We are going ahead with a scheme to compensate motor finance customers who were treated unfairly. Courts have found that firms broke the law by failing to disclose important information to customers. An industry-wide scheme is the quickest and most cost effective way to deliver fair compensation.We had over 1,000 consultation responses and engaged extensively with consumer groups, professional representatives, firms, manufacturers, investors and industry bodies. While most respondents supported a scheme, we received much conflicting feedback on its details.We have listened and made several changes, set out in detail below, to design a final scheme which strikes the balance between sometimes competing principles such as simplicity and cost effectiveness, comprehensiveness and fairness.Our final approach is fair for consumers and proportionate for firms.We have tightened eligibility so only those treated unfairly receive compensation. Agreements involving minimal commission or zero APRs will not receive redress. Where a lender can prove there were visible links with a manufacturer and dealer, a contractual tie alone will not trigger compensation. The threshold for high commission cases has been modestly raised. These and other changes mean 12.1m agreements are now eligible for compensation, down from 14.2m at consultation.We have adjusted how compensation is calculated to better reflect greater loss between 2007-2014. We have also ensured that consumers are not put back in a better position than they would have been had they been treated fairly, so in around 1 in 3 cases compensation will be capped. Firms are expected to pay out around £7.5 billion in redress, down from £8.2 billion at consultation.We have also streamlined the scheme so consumers are compensated quickly and it is cost effective for firms to deliver. Millions of consumers will be compensated this year, most of the rest by the end of 2027. Lenders will only need to contact complainants or those due compensation and recorded delivery will not be required, helping to cut the cost to firms of delivering the scheme by over 40%.The estimated total bill to firms is down from £11 billion to £9.1 billion.We want to provide certainty for consumers and finality for firms and investors, supporting the ongoing availability of competitively priced motor finance. Our approach is the best way to resolve this issue in the interests of consumers, firms, investors and the market. We estimate the cost of dealing with complaints would be over £6bn more without a scheme.We expect everyone to get behind the scheme, and lenders to put things right promptly for their customers. We need to draw a line under the past and support a healthy motor finance market for the future.ScopeMotor finance agreements taken out between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024 where commission was payable by the lender to the broker will be considered for compensation.Firms owe liabilities from 2007. If complaints from that date were not covered they would need to be dealt with individually by firms, the Financial Ombudsman Service and through the courts, resulting in higher costs, lengthy delays and greater uncertainty.We have the powers to include agreements before 2014. However, this was questioned by some consultation respondents. So, we will implement two schemes, one covering 6 April 2007 - 31 March 2014 and one from 1 April 2014 - 1 November 2024. If the earlier period is subject to legal challenge on these grounds, redress for consumers with agreements from April 2014 shouldn’t be delayed.EligibilityConsumers will only be considered for compensation if they weren’t told details of at least one of 3 arrangements between the lender and the broker (usually the dealer):A discretionary commission arrangement (DCA), which allowed the broker to adjust the interest rate the customer would pay to obtain a higher commission.A high commission arrangement (at least 39% of the total cost of credit and 10% of the loan).Contractual ties that gave a lender exclusivity or a right of first refusal, except where the lender can prove there were visible links with the manufacturer and dealer.There will be some exceptions, with cases considered fair, if:The commission was £120 or less for agreements beginning before 1 April 2014 and £150 or less from that date. Commission amounts below those levels are unlikely to have influenced the consumer’s decision or broker’s behaviour.The borrower wasn’t charged interest.The DCA wasn’t used to earn discretionary commission.The lender can prove, in certain limited circumstances, it was fair not to disclose one of the arrangements above or that the consumer did not suffer any loss. This includes if a tie wasn’t operated in practice or no better deal was available.Consumers who have successfully complained to the Financial Ombudsman, had their claim determined by a court or accepted redress will be excluded from the scheme.Claims for high value loans - higher than 99.5% of other loans that year - are also excluded, as they are not suitable for a mass-market redress scheme. These consumers can still complain to their lender and the Financial Ombudsman.Consumers generally have 6 years to bring a claim, but that may be extended where information about commission or a tie was deliberately concealed. We do not expect lenders to routinely find that cases are out of time to be considered for the scheme, given how poor disclosure was.However, firms can exclude cases only involving high commission and ending before 26 March 2020 if they can show that the fact commission was payable was clearly and prominently disclosed. If firms rule consumers out of the scheme on this basis, they must inform them and explain why. The consumer will have the right to challenge this with the Financial Ombudsman.Consumers whose arrangement is deemed fair under the scheme can ask the Financial Ombudsman to review whether the scheme rules were followed. They could still make a claim in court.Calculating redressApproximately 90,000 consumers whose cases align closely with the Johnson case considered by the Supreme Court will receive redress of all commission plus interest. We define these as cases involving an undisclosed contractual tie and/or DCA and very high commission of at least 50% of the total cost of credit and 22.5% of the loan.For all other cases, consumers will receive the average of estimated loss and the commission paid, plus interest (the hybrid remedy). The estimated loss is based on economic analysis that shows there was a difference in the APR on DCA loans compared to those with flat fee