FSA fines two UK firms in major TCF crackdown
LONDON - HFC Bank has been fined £1.085 million for mis-selling payment protection insurance (PPI) by the UK's Financial Services Authority (FSA).
For two years HFC - a subsidiary of HSBC - sold PPI to 163,000 customers but failed to provide suitable advice, or put adequate systems and controls in place. The firm did not require its advisers to gather enough information on customers' financial circumstances, explain fully why they recommended a sale, or identify to customers any demands and needs that the policy would not meet.
Taking out PPI - designed to protect against unemployment or illness - is the most lucrative form of UK insurance. It can add costs of £3,000 to a £7,500 loan. The bank joins 11 other firms fined for mis-selling PPI, including GE Capital Bank, which was fined £610,000, and Capital One Bank, which was fined £175,000.
Meanwhile, stockbroker Square Mile was fined £250,000 for using persistent high-pressure sales tactics and misleading information to sell consumers shares they did not want or could not afford. The firm deals in derivatives and securities sold on the Alternative Investment Market and PLUS markets, which provide primary and secondary trading services for smaller capitalised and emerging companies. Examples of the firm's sales tactics included telephoning one customer 17 times in 10 days, and selling almost £300,000 of high-risk securities to an 89-year-old customer without permission. The penalties to HFC and Square Mile mark a significant increase in enforcement of the principles of the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) initiative.
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.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
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. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
EU officials tamp down hopes for bank capital relief
Capital cuts are not a done deal in EC’s review of competitiveness, despite US deregulation
EU regulators clash over ceding supervision to Esma
Belgian and Spanish regulators differ on drive for centralised oversight of cross-border firms
Why Trump’s latest Truth should make TradFi twitchy
Wall Street is becoming the villain in US president’s crypto movie
EBA guidance prompts banks to rethink CSRBB perimeters
Banks will likely have to expand their credit spread risk coverage following recommendations
Market players warn against European repo clearing mandate
Regulators urged to await outcome of US mandate and be wary of risks to government bond liquidity
Esma won’t soften regulatory expectations for cloud and AI
CCP supervisory chair signals heightened scrutiny of third-party risk and operational resilience
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision