This article was published by Thomson Reuters.
This article is the third in a series to help firms deal practically with the ‘cross-cutting rules’ (“CCR”) within the new ‘Consumer Duty’ (“CD”) regime.
The principal framework for the regime is set out from PRIN 2A.1 (accessible via the FCA Handbook’s ‘timeline’ feature).
PRIN 2A contains guidance which highlights ‘prudence’ as a particular component within the CFOR:
PRIN 2A.2.22 G: “Enabling and supporting retail customers to pursue their financial objectives does not mean that a firm is expected to go beyond what a prudent firm carrying out the same activity in relation to the same product, taking appropriate account of the needs and characteristics of retail customers, including in particular as set out in PRIN 2A.7.4G to PRIN 2A.7.5G, would do ...”
The characteristics of a prudent firm’s operations are indicated in PRIN 2A.2.20 G, and include: “... acting to empower retail customers to make good choices in their interests ...
(2) making sure retail customers have the information and support they need, when they need it, to make and act on informed decisions;
(4) taking account of retail customers’ behavioural biases and the impact of characteristics of vulnerability [during] ... customer interaction.”
PRIN 2A.2.22 G explains that the CFOR: “... does not require firms to go beyond what is reasonably expected by retail customers in the delivery of the product.” However, a firm’s understanding of what is reasonably expected is informed by what a firm should reasonably know, as per PRIN 2A.2.16, 17 G (emphasis added). “A firm which provides ...
... an execution-only service or a non-advised service can assume (unless it knows or could reasonably be expected to have known otherwise) that the financial objectives of retail customers are to purchase, use and enjoy the full benefits of the product in question ... [or]
... advisory or discretionary services is entitled to rely on the objectives that retail customers have disclosed unless it knows or could reasonably be expected to know that information disclosed is manifestly out of date, inaccurate or incomplete.”
In particular, PRIN 2A.2.18 G highlights that compliance with specific rules pertaining to the suitability of particular products is fundamental to ascertaining the reasonableness of a firm’s knowledge: “Information a firm must obtain under a provision of law (including, ... COBS 9.2.1R, ... ICOBS 5.2.2R, MCOB 4.7A.6 R, ... and CONC 5.2A.5R) is relevant to whether a firm knew or could reasonably be expected to know that a customer has different financial objectives ...”
The FCA’s guidance in FG22/5 shows how the CFOR is the ‘other side of the coin’ from the first two CCR:
“Product design that disguises risks is ... likely to be inconsistent with firm acting in good faith and enabling and supporting customers to pursue their financial objectives ...
... unreasonable exit charges ... may cause foreseeable harm and are unlikely to support customers in fulfilling their financial objectives.”
The key to compliance with CFOR is “creating the right environment” for the customer’s pursuit of its financial objectives. Customer communication methodologies are central to this, as per the FCA’s generalised examples of good and bad practice:
“One customer was unable to read large print and did not know braille. They informed their bank of this and asked to receive communications by email, to allow them to use software to turn the emails into speech.
However, the bank continued to send the customer communications on paper, and not by email. This firm did not tailor its communications taking into account the known characteristics of the recipient, which it became aware of when interacting directly with the customer on a one-to-one basis. The firm did not act reasonably to avoid causing consumer harm or enable them to pursue their financial objectives ...
A firm sells a high-risk investment product online on an execution-only basis. As part of the sales process, it requires customers to watch an educational video on investment risks, the benefits of diversification and regulatory protections, before purchasing the product.
While some customers may consider this to be an unnecessary step, it has been designed for the purpose of supporting them in making informed decisions and to reduce the risk of harm that could arise if they purchase a product and it is not right for them.
Therefore, this is unlikely to amount to an unreasonable barrier under the consumer support outcome as the firm has acted to avoid causing harm to its customers, enabling them to pursue their financial objectives ...
During our work [on] ... the Coronavirus Tailored Support ... we identified that some firms used [third party] digital tools when providing financial help [to customers, and these tools amounted to] ... ‘sludge’ practices which can ... prevent customers from pursuing their financial objectives.
These practices included:
The FCA’s reference to the ‘prudent firm’ in CFOR guidance calls to mind the ‘prudent person principle’ (“PPP”) under Article 132 of Solvency II. At face value the PPP is about the appropriate management of assets, but each management activity in issue is a type, or involves a manner, of conduct which illustrate how a ‘prudent firm’ should conduct itself under the CFOR, as per the quote / transposition below:
“[Firms] shall only [take steps] whose risks they can properly identify, measure, monitor, manage, control and report, and appropriately take into account in assessing [customer] needs.”
Specific assistance from the PPP can be found in its provisions that:
“Assets are to be invested in the best interest of all policyholders ... taking into account any disclosed policy objective ... [and]
In the case of a conflict of interest, firms, ... shall ensure that investments are made in the best interest of the policyholders ...”
The concept of the ‘reasonably prudent person’ is central to the English common law duty of care, and judgments identify what such a person would or would not do in the circumstances of a particular case.
However, becoming or being a ‘prudent firm’ for the CFOR involves creating an environment that enables and supports customers in making and being subject to properly informed decisions and actions. Such an environment can only thrive in the right culture.
+44 (0)20 7337 1010
In this session, we examined the legal framework around grant funded collaborations and discussed the key risks to be aware of, including IP ownership and compliance with grant terms.
The outcome of the Employment Tribunal claim brought by Gulnaz Raja against Starling Bank Limited (1) (Starling), and Matthew Newman (2) was reported last month.
National law firm Browne Jacobson has advised long standing retail client, Wilko on the sale and leaseback of its Nottinghamshire distribution centre in Worksop to logistics specialist DHL for £48m.
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ( EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Law firm Browne Jacobson is pleased to announce that Suzanne Harlow has been appointed Non-Executive Director of its Retail, Consumer & Logistics sector.
Earlier in the year a number of fashion retailers, boldly announced the introduction of a charging fee for returning any product purchased via their online store. Yet, despite this commercial, and perhaps somewhat controversial decision, at least one major fashion giant that adopted this approach has recorded ‘historic highs’ in its September profits. Browne Jacobson partner, Cat Driscoll who heads up the firm’s commercial team in Manchester and is also head of its Fashion & Beauty sector discusses whether this change has put the average consumer off and whether the days of free returns are long gone.
Logistics company Eddie Stobart has been fined £133,000, after a series of failures which took place whilst excavation work was carried out, exposing its staff to asbestos.
This article is the second in a series to help firms take a practical approach to complying with the ‘cross-cutting rules’ within the new ‘Consumer Duty’ (CD) framework. The article summarises what it seems the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is seeking to achieve from the applicable rules (section 2 below) and potential complications arising from legal considerations (section 3).
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
Two directors of a construction company were fined after failing to ensure the safe removal of asbestos from a plot of land. On 14 and 15 November 2021, Directors Anthony Sumner and Neil Brown, of Waterbarn Limited were involved in the uncontrolled removal of asbestos material from a plot of land in Grasscroft, Oldham.
An engineering company in Tyne and Wear was fined £20,000 after a worker fractured his pelvis and suffered internal injuries after falling through a petrol station forecourt canopy, whilst he was replacing the guttering.
The Digital Services Act (the “DSA”) has today (27 October) been given the go-ahead by the EU Council and will enter into force by early 2024.
The fashion industry has a mountain to climb when it comes to sustainability. More than 8% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the apparel and footwear industries, and approaching three-fifths of all clothing ends up in incinerators or landfill within a year of being made.