FCA Enforcement Actions

Key dates

2026-07-24

The FCA conducted the Attest quantitative survey of 666 UK adults aged 18 to 40 who owned investments or were considering buying investments within 12 months.

2026-08-27

The FCA published the press release and research findings on young investors' trust in AI.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map all AI use cases across investment research, recommendations, suitability, appropriateness assessments, client communications, and financial promotions, distinguishing general-purpose tools from systems specifically configured to provide financial advice.
• Firms should consider assessing whether any AI-generated output amounts to a personal recommendation, regulated advice, or a financial promotion under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, rather than relying on the technology's general-purpose label.
• Firms using AI in regulated activities should consider applying the same suitability, appropriateness, customer understanding, disclosure, record-keeping, oversight, and accountability standards that apply to equivalent human-led processes.
• Customer-facing communications may warrant clear explanation that general-purpose chatbot outputs are not FCA-regulated advice and do not themselves create entitlement to FSCS compensation or access to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
• Compliance teams may wish to test AI outputs for hallucinations, stale or unsupported sources, misleading performance claims, inappropriate personalisation, bias, and inadequate risk warnings, with escalation and human-review controls for higher-risk outputs.
• Firms should consider reviewing whether AI-generated content used in promotions complies with the FCA financial promotion restriction in section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and applicable FCA financial-promotion rules.
• Governance reviews may include vendor due diligence, approved-use restrictions, audit trails, model-change monitoring, incident reporting, staff training, and controls preventing customers or staff from treating AI output as a substitute for regulated advice.
• Firms may wish to monitor the FCA's expected late-2026 publication on good and poor AI practice and any subsequent FCA, HM Treasury, or industry measures addressing advice-like outputs from general-purpose AI.

What changed

No binding regulatory requirement, rule, prohibition, or implementation deadline was introduced. The FCA clarified its current supervisory position that general-purpose AI chatbots are not regulated by the FCA where they respond to varied prompts and are not specifically established to provide financial advice, research, or decision-making support. By contrast, an AI tool specifically deployed to provide financial advice would be likely to fall within the FCA's remit and could engage the existing UK regulatory framework for regulated advice and financial promotions.

Key dates

2016-01-01

The period began during which the FCA found that the investor-visa scheme operated; the exact start date is not specified in the publication.

2019-01-01

The period ended during which the FCA found that the scheme operated; the exact end date is not specified in the publication.

2021-03-12

The FCA imposed restrictions preventing Dolfin from carrying on regulated activities, following concerns including its operation of the investor-visa funding scheme.

2021-06-01

Dolfin entered special administration; the exact date in June is not specified in the publication.

2022-02-17

The Home Office closed the Tier 1 investor visa route of entry to the UK.

2026-08-26

The FCA published the enforcement announcement concerning the bans, fines and Joukovski Decision Notice.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any product or client arrangement could create a misleading impression that a regulatory, immigration or other statutory investment threshold has been met when the client’s own qualifying capital is materially lower.
• Firms should consider testing the end-to-end governance of immigration-linked investment business, including approval of the business model, ownership and control disclosures, conflicts management, introducer due diligence, fee flows and oversight of connected or offshore entities.
• Firms may wish to reassess source-of-funds and source-of-wealth controls where client investments are supported by loans, circular funding, guarantees or funds provided by affiliated entities, and document why the resulting structure is consistent with the relevant immigration and financial-services requirements.
• Senior managers and boards should consider whether regulatory submissions, notifications and attestations fully disclose shadow directorships, controllers, beneficial ownership, related-party involvement and the true commercial purpose of client arrangements.
• Firms should consider conducting targeted reviews of historical investor-visa or residence-by-investment clients, including communications and files supplied to regulators or other public authorities, and escalating any potentially misleading statement or omission through the appropriate remediation and notification processes.
• Training and surveillance may be reviewed to ensure staff understand that conduct outside the core regulated service, including assistance with immigration-rule circumvention, can affect the firm’s and individuals’ integrity, fitness and propriety.
• Where third-party immigration agents or introducers are used, firms may wish to assess their incentives, remuneration, representations to clients, due-diligence records and ongoing monitoring, particularly where fees are unusually high or linked to visa approval.

What changed

This is a final enforcement outcome for Nagy and Maraj, not a new generally applicable rule or supervisory requirement. Both were prohibited from performing any function in relation to regulated activities; Nagy’s discounted penalty was £324,800, compared with an undiscounted £464,000, and Maraj’s discounted penalty was £122,000, compared with an undiscounted £174,300. Joukovski was issued a Decision Notice proposing a prohibition order, but the proposed action has no effect pending the Upper Tribunal’s determination.

Key dates

2021-01-01

The FCA’s permanent restriction on marketing speculative illiquid securities, including relevant mini-bonds and loan notes, to retail investors took effect under COBS 4.14.

2026-01-01

The UK regime regulating offers of securities to the public came into force under the Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2024.

2026-07-16

Robert Goodhew and Andrew Stoneman of Kroll Advisory were appointed joint administrators of Woodville Consultants Ltd.

