Frccommissioner Reviews 3

The FCA Register was incorrect and caused a loss of £13,116. These are not my findings, but the findings of the Office of the Complaints Commissioner in Case ID - 202201743.

Yet, the FCA has decided not to pay the compensation determined by the Commissioner.

The Commissioner did an extensive work (for which I am grateful) to identify the problem and make recommendations so that it does not happen to another customer facing dodgy financial services providers who unlawfully operate on the UK market using the licence of another, defunct company.

But what's the point of all this work when the FCA can just ignore the decision? Why wasting all that time, effort and money for all these pointless investigations if the victim is never compensated anyway?

Yet another Corrupt organization, that hires semi-literate staff, who have No conscience, who donn dark glasses to read documents from Consumers "who have no evidence". The FCA is incompetent -
/ corrupted and incapable of marking it's own homework, and the same applies to this "commissioner" who is not fit for purpose.
Get rid of all these ineffective, time-wasting people !

I wrote to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to report numerous problems I had experienced with the Prudential Assurance Company. They responded by incorrectly summarising my complaints and disregarding my subsequent correction. I submitted a FCA service complaint but this was rejected so I wrote to The Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner Ms Amerdeep Somal. I explained that there was no point in reporting complaints to the FCA if they refused to record them correctly. Ms Somal upheld my complaints and used the words “bizarrely” and “nonsensical” to describe the replies I had received from the FCA. However, her preliminary report went on to offset any criticism by stating that the FCA had made an “inadvertent error” and “went to great lengths to answer your queries”. I disagreed with these last two remarks so I wrote to Ms Somal and provided an example of where the FCA had incorrectly answered one of my questions. I also asked her to explain why the FCA had informed me that they could not help me as they were “unable to interpret what is fair or interpret our rules”. This appears to be complete nonsense particularly as the FCA website states that their objective is to ensure “financial markets are honest, competitive and fair.”

Ms Somal’s assistant claimed that the letter I had emailed Ms Somal as a PDF attachment could not be read and asked me to resend it as a PDF or Word document. I emailed the letter as a PDF attachment to somebody else who confirmed that they had no difficulty reading it. I made the assistant aware of this fact and resent my letter a further two times but she continued to claim that it could not be read. It appeared the assistance was deliberately wasting my time and I ended up having to send my letter as a Word document.

The assistant informed me that Ms Somal had noted my disagreement with her decision that the FCA error had been inadvertent but was not prepared to alter her decision. I asked if Ms Somal had deliberately decided to disregard the question I had raised in my letter. I was informed that she had not reviewed my question and would not be replying as I had not raised it in my original service complaint to the FCA. I explained that my question was in response to the incorrect information contained in her preliminary report. I said that there seemed little point in Ms Somal inviting me to comment on her preliminary report if she subsequently refused to review or reply to the points I had raised. I was informed that Ms Somal would not be replying to my email and “Any further correspondence on this matter will be deleted and not responded to.”