arrangements.Following feedback, we have enhanced our analysis, incorporating more agreement data and covering a longer period of 2017-2021. We estimate average loss to be equivalent to an APR adjustment of 17% for this period and apply it to agreements from 1 April 2014.Firms have advised that the availability of pre-2014 data is limited. Collecting such data risks delaying compensation for consumers and certainty for firms with no guarantee it would materially improve any estimate of loss.Feedback and supporting evidence from respondents indicate that more harmful forms of DCA were more prevalent in earlier years. Differences between average DCA and non-DCA APRs were also larger during this period, indicating greater financial loss.To reflect that, we have set an APR adjustment of 21% for pre 2014 cases. This sits at the mid-point between a 17% and 26% APR adjustment. The latter figure is, on average, equivalent to being repaid commission, which is the remedy reserved for those who suffered the most unfairness. The difference between APR-17% and APR-21% results in an increase to average redress of £31 for pre 2014 cases.We are also using these APR adjustments for the relatively small number of cases that didn’t involve a DCA, but involved high commission or a tie.Consumers should not be compensated more than if they had been treated fairly or than those who suffered the most unfairness. So in around 1 in 3 cases receiving the hybrid remedy, compensation will be capped at the lowest of:90% of commission plus interest.The total cost of credit, adjusted to account for a minimal cost offered to only 5% of the market at the time, excluding 0% APR deals.The actual total cost of credit, calculated on a simpler basis. This may be the lower figure if the adjusted cost of credit can’t be accurately calculated, for example, if the lender doesn’t have the payment schedule.This means that about 64,000 agreements, where the APR was in the lowest 5% offered in the market at the time, excluding 0% deals, will not get compensation.Simple interest will be paid on compensation, based on the annual average Bank of England base rate per year plus 1% from the date of overpayment to the date compensation is paid. We have introduced a floor so the minimum interest rate consumers will receive for any year is 3%. Consumers will no longer be able to challenge the rate they get.How the scheme will operateThere will be a short implementation period so firms can prepare. This will be up to:30 June 2026 for loans taken out from 1 April 2014.31 August 2026 for those agreed earlier.People who have already complained or complain before the end of the relevant implementation period will be compensated sooner. Lenders will have 3 months from the end of the implementation period to let complainants know whether they’re owed compensation and how much.Firms will only have to contact people who haven’t complained if they are potentially owed money or those who are timed out of the scheme, avoiding unnecessary and costly communication with customers who are not owed redress. Firms have 6 months from the end of the relevant implementation period to do so. Consumers must respond within 6 months if they wish to join the scheme. Consumers who are not contacted can still complain to their firm by 31 August 2027.Lenders can use a range of communication channels that best meet consumers’ needs, with appropriate safeguards to prevent fraud.Cost of redressBased on further analysis, we now estimate 75% of eligible consumers will take part, resulting in firms paying redress of £7.5 billion. Non redress costs are estimated to be £1.6 billion, taking the likely total bill to firms to £9.1 billion.Our consultation set out indicative cost estimates. We have since refined our methodology to fully align with our consultation proposals and incorporated further lender data into our modelling. We have updated estimated redress liabilities and non redress costs under our proposals, compared to under our final rules, below.Consultation proposalsConsultation proposals, updatedFinal policyRedress at estimated uptake£8.2bn(85% uptake)*£9.3bn(75% uptake)£7.5bn(75% uptake)Non redress costs£2.8bn£2.5bn£1.6bnTOTAL (at estimated uptake)£11bn£11.8bn£9.1bnRedress liabilities(100% uptake)£9.7bn£12.5bn£10bnEligible agreements14.2m16.8m12.1mAverage redress per agreement£695£775£829*At 75% uptake this would have been £7.3bn.Ensuring compliance with the schemeWe have established a dedicated supervisory team, led by a Director. We will supervise firms closely to make sure they follow the rules, including assessing whether any exclusions of agreements have been applied appropriately. Firms’ senior managers will be required to attest to responsibility for their firm’s overall oversight and delivery of the scheme.We will intervene if firms fail to comply, including using enforcement powers if necessary. Firms will have to report regularly so we can closely monitor compliance, and we will publish updates on the scheme’s progress.We have set up a taskforce with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Advertising Standards Authority and the Information Commissioner’s Office to tackle the poor handling of motor finance claims by some claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms.Market impactThe motor finance market has continued to attract investment and function well since we announced our intention to introduce a compensation scheme.Share prices of affected UK listed lenders increased by a range of 2.1% to 29.7% in the two weeks following the Supreme Court judgment and continued to rise steadily until the recent conflict in the Middle East. There have been 5 public securitisations of UK automotive loans since September 2025. New car sales in February reached a 22-year high and a record £41bn was lent on motor finance in 2025, 6% up on 2024.We have updated our analysis of the scheme’s potential market impact. We conclude there will be limited impact on the new car finance market.Changes we have made to how the scheme operates, such as removing the need to write to all customers, will benefit sub-prime and smaller lenders by ensuring the scheme is cost-effective to deliver. While there may be some short-term effects in the used and subprime segments, these are expected to be modest, with any affected lending volumes replaced over time.Overall, we anticipate continued availability of motor finance and strong competition between lenders. Without a scheme, the impact on access to motor finance and prices for consumers could be significantly higher with uncertainty continuing for many more years.

