Sesame fined £330,000 by FSA for scarps failures
LONDON – The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has fined Sesame Limited £330,000 for failing to treat its customers fairly by not handling complaints concerning Structured Capital At Risk Products (SCARPs) appropriately.
The problems with Sesame's complaints handling were found as part of the FSA's thematic review of SCARPs during March and August 2004. The FSA discovered that Sesame incorrectly rejected complaints from approximately 350 customers between March 2003 and October 2004, resulting in a loss of £5.9 million for the customers involved. The complaints related to sales made by Sesame's legacy networks.
After the FSA identified the problems, Sesame took action to ensure all affected customers were compensated, and contracted external advisers to review its SCARPs complaint handling procedures and train its staff. If the firm had failed to co-operate or provide adequate commitment to mitigation and remedial action, the penalty would have been substantially higher, the FSA confirmed.
"Sesame has no excuse for complaints handling failures of this kind, not least because the FSA had already issued a number of publications concerning both SCARPs and complaints handling. The failings we found highlight the need for firms to implement and maintain robust complaints handling procedures and to train staff adequately," said William Amos, head of retail enforcement at the FSA.
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
Revealed: the three EU banks applying for IMA approval
BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and Intesa Sanpaolo ask ECB to use internal models for FRTB
FCA presses UK non-banks to put their affairs in order
Greater scrutiny of wind-down plans by regulator could alter capital and liquidity requirements
Industry calls for major rethink of Basel III rules
Isda AGM: Divergence on implementation suggests rules could be flawed, bankers say
Saudi Arabia poised to become clean netting jurisdiction
Isda AGM: Netting regulation awaiting final approvals from regulators
Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites
Isda AGM: All in-scope banks opt for standardised approach to market risk; Nomura eyes IMA in 2025
CFTC chair backs easing of G-Sib surcharge in Basel endgame
Isda AGM: Fed’s proposed surcharge changes could hike client clearing cost by 80%
UK investment firms feeling the heat on prudential rules
Signs firms are falling behind FCA’s expectations on wind-down and liquidity risk management
The American way: a stress-test substitute for Basel’s IRRBB?
Bankers divided over new CCAR scenario designed to bridge supervisory gap exposed by SVB failure