Emma RadmoreThe FCA’s response to the Complaints Commissioner report in relation to a complaint about a P2P firm suggests it may be considering a more detailed review of the sector. The complainant had alleged that the FCA had failed to supervise a particular firm adequately, and also that it is not regulating the P2P industry.
The FCA had not upheld a particular complaint, and nor did the Commissioner. However, the Commissioner did agree that there are significant issues relating to the P2P sector that may merit further consideration. Also, the complainant had provided the Commissioner with further representations about the FCA’s investigation which the FCA has not yet had a chance to consider, but has now committed to. It will apologise for having made incorrect references and statements in its response (it referred to the firm complying with a rule that was not in force at the time), but not for “trawling the internet” to locate comments the complainant had made in online forums and use them in support of its decision not to uphold the complaint.
The complainant had invested through a P2P platform in around 2016 and lost a substantial amount of money due to bad debt and defaulted loans, and alleged this is due to the firm’s failings so held the FCA responsible for failing properly to supervise the firm. The Commissioner found that the FCA had supervised appropriately.
However, in respect of the wider complaint, the Commissioner found that the FCA considered the complainant had not given any specific examples of wrongdoing so both declined to investigate the complaint and simultaneously did not uphold it. The Commissioner did not find any evidence that the FCA had investigated at all, despite it saying it had. The FCA now accepts it had not carried out a proper investigation.
So, while in this case the FCA found no issues with the relevant firm’s compliance or its supervision of the firm, it has now committed to respond to the Commissioner following her observations on the wider issues.