Millions of motor finance customers will receive compensation this year under an FCA scheme for those treated unfairly by firms who broke the law by failing to disclose important information. Consumers were denied the chance to seek a better deal and, in some instances, paid more for their loan.The FCA has made several changes to the free to use scheme in response to conflicting feedback from consumers, their representatives, firms, manufacturers and industry bodies.This ensures it is fair for consumers and proportionate for firms. The eligibility criteria have been tightened, average compensation increased for older agreements and a minimum 3% compensatory interest rate per annum added. Payouts will be capped in around 1 in 3 cases to ensure no one is put in a better position than had they been treated fairly.12.1 million agreements made between 2007 and 2024 are now eligible for compensation, fewer than under the FCA’s original proposals. The average payout has increased to around £830 per agreement. The FCA estimates that 75% of eligible consumers will make a claim. If so, total redress paid would be £7.5bn.Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA, said: 'We’ve listened to feedback to make sure the scheme is fair for consumers and proportionate for firms. It will put £7.5 billion back into people’s pockets.'Now we need everyone to get behind it and ensure millions get their money this year. Payouts should not be delayed any longer, especially as household bills come under greater pressure. Delivering compensation promptly also gives lenders the chance to rebuild trust, and means we can draw a line under the past and support a healthy motor finance market for the future.'An industry-wide scheme is the most efficient way of compensating affected consumers while supporting the ongoing availability of competitively priced motor finance for millions who rely on it. Without such a scheme, the cost to lenders of dealing with complaints through the Ombudsman or courts is estimated to be over £6bn higher.How the scheme will workMotor finance loans taken out between 6 April 2007 to 1 November 2024 are covered.There will be a short implementation period so firms can prepare. This will be up to:30 June 2026 for loans taken out from 1 April 2014.31 August 2026 for those agreed earlier.Lenders will have 3 months from the end of the implementation period to inform complainants whether they’re owed compensation and how much. This means that people who have already complained or who complain before the end of the relevant implementation period will be compensated sooner.Lenders will only contact people who haven’t complained if they are likely to be owed money. They have 6 months from the end of the relevant implementation period to do so. This avoids unnecessary and potentially confusing communication with people who won’t get compensation. Anyone not contacted has until 31 August 2027 to make a claim.Claims for high value loans – amounts higher than 99.5% of other loans that year – are not covered by the scheme, which is designed for the mass market. These consumers can still complain to firms and the Financial Ombudsman Service.People will only be compensated if they were not told clearly that either:Their dealer or broker set the interest rate to earn more commission (using a discretionary commission arrangement – DCA).The commission was high – at least 39% of the total cost of credit and 10% of the loan.The dealer or broker was using one lender or gave one lender the right of first refusal, (a so-called tied arrangement), except where lenders can evidence that there were visible links with a manufacturer and franchised dealer. For example, where they shared a common or similar name.There will be some exceptions, with cases considered fair, if:The commission was £120 or less for agreements beginning before 1 April 2014 and £150 or less from that date. Commission amounts below those levels are unlikely to have influenced the broker’s behaviour or consumer’s decision.The borrower wasn’t charged interest.The DCA wasn’t used to earn discretionary commission.The lender can prove, in certain limited circumstances, it was fair not to disclose one of the arrangements above or that the consumer did not suffer any loss. For example, if no better deal was available.Where the commission was very high (50% of the total cost of credit and 22.5% of the loan) and another relevant factor of unfairness existed, consumers will receive the commission paid.For most people compensation will be made up of 2 parts, the average of:The commission paid; andThe estimated loss, based on a percentage discount of the interest (APR) they paid – 17% for cases from April 2014 and 21% for earlier agreements, to reflect greater loss then.Consumers should not be put back in a better position than they would have been had they been treated fairly or than those who suffered the most unfairness, so in around 1 in 3 cases, compensation will be capped.Interest will be paid on compensation, based on the annual average Bank of England base rate per year plus 1%, at a minimum of 3% in any year.The FCA has established a dedicated supervisory team, led by a Director, to monitor if firms are meeting the scheme's rules and act if they’re not. If people disagree with their firm's decision, the Financial Ombudsman will be able to assess whether the scheme rules have been followed.The FCA has also joined with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Information Commissioner’s Office and Advertising Standards Authority to launch a taskforce to tackle poor handling of motor finance claims by some claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms.The taskforce is the latest measure by regulators to improve standards. The FCA has already removed or amended 800 misleading adverts, over 28,000 consumers have been able to exit contracts free of charge, and 3 CMCs reduced their high fees, protecting over 500,000 consumers.Consumers can choose not to take part in the FCA's compensation scheme and instead go to court, where they may get more or less compensation, based on the facts of their case. However, the outcome of a court claim is uncertain and accounting for legal fees they may pay, many consumers could end up with less. The FCA's scheme is also likely to be faster and simpler.Advice for motor finance customersIf you are concerned you were treated unfairly, make a complaint. People who complain before the relevant implementation period ends will be compensated sooner.There is information on how to complain for free on the FCA website. There is no need to use a claims management company or law firm. If you do, you could lose over 30% of any money you get.If you don’t complain and are owed money, your lender should contact you by end 2026 for post 1 April 2014 agreements and end February 2027 for agreements started between 6 April 2007 and 31 March 2014.Watch out for scams. You can check you are dealing with your genuine lender using the contact details listed on the FCA website or through the FCA’s new motor finance scams helpline. You shouldn’t pay a fee to access compensation, or share sensitive details such as your PIN or online banking details.Notes to editorsPolicy statement (PS26/3): Motor finance consumer redress schemeGraphic of key numbers.Statement to the market includes updated redress liabilities and non redress costs estimates for our consultation proposals following further modelling.Our car finance claims page for consumers.

