report and whether any follow-up actions are needed.

• Other Dear SMF letters:

  • Bank of England (“BoE”) Dear CFO Letter on firms’ preparations for third Resolvability Assessment Framework (“RAF”) assessment: The BoE published this Dear CFO letter to major UK banks which provides information to support banks’ planning and ongoing work to maintain and enhance their resolvability. The BoE expects relevant CFOs to share this letter with the firm’s Board, including any relevant Board committees.
  • Dear CEO letter - Motor finance commission complaints: The FCA published this Dear CEO letter that should be appropriately considered by relevant CEOs.

10. Enforcement actions

The FCA has published its first edition of Enforcement Watch, covering its updated publicity policy, enforcement priorities and international collaborations. This looks like it will be a valuable resource for firms seeking insight into the FCA’s priorities and emerging themes from ongoing investigations. We will continue to keep you informed as further editions are published!

Regarding enforcement priorities, the FCA confirms it opened 23 enforcement operations between 3 June and 31 December 2025. Of these, 6 related to individuals only (none publicly announced), and 12 concerned authorised firms (one named). 18 operations relate to regulatory breaches, 4 to criminal and regulatory offences, and 1 to criminal offences only. The nature of the investigations ranged from: providing false information to the FCA, suspected fraud and misappropriation of funds; fair value, with 6 potential Consumer Duty breaches under investigation; inadequate systems oversight, including customer access issues, delayed complaint responses and mishandled claims; adequacy of financial crime controls; and consumer investment and asset management, with 5 firms under investigation for suspected misleading statements and unrecognised conflicts of interest.

Market abuse remains a key focus of the FCA and we’ve had several enforcement actions relating to it:

• Final Notices against Mr Richard Adam and Mr Zafar Khan: The FCA imposed penalties of £232,800 and £138,900 respectively on these former Carillion plc group finance directors for breaches of UK MAR and the Listing Rules. Both were found to have been knowingly concerned in Carillion's dissemination of misleading market information under Article 15 of MAR, having prepared and approved announcements that misrepresented the company's financial health whilst aware of its actual position. The FCA also identified serious deficiencies in Carillion's financial reporting controls and a failure to communicate key risks to the Board and Audit Committee.
• Final Notice against Mr Russel Gerrity: Mr Gerrity, an experienced oil rig consultant, was found to have engaged in insider dealing by the FCA. The FCA was initially notified of Mr Gerrity’s trading through submitted STORs. Mr Gerrity was found to have traded shares in Chariot Oil & Gas Limited and Eco (Atlantic) Oil & Gas plc on multiple occasions, all while in possession of inside information relating to drilling results, which he accessed through his consultancy roles. As a result, the FCA imposed a financial penalty of £309,843 on Mr Gerrity.
• Final Notices against Mr Bhavesh Hirani and Mr Dipesh Kerai: The FCA fined Mr Hirani (£56,000) and Mr Kerai (£52,731) for insider dealing in Bidstack Group Plc shares. Mr Hirani, then interim CFO at Bidstack, disclosed inside information about an unpublished commercial deal to Mr Kerai, who provided funds to purchase 1.3 million shares before the announcement. The FCA was notified through STORs.
• There’s also been the following Warning Notices for breaches of MAR, which are intended to allow the relevant individual to provide representations prior to a final decision being issued by the FCA:
  • Warning Notice 26/1: An employee at a large technology company engaged in insider dealing on nine occasions (June-July 2021), acquiring shares in a takeover target and deriving a financial benefit of nearly £20,000.
  • Warning Notice 26/2: Two individuals received warning notices dated 13 January 2026. The first (a senior employee at a subsidiary of a Main Market issuer) unlawfully disclosed inside information to the second (a close friend). The close friend then engaged in insider dealing.

Outside of MAR, we’ve also had the following enforcement actions:

• Final Notice against Darren Antony Reynolds: Mr Reynolds held senior roles at Active Wealth (UK) Limited, including CF1 (Director) and CF10 (Compliance Oversight). The FCA found that he dishonestly arranged for himself and other advisers to receive prohibited commission payments totalling over £1 million, funnelled through connected companies to disguise their origins. He also advised customers to invest in unsuitable products, falsified application forms and persuaded customers to transfer out of pension schemes against their best interests…it’s a significant catalogue of misconduct…! Mr Reynolds was found to lack honesty and integrity and therefore is not a fit and proper person to perform functions in relation to any regulated activity. The FCA fined Mr Reynolds £2,037,892 and banned him from the industry.
• FCA - Final Notice against Kasim Garipoglu: Mr Garipoglu (CF3 (CEO) and CF1 (Director)) has been banned from financial services for lacking honesty and integrity. His misconduct included encouraging excessive compliance risk-taking, disregarding AML and regulatory obligations, misleading and undermining compliance personnel, and deliberately misleading the FCA by providing false information (among other things). In the Final Notice the FCA reiterates its expectation of senior management “… to lead from the top…” and set a positive example to colleagues. The FCA states Mr Garipoglu failed to set the right example and positively encouraged misconduct amongst colleagues. He had a focus on generation of clients and revenue and made it clear regulatory compliance could be ignored or circumvented given its inconvenience to achieving these objectives. It’s another stark reminder of the FCA’s expectations of Senior Managers and what poor tone from the top looks like…
• FCA – Final Notice against Jason Rowan: Again, an enforcement brought under the pre-SMCR regime. However, Mr Rowan was found by the FCA to lack fitness and propriety (notably, integrity and honesty) following his conviction at Nottingham Crown Court for various offences including under the Fraud Act 2006. This decision by the FCA is unlikely to surprise many…

We briefly touched on the High Court decision dismissing a judicial review claim challenging the FCA’s decision to publicly name a firm as the subject of an FCA investigation in the previous SMCR+ View. There’s been a second chapter to this story, with the High Court now publishing the second part of its judgment which provides further details on the nature of the FCA’s enforcement investigation. This confirms that the investigation relates to a claims management company’s promotion and handling of motor finance claims, with the FCA’s concerns around the firm’s marketing campaigns that motor finance claimants could receive considerably higher levels of redress than the likely amounts announced by the FCA.

If you have any questions, please reach out to Emma Sutcliffe (Partner) and Thomas Makin (Managing Associate).