A freedom of information (FOI) request from International Adviser found that, between 6 April 2016 and 5 April 2017, there were three section 166 Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) notices and five 55L FSMA notices issued.
Those already known include deVere UK, which was issued with a section 166 in February 2017, and Holborn Assets, which received a section 55L in March 2017.
Wales-based IFA firm Strategic Wealth UK Ltd was also handed a section 166 and ordered to immediately cease all pension-related business.
No date was given by the FCA to confirm when the notice was issued. However, further details on the regulator’s website strongly suggest that Strategic Wealth UK was handed the section 166 in November 2016, making it one of the three firms to receive a section 166 notice in 2016/17.
Another 55L
The FCA provided one additional name; Gerard Associates Limited, which was subject to a s55L notice.
According to its website, Devon-based Gerard Associates are global wealth managers and independent financial advisers. The company specialises in savings and investments, pensions, life assurance and income protection.
The regulator’s website confirms that Gerard Associates was ordered to “immediately cease to carry on all regulated activities in respect of pension transfers and opt outs (PTOO), until independent verification is provided to the FCA confirming that the firm meet the regulator’s threshold conditions for business”.
However, the FCA notification was not dated and it is not known when action was taken against Gerard Associates.
No more names
A follow up request from IA to uncover the names of all of the firms that received sections 166 or 55Ls during the year proved unfruitful.
As a result, two of the firms that received section 166 notices are known (deVere UK and Strategic Wealth UK) and two of the firms handed 55L notices are known (Holborn Assets and Gerard Associates).
That leaves one firm with a section 166 and three with section 55L notices unaccounted for.
The regulator said it is “unable to provide remaining firm names falling within the scope of [IA’s] request, as this information is not public and so disclosure would, or would likely, affect the commercial interests of the firms in question”.
The FCA cited commercial interests and law enforcement as the ground for declining to provide further information.
The watchdog said that the disclosure of the information requested by IA “would be likely to lead to further comment and speculation about the firms involved”.
“In turn, this could harm the brand of the firm, and therefore, disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of this firm and their stakeholders, including their employees,” the FCA said.
“On this occasion, we have concluded that the balance of the public interest is in favour of not disclosing the information.”
With regard to law enforcement, the FCA added that it has the right not to disclose information if it could prejudice or limit future attempts by the watchdog to take action against firms.