Shojin Financial Services Limited (Shojin) is a crowdfunding platform authorised and regulated by the FCA. Shojin allowed customers to make investments that were used to fund loans toward property developments. On 23 March 2026, Shojin went into administration. Simon Carvill-Biggs and Ian Corfield of FRP Trading Advisory Limited were appointed as Joint Administrators.The Joint Administrators are responsible for acting in the best interests of the people who are owed money by Shojin, and they must work as quickly and efficiently as possible. While investors are not always classed as creditors, they should still benefit if the Joint Administrators can recover as much value as possible from the property development companies involved. If you are affected by Shojin entering administration, the Joint Administrators will get in touch with you directly.The FCA is engaging with the firm and the Joint Administrators to seek to ensure the best outcomes for investors.If you have any questions in the meantime about your investment, please contact FRP’s customer support team: invest@shojin.co.uk.Customers who are struggling financially can get free and impartial guidance from the Money Advice Service.

A new taskforce will tackle poor handling of motor finance claims by some claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms, after the FCA, Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) agreed to join up their efforts. The announcement comes as the FCA prepares to set out its final compensation scheme for motor finance customers.The regulators will step up efforts to share intelligence and continue to take co-ordinated and targeted actions using the full extent of their powers to mitigate harm to consumers. It will take swift action to tackle issues with unsolicited and misleading advertising, meritless claims, multiple representation, and unfair exit fees.Alison Walters, director of consumer finance and FCA taskforce lead, said: 'Our scheme will be free and people don’t need to use a CMC or law firm. Should they decide to do so, it’s important that they can trust CMCs and law firms to act in their best interests. This taskforce will ensure we deal with problems quickly and decisively.'Deb Jones, executive director of transformation and the SRA’s taskforce lead, said: 'We want consumers to have confidence in the system. The taskforce is a great example of how we as regulators can use our collective expertise and powers to not only take action, but also to improve consumers’ awareness of the standards they can expect from law firms and CMCs.'Miles Lockwood, director of complaints and investigations at the ASA, said: 'It’s vital that ads promoting motor finance redress services are clear about the commitments and costs of engaging with a CMC or law firm. The ASA will take robust and proactive action to tackle misleading advertising of such services, working in partnership with other regulators as part of this taskforce.'Andy Curry, head of investigations at the ICO, said: 'The law is long-standing, clear and simple – do not send unsolicited direct marketing without consent. We provide advice and support to help companies to comply, but where we see unlawful practices causing harm to the public, we will take action to the fullest extent. This is a serious issue, and we will work alongside our taskforce partners, pooling our expertise, knowledge and powers to address it.'Advice for consumersThe FCA’s motor finance redress scheme will be free to use. Consumers do not need to use a CMC or a law firm, and those who do may lose up to 30% of any compensation. If you decide to go through the courts, this may cost you more.Don’t sign up to multiple CMCs or law firms to represent you. Doing so may lead to multiple fees.Be cautious of potential scammers who may try to contact you via cold calls, texts or emails, claiming you are owed motor finance commission compensation or offering to check eligibility.Report nuisance calls and texts to the ICO and report misleading advertising to the ASA.If a CMC is authorised by the FCA and you're unhappy with how it's handled your case, find out how to complain.If the firm is regulated by the SRA, find out how and where to complain. Complaints for poor service or excessive fees should first be directed to the law firm, and can then be raised to the Legal Ombudsman.Notes to editorsThe FCA will announce details of a motor finance redress scheme shortly after markets close on Monday 30 March.More FCA information for consumers, including how to deal with unwanted car finance emails.The SRA's website includes expectations for law firms with regards to motor finance commission claims, and a guide for consumers who are represented by a law firm for a claim.Research commissioned by the FCA shows that 79% of motor finance customers are aware that they may be owed compensation and 61% of a possible compensation scheme. However, 41% of those aware they may be owed compensation didn’t know they would not need to use a CMC or law firm if a redress scheme is introduced.The taskforce is the latest measure by the regulators to improve standards. The FCA has already removed or amended 800 misleading adverts, in excess of 28,000 consumers have been able to exit contracts free of charge, and 3 CMCs reduced their unreasonable fees protecting over 500,000 consumers. Formal investigations are also under way, with 1 announced by the FCA.The SRA regulates more than 9,000 law firms in England and Wales. At 31 January 2026, it had 89 open investigations relating to 71 firms that manage high-volume consumer claims. It has also closed 7 firms working in this area.Previous joint statements:FCA and SRA issue joint warning to firms representing motor finance commission claims.Regulators join forces to tackle poor claims management practices.SRA and FCA warn law firms and claims management companies over poor practices in motor finance commission claims.

On 3 March 2026, we said we’d bring forward our planned review of the UK Listing Rules for Investment entities, including how they apply to board independence and related party provisions.Since then, there has been substantial debate over our role in relation to investment trusts, including calls for us to ‘get to grips’ with voting rules ‘that allow a minority shareholder to repeatedly attack an investment trust’.Much of this debate suggests there are misunderstandings about how investment trusts are governed and where responsibilities sit. We’re concerned this may confuse investors in these trusts. Other calls to action have lacked clear proposals or been based on future hypothetical scenarios for which protections often exist. We want our review to ensure that these rules remain fit for novel circumstances.This blog reminds participants of their powers and responsibilities, clarifies our role, and sets out what our review will cover.

The FCA has fined Dinosaur Merchant Bank Limited (DMBL) £338,000 for failing to put in place effective systems and controls to detect and report suspicious trading in its contracts for difference (CFD) business. CFDs are sophisticated financial products that are used to speculate on various assets going up or down in value. Given their high-risk nature, firms must have strong and reliable surveillance arrangements to prevent insider dealing and market manipulation.In June 2024, DMBL introduced a new order system that led to a sharp increase in CFD trading by its clients. Between June and October 2024, trades with a corresponding asset value of approximately $3.05 billion were executed via the platform. However, these orders and trades were not captured and reviewed by the automated surveillance system which meant that potential market abuse could have gone undetected.Although DMBL identified this issue in October 2024, the firm failed to properly address the deficiencies until May 2025. The delay limited the firm’s ability to identify and report potentially suspicious trading.Steve Smart, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight, said:‘DMBL’s failures had the potential to undermine the integrity of the market. Firms must ensure they have effective surveillance arrangements in place. We will continue to take action where this is not the case.’DMBL fully cooperated with the FCA investigation and qualified for a 30% discount. Without this discount, the fine would have been £482,900. The firm stopped selling CFDs in May 2025. This case, taking just 9 months from opening to achieving a public outcome, demonstrates the FCA’s continued work to improve the pace of its enforcement investigations.Notes to editorsFinal Notice: Dinosaur Merchant Bank Limited (PDF).DMBL breached Article 16(2) of the UK Market Abuse Regulations (UK MAR), SYSC 6.1.1R of the Senior Management Arrangements, Systems and Controls chapter of the FCA’s Handbook and Principle 3 of the FCA’s Principles for Businesses.Market abuse surveillance systems serve to protect the integrity of financial markets, foster investor confidence and ensure fair trading by detecting, preventing and reporting illegal activities like insider dealing and market manipulation. They enable firms to comply with regulations (eg, UK MAR and the Market Abuse Directive on Criminal Sanctions) by analysing trade data for suspicious behaviour, such as spoofing or front-running, to identify misconduct at an early stage.For further information on market abuse surveillance, read the FCA’s newsletter on market abuse surveillance and market abuse peer review into firms that offer CFDs.Find out more about the FCA.

As part of ongoing improvements to My FCA, and following the successful removal of RegData sign in at the end of last year, we have now removed direct access to Connect and the Online Invoicing System. Firms do not need to take any action. All existing RegData, Connect and Online Invoicing links and bookmarked pages will now automatically redirect to My FCA, where you can access all systems from a single homepage without signing in again. This makes managing your regulatory tasks quicker and more efficient.One year of My FCAOne year on from launch, My FCA has proven to be a real success. It’s now used by all firms, providing a streamlined, effective way to manage regulatory tasks. Engagement continues to grow, feedback has been strong, and My FCA is now firmly embedded as a key part of firms’ regulatory journey.Jessica Rusu, the FCA's chief data, intelligence and information officer said: 'One year into My FCA and we’re delivering on our ambition to be a smarter, more efficient regulator. We’ve taken firms’ feedback and turned it into a simpler, clearer regulatory experience.'

