FSA fines Sesame for SCARP complaint-handling failures
LOSSES & LAWSUITS
Identified as part of the FSA's thematic review of Structured Capital At Risk Products (Scarp), the regulator found that Sesame was not handling complaints adequately. The company incorrectly rejected complaints from approximately 350 customers relating to sales made by Sesame's legacy networks between March 2003 and October 2004.
These customers had lost nearly £5.9 million in total.
The FSA had already issued a number of publications concerning both Scarps and complaint-handling, which highlighted the need for firms to implement and maintain robust complaint-handling procedures and to train staff adequately.
Once the problems were identified by the FSA, Sesame took prompt action to ensure all affected customers were compensated, and engaged external advisers to review its Scarps complaint-handling procedures and to train its staff.
Without Sesame's co-operation and commitment to mitigation and remedial action, the penalty levied would have been substantially higher.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
SEC may lack legal clout to impose new dealer rule – Citadel
Adoption of quantitative dealer definition may require congressional changes to US Securities Exchange Act
US Basel endgame hits clearing with op risk capital charges
Dealers also fret about unlevel playing field compared with requirements in the EU
CFTC’s clearing house recovery rule splits industry
Some fear CCPs will fast-track recovery, others say any rule book will be ignored in emergency
EU banks ‘will play for time’ in stand-off over India’s CCPs
Lawyers say banks are unlikely to set up subsidiaries and will instead pin hopes on revised Emir fix
ECB mulls intervention on uneven banking book reporting
Inconsistency among EU banks on whether deposits and loans are in scope for credit spread risk
Iosco warns of leveraged loan ‘vulnerabilities’
As recovery rates plummet, report calls for clearer covenants and more transparency on addbacks
Narrow path to compromise on EU’s post-Brexit clearing rules
Lawmakers unlikely to support industry demand to delete Emir active accounts proposal altogether
The Fed’s stress test models are inaccurate. Something has to change
First step for US regulator to improve its bank loss forecasts would be to open up its models to public scrutiny, argue two banking industry advocates
