View more on these topics

FSCS reveals single firm behind most of emergency broker levy


Fuel Investments Limited is the firm responsible for 70 per cent of claims leading to an emergency £15m levy against mortgage brokers, according to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

The FSCS confirmed the levy last month after a wave of claims against a then-unnamed firm caused the claims body to increase its forecast levy for the 2017/18 year.

But responding to a query from Mortgage Strategy, the FSCS has revealed that Fuel, a well-known mortgage broker and wealth management firm, was the firm responsible for most of the claims.

The £10.5m of claims against Fuel came from the firm advising clients to remortgage their UK homes to free up money for high-risk property investments.

But the FSCS says it does not expect high claims volumes against Fuel to continue.

It says: “Stripping out these claims reduces the level towards those experienced over recent years, so that on current evidence we would not expect this level of costs to continue into future years.”

Fuel was set up as a limited company in November 2008, though previously SWMS Limited, set up in 2004, traded as Fuel Investments Limited.

Fuel once expressed ambitions to be the biggest directly-authorised mortgage broker in the UK.

The FSCS listed Fuel as being in default in December 2015.



In My Opinion: Strategy versus tactics for FSCS

The FSCS can now deal with the peaks and troughs more efficiently, and provide a faster and more convenient service We have just published our Plan and Budget for 2017/18, which supports the consultation that the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority are undertaking on our management budget. I often think this annual document well illustrates […]


FSCS warns over scammers pretending to be compensation scheme

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is warning of an email scam where consumers are being promised a $5.7m (£4.5m) payment from the lifeboat fund. The email includes a fake form asking people to give personal information and a fake identity card claiming to be from an FSCS staff member. An FSCS statement says: “Neither is […]

piggy, money, cash

FSCS confirms £15m emergency levy against mortgage brokers

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has confirmed that mortgage brokers will have to pay a £15m supplementary levy this year. The levy, mooted last December, will pay for “unforseen compensation costs” in the 2016/17 year, according to the lifeboat fund. The FSCS says the levy is needed because if the cost is carried over into […]

In Focus Ebola cover - thumbnail

White paper — In Focus: Ebola Virus Disease

Jelf Employee Benefits focuses on Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) and what this means for businesses with operations in West Africa. This will be of particular interest to those with employees either travelling to, or living within, West Africa, the area affected by the most catastrophic outbreak of Ebola to date.

Burnett: what needs to happen for value to start performing again?

Value stocks have significantly underperformed growth stocks in Europe in the past decade. However, Rob Burnett, manager of the Neptune European Opportunities Fund, believes we are now approaching an inflection point. Watch the video below to find out more. In the video, Rob discusses: How low inflation and loose monetary policy since the global financial […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
  • Post a comment
  • old hand 9th February 2017 at 10:52 am

    FCA not doing their job properly then. if they were in the ball FSCS wouldn’t have to be involved.

  • Jaded Broker 9th February 2017 at 10:50 am

    Just a though…a bit radical I know, but if FUEL have caused the problems, why have the rest of us got to bail them out?

    • Peter Turner 14th February 2017 at 10:49 am

      The answer is because Fuel Investments Limited was dissolved in 2014.

      Curiously, the people listed on the Financial Services Register as its directors are not listed on the Companies House register as its directors.

      That suggests to me that the FSA (as was) did not check when authorisation was first applied for.

      It would seem a fairly basic piece of due diligence for it to have done, though.