We sympathise with former members of the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) who lost money after they were given unsuitable advice from people they trusted. Complaints are a valuable source of feedback which help us improve and learn. There have also been 4 independent reports into the BSPS since 2018, which have helped us learn lessons. We have accepted several of their recommendations and implemented improvements, including those below.We now have much closer collaboration between the FCA, The Pensions Regulator, Pension Protection Fund, and the Money and Pensions Service. This has improved intelligence sharing, enabling us to identify defined benefit pension transfer risks more swiftly.We are also collecting more pension transfer data from advisory firms to proactively monitor trends. We created a tool so people can check if they may have had unsuitable defined benefit pension transfer advice and have banned contingent charging for defined benefit pension transfers to reduce conflicts of interest. Our latest evaluation shows these changes have helped reduce the scope for harm and shift the market away from advice models that put advisers’ interests ahead of consumers.The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) levy and compensation amounts stand at a 10-year low, which is also one indicator of significant improvements in the system.Redress for BSPS membersTogether with the Financial Ombudsman Service and FSCS, we have helped more than 6,500 former members complain following extensive engagement with former members.At least £106m in redress has been offered to 1,870 former BSPS members to put them back in the position they would have been at retirement. We have also taken enforcement action against more than 20 individuals and firms where there was evidence of serious misconduct.Read our full response.

On 25 March 2026, following a petition filed by the FCA, the High Court ordered that Equity for Growth (Securities) Limited (EFG) be wound up. EFG is a corporate finance firm. EFG was also a principal for a number of appointed representatives between 2015 and 2020, including Amyma Ltd and Osborne Baldwin Ltd, which traded as Hunter Jones.An appointed representative carries on regulated activity under the responsibility of an authorised firm, known as 'the principal'. Find more information on the relationship between principals and appointed representatives.

We have set out plans for using AI to speed up authorisations, testing new tools to identify key risks earlier, with our people remaining at the heart of decision-making. The new authorisation tool is being developed internally and will be integrated into existing FCA systems.It forms part of our annual work programme 2026/27, which lays out how we’re accelerating our ambition to be a smarter, more data-driven regulator.We will also use generative AI to support our efforts to modernise regulation, streamline supervision and improve firms’ experience, by reducing unnecessary administrative burdens.We’re only proposing to raise minimum and flat fees by 1%, even after significantly investing in data analytics and digital tools to improve how we triage information and share intelligence more efficiently. This is the lowest rise in the fees budget since 2017/18 and well below the rate of inflation. It’s the lowest annual funding requirement (AFR) increase in a decade, at just 0.7%.Nikhil Rathi, chief executive, FCA, said:'This year’s programme builds on our ongoing drive towards smarter, more data-driven regulation, helping us identify risks sooner, make faster, more consistent decisions and reduce unnecessary burdens on firms. We’re focused on helping consumers navigate their financial lives, reinforcing trust in financial services and supporting growth and competitiveness while keeping our fee increases low.'

More people could access financial advice, under proposals set out by FCA. The FCA is consulting on how to make it easier for firms to give more simplified forms of individualised financial advice to consumers.Simplified forms of advice can help consumers with more straightforward needs and do not require a full assessment of all their financial circumstances, making it more accessible and affordable.Sarah Pritchard, deputy chief executive of the FCA, said:'For too long the support people need to make important financial decisions has been out of reach for many. 'A market that provides good quality, lower cost simplified advice alongside comprehensive financial advice and targeted support will better support people making decisions about their financial lives. We want to see more people getting supported, who aren’t currently, and a market that innovates and offers tailored services to meet differing consumer needs.'We welcome everyone’s views on whether our proposals will achieve our aim of building firms’ confidence to offer a wider range of advice and ultimately to help consumers navigate their financial lives.'Firms are already able to provide more simplified forms of advice but not many offer it. To encourage innovation and open access, the FCA is proposing to make small changes while maintaining appropriate consumer protections, which it believes can revitalise the sector, including:Simplifying and consolidating the suitability framework into one set of common rules and expectations.Clarifying existing flexibilities in suitability rules with an expectation that advisers consider ‘sufficient’ information.Rebalancing the role and purpose of suitability communications to support firms making them concise, consumer-focused and proportionate.Changes to give firms greater flexibility in how they design and deliver ongoing advice services. This includes moving from a fixed annual suitability review to periodic reviews based on clients’ needs.The FCA is starting a discussion about the future of trail commission to modernise the rules and to prevent potential consumer harm.Qualification standards for advisers will remain unchanged. The FCA is also not proposing to change the adviser charging rules. Advice will still need to be paid via agreed-upon adviser charges rather than provider-paid commission or through cross-subsidisation.The FCA has already acted to help consumers get more support. From April some financial firms will be allowed to offer targeted support and suggest products to consumers based on what they would recommend to those in similar circumstances.While targeted support will enable support to be given to groups of consumers, many consumers will need or value individual advice tailored to their specific circumstances.Other than updating our perimeter guidance, this is the final piece in the FCA’s policy work to make sure that the advice market works for the millions who depend on it for their financial futures.Notes to editorsRead the full consultation (PDF).The consultation closes on 22 May 2026.There are many situations in which simplified forms of advice may help. An example could be if a client wants to invest a one-off lump sum into a single investment. But where the financial situation is more complicated, such as deciding how to draw income in retirement from multiple sources, comprehensive forms of advice will likely be more appropriate as a firm will need to take account of more information.

