FSA fines and bans network head £49,000 for poor oversight of networks
Share
The Financial Services Authority has fined Julian Harris, the sole proprietor of networks Julian Harris Financial Consultants and the sole shareholder of Julian Harris Mortgages, £49,000.
It has also banned Harris from performing the compliance oversight function and from acting as a compliance officer. Harris agreed to settle this matter at an early stage of the FSA’s investigation and therefore qualified for a 30% discount. Were it not for this discount, the fine would have been £70,000.
The FSA has taken this action because between 31 October 31 2004 and 22 July 2010 Harris, who was responsible for the firms, failed to:
- - perform adequate due diligence on appointed representatives and advisors before appointing them;
- - employ ARs who were fit and proper;
- - put in place adequate training and oversight procedures for staff and maintain systems and controls at his firms; and
- - to monitor their activities to ensure that they complied with regulatory requirements.
The FSA considers the misconduct to be serious because regulatory enforcement action has been taken against Harris on two previous occasions and the breaches lasted for a prolonged period and, as a result of them, new advisers and ARs were not subject to adequate vetting before being appointed and were not adequately trained or monitored after appointment.
In some cases incompetent or unfit individuals may have been appointed, and customers may have been exposed to the risk of receiving unsuitable advice. Harris directly caused the firms to breach Principle 3 of the FSA’s Principles for Businesses.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Mortgage Strategy and Follow @mortgagestrat
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (13)
john | 30 Nov 2011 10:40 am
And yet lenders pay higher proc fees through AR's than DA's as there is a more structured complaince regime in place - apparently not.
DA but the way!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30 Nov 2011 10:49 am
Christmas is coming
The geese are getting fat
Please put a penny
In the F.S.A.'s hat
If you haven't got a penny
We will have £49k then
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30 Nov 2011 10:56 am
Anon 10.49
Are you saying it's OK to do what this Network has been alleged of then?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
bobby | 30 Nov 2011 11:42 am
Looks like the FSA Xmas party will be even better than before now.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John O'Hearne | 30 Nov 2011 12:48 pm
Whose going to fine or ban the FSA for its countless failures, also, let's have Gordon Brown & co forfeit their pensions for mess they've left the country in!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
bobby | 30 Nov 2011 2:08 pm
I met Julian and he came across as a decent, knowledgable Man looking out for his AR's. Compliance also seemed to be high on the list of his priorities. The FSA are however answerable to no one and one can only wonder what their systems are like and would come up to close scrutiny but you see they like poking their noses into everyone else's business and criticising but are totally above the law themselves and as I said maybe the FSA Xmas party funds were running low.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Shaks | 30 Nov 2011 2:18 pm
I think the FSA need to be referred to the The Haig for crimes against the IFA & Broker community who have long suffered a process of Ethnic cleansing. Theres not many of us left. We have to get justice before we're all wiped off the face of the earth. What were the specific crimes of this man? How is it that a man representing an honourable profession can be fitted up to look like a criminal?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30 Nov 2011 2:25 pm
No, Anon 10.56. Bit of light hearted banter re :F.S.A Xmas fund. Get a life.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
bobby | 30 Nov 2011 2:25 pm
What I find most offensive of a long list regarding the FSA is that they think nothing of trying to destroy a hard working persons reputation and dragging their name through the mud without a second thought. The seem very trigger happy and rejoice and gloat at the fact they have tried to ruin another human being. They are beneath contempt as far as I am concerned.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kevin Fowler | 30 Nov 2011 6:46 pm
If I was a Julian Harris member I'd be asking for a refund of membership fees. I'd also be more than disappointed to be associated with a firm that had been fined for having members who weren't fit and proper.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment