The deal: Flat fee of £2400.00 per year on a service level agreement
Area:Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, City of London ,North London, Middlesex, Berkshire outside these areas, still contact us and we can discuss
Once signed up:Provide up to 12 days a year visits to your offices,Overview of present system’s and process, risk gap analysis and assistance in completing any actions which maybe required.Regular auditing of a sample of your completed client files 24/7 coverage to answer any queries you may have, plus lots more...
Market: Mortgages, Secured loans, Debt management,payday loans, PPI compensation claims, general none investment insurance.
Monthly charge £200.00
Call 07773 294366 and speak to Richard
We are predominately a compliance consultancy firm and our aim is to assist the growth of your business, whilst providing you with industry-leading regulatory and operational support at competitive prices.
Thursday 9 February 2012
Monday 30 January 2012
FCA oversee Consumer credit market currently presided by OFT
With the Government publishing draft legislation replacing the regulator with three bodies; the Financial Policy Committee, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will take over responsibility for consumer financial matters, and will also oversee the consumer credit market, currently presided over by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT)
Contact us today to discuss your future requirements
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will take over responsibility for consumer financial matters, and will also oversee the consumer credit market, currently presided over by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT)
Contact us today to discuss your future requirements
Friday 2 December 2011
Fast Money FSA fines directors, no governance,no controls
The FSA banned its owner and director, Simon Latham, and former chief executive, Stuart Mason, from performing significant influence functions in the future. Latham has also been fined £17,500.
Fastmoney arranged regulated mortgage contracts, including regulated bridging loans, on a non-advised basis for retail customers. Between August 2005 and March 2010, Fastmoney arranged 370 regulated mortgage contracts and 18 regulated bridging loans for customers.
There were deficiencies in Fastmoney’s non-advised sales process which put its customers at risk of taking out mortgage contracts whose features, risks and costs they did not sufficiently understand. These deficiencies were first identified by the FSA during a supervisory visit after which the firm was referred to enforcement.
In particular, the FSA found that Fastmoney failed to:
establish a non-advised sales process which ensured customers took out an appropriate mortgage and were treated fairly;
ensure sales staff were competent, adhered to non-advised sales scripts and avoided giving personal recommendations to customers;
present all options to the customer in a fair and unbiased way, without recommending a specific product based on its own judgment;
ensure customers understood all the details of their product, particularly those who took out bridging loans;
and disclose clearly the cost of its services.
In addition, Latham and Mason failed in their oversight of the business. Latham delegated senior management functions to Mason who did not have the necessary knowledge, skill or understanding of the regulatory system to deal with the responsibilities.
Fastmoney arranged regulated mortgage contracts, including regulated bridging loans, on a non-advised basis for retail customers. Between August 2005 and March 2010, Fastmoney arranged 370 regulated mortgage contracts and 18 regulated bridging loans for customers.
There were deficiencies in Fastmoney’s non-advised sales process which put its customers at risk of taking out mortgage contracts whose features, risks and costs they did not sufficiently understand. These deficiencies were first identified by the FSA during a supervisory visit after which the firm was referred to enforcement.
In particular, the FSA found that Fastmoney failed to:
establish a non-advised sales process which ensured customers took out an appropriate mortgage and were treated fairly;
ensure sales staff were competent, adhered to non-advised sales scripts and avoided giving personal recommendations to customers;
present all options to the customer in a fair and unbiased way, without recommending a specific product based on its own judgment;
ensure customers understood all the details of their product, particularly those who took out bridging loans;
and disclose clearly the cost of its services.
In addition, Latham and Mason failed in their oversight of the business. Latham delegated senior management functions to Mason who did not have the necessary knowledge, skill or understanding of the regulatory system to deal with the responsibilities.
Wednesday 30 November 2011
FSA fines company £49,000 due to inadequate vetting
New advisers and ARs were not subject to adequate vetting before being appointed and were not adequately trained or monitored after appointment
The Financial Services Authority has fined Julian Harris £49,000 and banned him from performing the CF10 (compliance oversight) function and from acting as a compliance officer.
failed to:
•perform adequate due diligence on appointed representatives and advisors before appointing them;
•employ ARs who were fit and proper;
•put in place adequate training and oversight procedures for staff and maintain systems and controls at his firms; and
•to monitor their activities to ensure that they complied with regulatory requirements.
Question is how much was a an appointed representative and advisor paying Julian Harris and what did they get in return,poor publicity,client trust?
The Financial Services Authority has fined Julian Harris £49,000 and banned him from performing the CF10 (compliance oversight) function and from acting as a compliance officer.
failed to:
•perform adequate due diligence on appointed representatives and advisors before appointing them;
•employ ARs who were fit and proper;
•put in place adequate training and oversight procedures for staff and maintain systems and controls at his firms; and
•to monitor their activities to ensure that they complied with regulatory requirements.
Question is how much was a an appointed representative and advisor paying Julian Harris and what did they get in return,poor publicity,client trust?
Wednesday 9 November 2011
FSA’s Regional Assessment Programme
FSA’s Regional Assessment Programme and its follow up the Proactive Regulatory Review
The Regional Assessment Programme consists of Business Risk Awareness workshops to which all smaller retail firms will be invited to and then a follow up regulatory review (the Proactive Regulatory Review) on the firm. The purpose of the workshops is to give regulated firms a clear insight into the key messages of the regulatory review and through case studies to examine examples of good and bad practice as regards governance, culture and controls. The Regional Assessment Programme is starting at the end of this month with the first region being the North West. This programme is separate and additional to the RDR implementation reviews being carried out by the FSA as from the start of 2012.
The Regional Assessment Programme consists of Business Risk Awareness workshops to which all smaller retail firms will be invited to and then a follow up regulatory review (the Proactive Regulatory Review) on the firm. The purpose of the workshops is to give regulated firms a clear insight into the key messages of the regulatory review and through case studies to examine examples of good and bad practice as regards governance, culture and controls. The Regional Assessment Programme is starting at the end of this month with the first region being the North West. This programme is separate and additional to the RDR implementation reviews being carried out by the FSA as from the start of 2012.
Wednesday 2 November 2011
Operational and Compliance consultancy reduced rates
We are able to offer reduced consultancy daily rates and a package to suit your business, so contact us today
problems associated with payment protection insurance (PPI) recurring in a new generation of products.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) have joined forces to help prevent the problems associated with payment protection insurance (PPI) recurring in a new generation of products.
The FSA and the OFT are consulting on proposed guidance to firms in relation to payment protection products - which can fall within either regulator's remit. This is a key time as the market shifts away from PPI and firms begin to develop new products or product features - such as short-term income protection, or debt freeze or debt waiver as elements of a credit agreement or mortgage
Payment protection products within the FSA's jurisdiction
The FSA's guidance stresses that firms should ensure that product features reflect the needs of the consumers they are targeting. There are four key areas of concern that providers should think about carefully:
firms not properly identifying the target market for the protection product
the protection not reflecting the needs of the intended consumers
the benefit of a successful claim not matching the needs of the claimant, and
product features or pricing structures creating barriers to comparing products, exiting a policy or switching cover.
Contact Deemar UK Limited for more information
The FSA and the OFT are consulting on proposed guidance to firms in relation to payment protection products - which can fall within either regulator's remit. This is a key time as the market shifts away from PPI and firms begin to develop new products or product features - such as short-term income protection, or debt freeze or debt waiver as elements of a credit agreement or mortgage
Payment protection products within the FSA's jurisdiction
The FSA's guidance stresses that firms should ensure that product features reflect the needs of the consumers they are targeting. There are four key areas of concern that providers should think about carefully:
firms not properly identifying the target market for the protection product
the protection not reflecting the needs of the intended consumers
the benefit of a successful claim not matching the needs of the claimant, and
product features or pricing structures creating barriers to comparing products, exiting a policy or switching cover.
Contact Deemar UK Limited for more information
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)