We will set out our approach on motor finance redress shortly after markets close on Monday 30 March, having consulted on a compensation scheme in October 2025.

We are reminding regulated firms they need to undertake proper checks when dealing with unregulated lenders, safe custody providers, money brokers and financial leasing companies – also known as 'Annex 1' firms. There are around 1,200 of these firms registered with us for solely anti-money laundering purposes. Our powers are currently limited to looking at how these firms are meeting their anti-money laundering obligations and they are not subject to our wider rulebook. This regime is based on registration and is different from the authorisation regime under the Financial Services and Markets Act. For example, our wider conduct rules do not apply to these firms, nor are customers of Annex 1 firms able to access the Financial Ombudsman Service. When dealing with Annex 1 firms, regulated firms must do their due diligence to understand the firm’s business, in accordance with legislative requirements. This would include seeking direct confirmation from the firm of their registration status, conducting independent checks of the information they provide, and understanding and managing any risks, for instance those detailed in the 2025 National Risk Assessment. We raised concerns about anti-money laundering standards directly with the Annex 1 businesses in a letter to CEOs in 2024. We continued our proactive and reactive work in this area, which led us to follow up with 300 firms in late 2025. We are aware of some cases where consumers have been encouraged to set up limited companies to access lending, such as unregulated bridging finance from Annex 1 firms. It is important these consumers understand they will not have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service if things go wrong.

We have opened an enforcement investigation into Market Financial Solutions Limited (MFS). MFS is an Annex 1 business, which is solely registered with and supervised by us for its compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.Annex 1 registered firms are not authorised or subject to wider FCA regulation.MFS entered administration on 25 February 2026.

Speech by Nikhil Rathi, FCA chief executive, at the JP Morgan Pensions and Savings Symposium 2026. Last year, I spoke about the importance of getting on the right track.That if we want better consumer outcomes – as well as stronger capital markets to support growth – we need to think beyond individual products and look at the whole financial journey.How pensions interact with housing wealth…How savings interact with advice…And how all these decisions evolve across a lifetime.Over the past year, we have made good progress.Targeted Support goes live next month, helping bridge the gap between generic guidance and regulated advice.The ABI says this could be 'one of the most significant engagement shifts in pensions since auto-enrolment'.And with 75% of DC pension holders over 45 having no clear plan for taking their money at retirement, a big opportunity to help secure better outcomes at lower cost.For those wanting more personalised advice, we will be proposing next week to simplify rules – expanding access for consumers while reducing complexity for firms.Then there’s work on later life lending and pension transfers - which I will speak more on later.Alongside lending our support to the industry-led retail investment campaign going live shortly, and continuing work with the Investment Association and industry on making risk information more effective.So, a huge amount both delivered and underway, working closely with the Pensions Regulator, Government, and others.And it’s encouraging to see the level of attention pensions are receiving across the political system.But today I want to focus on how technology is changing the foundational context in which we are having this pensions debate.As technology makes people much more aware of – and able to act on – their financial wealth, what happens next?And is our pensions system ready for the potential demand and behavioural shifts that follow?

We have restricted Beauforce Corporation Limited from carrying out any regulated activities. This means it cannot provide regulated debt advice or debt management services to consumers. We have also ordered the firm to return money held in its bank accounts to its clients.We’ve taken this action following concerns about the suitability of the firm’s senior management and its conduct in dealing with us. Read the full Notice (PDF)

We’ve confirmed new rules to make existing incident and third party reporting clearer, more consistent, and easier for firms to follow. These new rules will help us respond quickly to disruption such as a cyber attack or power outage, give firms greater certainty on what to report and when and strengthen firm resilience to better protect consumers and markets.Cyber attacks are becoming more frequent and more sophisticated, and firms are increasingly reliant on third party providers. In 2025, over 40% of cyber incidents reported to us involved a third party and we have seen several recent high-profile incidents impacting the financial services sector including the Cloudflare and AWS outage. Clear and timely reporting will help us identify risks and respond effectively.What’s changingFirms don’t always report incidents consistently and industry have told us they want more clarity on what to report and what information to provide.In December 2024, we consulted (PDF) on clearer, more structured reporting frameworks. We listened to feedback and streamlined our final reporting requirements to reduce unnecessary burden, while also making sure we get the information we need to assess impact early and effectively respond to disruption.For both of our incident and third party reporting final rules, we have:Created a simple, streamlined reporting regime with the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and Bank of England including a single reporting portal.Removed duplicative incident reporting for payment service providers and credit rating agencies.Refined the overall information required, allowing most of the firms we solo regulate to complete a short form to tell us about their incident.Added clearer guidance on thresholds, definitions and responsibilities. Mark Francis, director of specialists and wholesale sell-side at the FCA, said:'Resilience is being tested like never before, with firms facing growing cyber threats and increasing reliance on third parties to deliver the essential financial services consumers rely on.'These changes give firms clearer rules and practical guidance to better manage disruption, while supporting our ambition to be a smarter regulator, giving us better data to spot risks, share insights and strengthen sector-wide resilience.'Over time we will use this data to share insights and trends to help firms bolster their operational resilience and share relevant information with industry, where appropriate during widespread disruption, particularly in stressed market conditions.And where disruption occurs at a third party, the data will help us see through firms’ supply chains to identify which services are the most exposed and help us identify potential critical third parties to the UK financial system.A more resilient financial sector will help lay the foundations to support growth and deepen trust in firms and the services they provide.New finalised guidance Alongside our final rules, we are also publishing Finalised Guidance for both incident reporting (PDF) and third party reporting (PDF).This includes:Clear examples of what firms should report.Help applying the thresholds.Guidance on completing the incident form and third party register.This is in response to feedback that firms want greater clarity and practical support. What firms need to do nextFirms have 12 months to prepare before the new rules come into force on 18 March 2027.We are hosting a webinar on 29 April 2026 and invite firms to join us in finding out more about our new rules and ask questions. Please register to take part in the webinar.Two years after implementation, we will review the regime to ensure it works effectively for firms and delivers the outcomes we expect.

