View more on these topics

FSA cancels two brokers’ permissions over unpaid fees

The Financial Services Authority has cancelled the permission of Select Mortgage Services (Bracknell).

The FSA says Select has failed to pay fees and levies of £1,675.52 owed to the FSA, despite repeated requests to do so.

In its final notice to Select, the FSA, says: “This failing, which is significant in the context of Select’s suitability, leads the FSA to conclude that Select is not conducting its business soundly and prudently and in compliance with proper standards and that Select is not a fit and proper person, and that it is therefore failing to satisfy the Threshold Conditions in relation to the regulated activities for which Select had a Part IV permission.”

The regulator has also cancelled the permission of Kevin Jonathan Dalglish trading as Dulwich Insurance Services.

Dalglish failed to pay fees and levies of £1,280.33 owed to the regulator. He has also had his Part IV permission cancelled.

Recommended

Here’s a way lenders could be innovative and help first-timers

Having recently attended Mortgage Strategy’s Mortgage Summit which I found most useful, I would implore lenders to be more innovative when it comes to first-time buyers. Lenders complain that first-time buyer mortgages are a challenge and that the pricing of such deals is a reflection of market conditions. They argue that Basel funding ratios, stepping […]

The Mortgage Mole

ON THE RUN AGAIN The running bug has taken hold of the formerly fitness-shy staff of Mortgage Strategy. The editor, self-confessed couch potato Robert Thickett, recently ran the London Marathon and senior features writer Samuel Dale went on an extreme diet to complete the Bath half-marathon, now deputy editor Natalie Thomas is to run the […]

Could Proptech revolutionise construction?

By Rebecca Murphy, relationship manager, LendInvest  The construction sector offers enormous potential when considering the implication emerging technologies could have on both existing processes and final results. While the completion of an entirely 3D-printed office block may be ‘sexier’ news than a new smart toolbelt that tracks the wearer’s location on site, each area of development […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
Comments
  • Post a comment
  • Adrian Tanner 9th June 2011 at 10:34 am

    When we tried to de-register, it took the FSA over a year to acknowledge that we actually wanted to leave the industry. The comparison with the EU is very apt. Overpaid, unaccountable and not fit for purpose. Yes, regulation is a fact or life but the people who pay the fees should be treated with a degree of respect

  • Robin 9th June 2011 at 10:15 am

    The FSA is a sign of an over-regulated country, providing non-jobs within a parasitic company, feeding off the real workers. (Brokers)
    These regulatory bodies remind me of the EU! What could be a bigger insult?

  • g forrest 8th June 2011 at 3:30 pm

    Why are you defending these people? Fair enough they walked away from the industry, but they had responsibilities to do this in a professional manner. If we all just wandered away from something we no longer liked or wanted to be involved in, things would be in a mess. The FSA was right to do . Deal with it people whoever the regulator is you’re not gonna like, but regulation is a fact of life. Acting unprofessionally because you don’t like your boss is shameful.

  • anon 7th June 2011 at 9:57 pm

    well the high cost of fees makes one feel like giving up MCCB was a bargan!!!…

    hummm with all the fines the FSA impose can’t us mere mortals who struggle to earn a crumb, have a discount?

  • gerry roberts 7th June 2011 at 10:52 am

    So what does that make the Bank Directors and the FSA who had to be bailed out as they were unable to meet their financial commitments? Those comments posted in the public domaine seemt to be ” False & misleading.but I suspect you guys in the industry will, as usual do nothing, just snipe from a safe distance.

  • Mark E 7th June 2011 at 10:36 am

    Isn’t it just this kind of razor sharp reasoning and verbal diarrhoea that caused all the problems in the first place. Under the circumstances, isn’t it more likely in the abscence of other evidence that they just gave up trading. Why then rub salt in to the wounds with the “is not conducting its business soundly and prudently and in compliance with proper standards and that Select is not a fit and proper person”. Talk about kicking someone when they are down! This must be why we love our regulator so much.

  • Paul 7th June 2011 at 10:28 am

    Surley these companies were closing down anyway? Your not going to let your business shut down over a non payment of £1600, are you? This is non-news in my opinion!

  • peter wilson 7th June 2011 at 10:16 am

    Yet another piece of earth shattering news, 2 brokers have de authorised !!!!