This will be of interest to all firms and individuals that will come under the new UK regulators as regulated, registered or authorised. Background The FSA are currently required to make arrangements for the “investigation of complaints arising in connection with the exercise of, or failure to exercise, any of its functions (other than its legislative functions)” under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). The latest version of the Financial Services Bill requires the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), and the Bank of England to establish how they will investigate complaints against themselves. The Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) jointly published a 34-page Consultation Paper (CP) 12/30 entitled ‘Complaints against the regulators – (The Bank of England, Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority)’, on 6 November 2012.

1. CP12/30 FSA Consultation Paper
Summary: Complaints against the
regulators
A CEI Compliance FSA Consultation Papers Summary

2. What Is It All About?
This will be of interest to all firms and individuals that will come under
the new UK regulators as regulated, registered or authorised.
Background
The FSA are currently required to make arrangements for the
“investigation of complaints arising in connection with the
exercise of, or failure to exercise, any of its functions (other
than its legislative functions)” under the Financial Services and
Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).
Identified as “an effective and efficient way of dealing with
complaints” the current FSA complaints scheme has been in
operation for over a decade. The requirements set out in Part
6 of the Financial Services Bill closely mirror those in FSMA,
which shows that the proposal to adopt a very similar
approach for the new scheme has been recommended.

3. What Is It All About?
The latest version of the Financial Services Bill requires the
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Prudential Regulation
Authority (PRA), and the Bank of England to establish how
they will investigate complaints against themselves.
The Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority (FSA)
jointly published a 34-page Consultation Paper (CP) 12/30
entitled ‘Complaints against the regulators – (The Bank of
England, Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential
Regulation Authority)’, on 6 November 2012.
It is proposed to delete the existing section, COAF, in the FSA
handbook, and the new regulators will instead simply publish
the relevant material concerning the new Scheme on their
respective websites.

4. So What Does It Say?
The requirements for a Complaints Scheme, in Part 6 of the
Financial Services Bill, closely follow the contemporary FSA
arrangements, and consist of two primary elements:-
• investigation of a complaint by the regulators themselves;
and
• investigation of the complaint by an independent person
(referred to as the Complaints Commissioner).
The relevant functions of the FCA and the PRA that are to be
investigated are their functions with the exception of their
legislative functions. The relevant functions of the Bank of
England are its functions under Part 18 of FSMA (recognised
clearing houses) or under Part 5 of the Banking Act 2009
(inter-bank payment systems), also with the exception of its
legislative functions.

5. So What Does It Say?
Processes in addition to the basic scheme will enable the
regulators to investigate complaints where allegations have
been made against any multiple of them.
Understandably t the regulators are committed to dealing with
all complainants fairly and equally. Typically there will be no
charge made by the regulators, or by the Complaints
Commissioner, to those who use the new scheme.
Complaints against the regulators will be dealt with within four
weeks or, if and where this is not possible, they will write to
the complainant within this time, setting out a timetable for
dealing with the complaint.
The regulators are apparently totally committed to
transparency in the arrangements of the proposed Scheme
and will publish data on levels of compliance with their service
standards and other information annually.

6. So What Does It Say?
Any complainant who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the
regulators’ investigation, or who considers that the regulators
are taking too long without explanation, will be entitled to
refer the complaint to the Complaints Commissioner.
The regulators will cooperate with each other to ensure that
the proposed scheme operates as one. This will be particularly
relevant when they are required to investigate complaints
incorporating allegations against more than one of the them.
The FCA will process complaints submitted centrally through
the published complaints helpline number or email address.
Even if the complaint is about one of the other regulators, they
will be responsible for recording details of the complaint and
assigning it to the relevant regulator(s) for action.

7. What Next?
There are a number of areas also discussed, mainly
concerning legal cutover limits and transitional
procedures, as well as the nomination of a Complaint
Commissioner.
For full details read the document on the FSS website at
www.fsa.gov.uk
Comments are requested by 6/2/2013.
The FSA will then consider the responses and publish a
Policy Statement, summarising that feedback and setting
out the new scheme in its entirety.

8. What Is This Presentation
This is a regulatory summary service
provided by CEI Compliance Limited, The
UK’s Fastest Growing Regulatory
Consultancy
We can only advise on the salient points in
this summary and if you want further
details then we would suggest you access
the full document from the FSA Website at
www.fsa.govuk

9. Isnt Bigger, Better?
Generally, No.
Its usually just more expensive
Fortunately, there are more positive alternatives to
using a niche consultancy compared to the Accentures,
McKinseys or the big accountancy firms like Deloitte, E&Y
etc.
We not only consider that size doesn’t matter, but large
size can actually be a disadvantage in meeting your
needs.

10. Dealing with a niche
consultancy
You are always dealing with the principal when you are
dealing with my firm. This means that I am the relationship
manager and there is no junior partner to whom responsibility
will be transferred. There is no decreased accountability, no
"hand-off" to a less-informed colleague. If your interests are at
stake continually, shouldn’t you reasonably expect my
continual involvement?
We can usually provide resources on a "just in time"
basis. That is, our projects do not have to cover excessive
overhead, such as multiple offices, large administrative
backup, recruiting, partner perks, etc. We are organized to
efficiently provide everything that you, as the buyer needs, but
nothing more than that which means that you are paying for
value and results and only minimum overhead.

11. Dealing with a niche
consultancy
There is more likelihood of your privacy and
confidentiality being observed with fewer people
working on the project. We (and/or the few people we
might also involve) are constant which means that there
isn’t the need to sift through dozens of differing
perceptions.
We’re faster. We can respond to requests quickly, and
return all calls within four hours which means to you
that there is no need to worry about a bureaucracy,
delays and unknown people on the other end of the
phone.

12. Dealing with a niche
consultancy
Since we handle fewer concurrent projects than larger firms,
our attention is focused on the job at hand. This means that
you don’t have to "compete" with another dozen or so of our
clients, which may be larger, paying more or are more time-
demanding. We structure our work so that every client
receives maximum attention.
Your investment is controlled. There is no "meter
running". We work for a fixed, value-based, project fee.
Large firms can’t afford to do that as readily because of all the
people involved and their own insistence on measuring their
success by billable hours. We measure our success by client
objectives reached, not in “time units”.

13. Dealing with a niche
consultancy
The expertise that larger firms use is often white-labelling
for them by a pool of consultants available in the
marketplace at any one time. We select our consultants
from practising subject matter experts which
means that you obtain the same or better expertise for
less money, because;
Inevitably, we are less expensive. There are
economies to using someone who can base their fees on
each situation and not on a pre-determined service scale
or need for reaching a practice quota. This means quite
simply better value to you.

14. And, additionally
The benefits of dealing with the “Compliance
Doctor” and CEI Compliance is;
A firm with experienced and qualified former
advisers;
A firm that can apply changes and needs in a
common sense way that is practical and
effective;
A firm that is considered and respected as
independent and reliable by the FSA;
A firm that provides you with unfettered access
to the principle immediately and on demand;

15. Questions? More Information?
CEI Compliance Limited
Call
0800 689 9 689
Email
info@ceicompliance.co.uk