We’ve reached a significant milestone in our joint work with the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Government to modernise the redress systemso that consumers get fair outcomes quicker and firms have greater clarity about how issues will be handled.We’re delivering change at speed by acting now within our current powers, with a focus on improving how the system works in practice. This includes a new registration stage for complaints, updated dismissal grounds and clearer guidance on the fair and reasonable test.Throughout, our aim has been to improve alignment, predictability and early engagement across the system – while maintaining strong and effective consumer protection.

KasimGaripoglu has been banned from working in UK financial services. The FCA found he is not fit and proper because of his lack of honesty and integrity. Mr Garipoglu is the owner of a firm that provided online trading of foreign exchange and contracts.Between April 2012 and December 2022, including when Mr Garipoglu was the chief executive and director at the firm and an approved person, he repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for regulatory requirements, undermined compliance and anti‑money laundering controls, and positively encouraged serious misconduct amongst his colleagues.He repeatedly overruled those advising him that his instructions were illegal and in breach of regulatory requirements. He consistently prioritised commercial advantage over regulatory requirements, including by regarding the potential for regulatory fines to be a business risk worth taking.He also deliberately provided false and misleading information to the FCA and other regulators, instructed the forgery of a document to evidence that an employee lived at a UK address with him when neither of them did so, falsified a university degree certificate for himself and made inaccurate declarations to the FCA in an authorisation application for another firm which he owned. In one instance, he instructed a colleague to impersonate him in communications and a phone call to the South African regulator.In another instance, he had his staff take a required anti-money laundering test on his behalf and passed off the result as his own and later denied this to the FCA.Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said:'Mr Garipoglu has consistently shown a blatant disregard of regulatory requirements and chose to run his business in a way that carried significant risk that serious money laundering would be facilitated. He has consistently sought to evade accountability for this. His conduct fell far below the standards expected of individuals in senior positions. He poses an ongoing risk to consumers and to the integrity of the UK financial system.'Notes to editorsRead Final Notice 2026: Kasim Garipoglu (PDF)Fighting financial crime is a priority in the FCA’s 5-year strategy.The FCA enables a fair and thriving financial services market for the good of consumers and the economy. Find out more about the FCA.The firm owned by Mr Garipoglu is no longer authorised by the FCA.This was a complex investigation covering many years of misconduct, during which Mr Garipoglu deliberately obstructed the work of regulators by providing false and misleading information. Mr Garipoglu also sought to oppose the prohibition and attempted to prevent his misconduct from becoming known, referring the FCA’s decision to the tribunal and then commencing an appeal in the Court of Appeal. Both Mr Garipoglu’s tribunal reference and his appeal have since been struck out.Whilst Mr Garipoglu has been prohibited, the FCA has not been able to fine him due to the length of time since he was an approved person.

On 9 March 2026, the High Court placed Concept Capital Group (CCG) into administration. BTG are the administrators of the company. In July 2025, the FCA announced High Court proceedings against CCG and others over an alleged unauthorised investment scheme. CCG has been under a court order that temporarily froze its assets since then.CCG had promoted investments in static homes. CCG claimed these would be let to social housing tenants placed by local councils. Investors were promised fixed returns and told the scheme was backed by the UK Government, claims the FCA considers were false or misleading.While the administration was not initiated by the FCA, it has put the FCA’s High Court proceedings against CCG on hold. The administrators will take control of CCG and investors’ claims will be handled as part of the administration process. The FCA will support the administrators as needed and will continue to communicate with them.The FCA’s claim against the other defendants - Ian Anthony Elliott, Adrian Felix, Ayub Swaibu, Edmund Brew, Ernest Kargbo (also known as Ernest Moore), Raymondip Bedi (also known as Martin Swann) and Gateridge Consulting Limited - will continue.