2026-08-20

The FCA publication was updated and warned consumers and market participants about risky mini-bonds, loan notes and related financial promotions.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should inventory current and proposed promotions, introducer arrangements and distribution channels involving loan notes, mini-bonds, litigation funding, private credit or other potentially speculative illiquid securities.
• Firms should document the classification analysis under FCA COBS 4.14, including whether the security is speculative and illiquid, whether it is excluded from the restriction, and the precise exemption relied upon for any retail communication.
• Authorised firms should verify that every financial promotion is made or approved within the firm’s permission and competence, is fair, clear and not misleading under FCA Principle 7 and COBS 4, and contains sufficiently prominent explanations of capital-loss, liquidity, issuer-default and compensation-scheme risks.
• Firms should not rely solely on an investor’s self-certification as a high-net-worth or sophisticated investor; compliance teams may wish to test the basis, timing, wording and evidence for each investor-status declaration against the applicable Financial Promotion Order exemptions.
• Banks, payment firms and professional intermediaries should consider enhanced onboarding and transaction-monitoring controls for unusual high-yield investment flows, unexplained introducer commissions, overseas exchange references, trust structures and claims of FCA-regulated involvement that may create a misleading halo effect.
• Distribution agreements should clearly identify fees, commissions, conflicts and the party responsible for the promotion, with controls to prevent unauthorised introducers from soliciting UK retail investors or passing them to unauthorised issuers.
• Firms should assess whether a proposed public offer engages the Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2024 and related FCA requirements, while treating that assessment as separate from financial-promotion, authorisation, conduct and investor-protection analysis.
• Relevant firms and professional intermediaries should retain evidence of due diligence, approvals, investor categorisation, risk disclosures, payment flows and complaints handling, and consider reporting suspicious activity or unlawful promotions to the FCA.

What changed

The FCA has reiterated that speculative illiquid securities, including most mini-bonds and loan notes, have been subject to a permanent restriction on their marketing to retail investors since 1 January 2021 under FCA COBS 4.14. The restriction does not make every loan note unlawful or bring every issuer within FCA authorisation; firms must separately assess whether the instrument falls within the restricted category, whether an exemption applies, and whether the promotion is made or approved by an authorised person in accordance with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the...

Key dates

2020-01-01

The FCA's temporary product intervention restricting mass-marketing of speculative illiquid securities to retail investors took effect.

2020-12-10

The FCA published PS20/15, confirming permanent rules for marketing speculative illiquid securities, including speculative mini-bonds, to retail investors.

2021-01-01

The permanent FCA restrictions on mass-marketing speculative illiquid securities to ordinary retail investors came into force.

2026-08-19

The FCA published the consumer warning following continuing losses and concerns about unregulated loan notes and mini-bonds, including the collapse of Woodville Consultants Limited.

2026-08-20

The FCA page was updated; the publication continues to operate as a warning and supervisory or enforcement signal rather than a new rule.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all loan notes, mini-bonds, debentures, preference shares, and comparable securities promoted, approved, advised on, arranged, or distributed by the firm.
• Firms should consider testing each product against the FCA definition of a speculative illiquid security, including the denomination threshold of less than £100,000, the use of proceeds, transferability, listing, and the applicable exemptions.
• Authorised firms should consider blocking mass-market communications, including websites, social-media advertising, broad email campaigns, affiliate content, and introducer activity, where the promotion is likely to reach ordinary retail clients.
• Where an exemption is relied on, firms should consider evidencing investor eligibility, the basis for any high-net-worth or sophisticated-investor status, the timing and validity of the investor declaration, and controls preventing onward dissemination to ineligible persons.
• Firms approving or communicating relevant promotions should consider verifying that required risk warnings, loss-of-capital disclosures, liquidity and default information, and third-party fee or commission disclosures are accurate, prominent, and consistent across all distribution channels.
• Due diligence should consider whether claims such as asset-backed, secured, FCA-authorised security trustee, listed, or fixed return accurately describe the legal and economic position of investors.
• Compliance teams may wish to review introducer agreements, commission arrangements, marketing costs, investor-money flows, and the proportion of subscriptions actually applied to the underlying investment.
• Firms should consider checking that communications do not use artificial deadlines, pressure tactics, unrealistic return comparisons, or performance claims unsupported by a credible explanation of repayment capacity.

What changed

No new binding requirement or prohibition was introduced by this publication. The FCA restated that its permanent rules prohibit authorised firms from approving or communicating financial promotions for speculative illiquid securities in a manner likely to be received by retail clients, subject to defined exemptions.

Key dates

2018-05-01

Demetrios Hadjigeorgiou became CEO of SVS Securities Plc.

2019-08-02

The FCA required SVS to cease regulated activities, safeguard assets and notify affected third parties.

2019-08-05

SVS Securities Plc entered special administration.

2023-08-10

SVS Securities Plc was dissolved.

2024-04-25

The FCA issued its initial Decision Notice proposing an £84,600 penalty and prohibition order against Mr Hadjigeorgiou.

2026-08-19

The FCA published the settled enforcement outcome: a £56,400 fine and prohibition from senior management positions in financial services.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether senior managers have documented challenge and escalation responsibilities for investments involving issuer payments, commissions, related parties or other conflicts of interest.
• Firms should consider testing whether investment due diligence appropriately assesses product risk, liquidity, valuation methodology, concentration and suitability for pension and retail customers.
• Firms should consider reconciling all fees, commissions, retained spreads and exit-value adjustments against customer disclosures, ensuring that any reduction in redemption or sale value is prominent, timely and understandable.
• Boards and senior managers may wish to evidence periodic review of model portfolios against customers’ stated objectives, risk appetite, liquidity needs and pension-transfer circumstances.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether management information would have identified customer detriment, unusually high issuer-related income or investment decisions that prioritised firm revenue over customer interests.
• Firms should consider retaining clear records showing how conflicts were identified, mitigated, disclosed and challenged, including the rationale for approving high-risk or illiquid products for retail and pension-related portfolios.
• Authorised firms may wish to review the FCA’s SVS enforcement materials alongside their own senior-manager accountability maps and Statements of Responsibilities, while recognising that this case does not itself create a new universal obligation.

What changed

This is a concluded enforcement action against an individual, not a new general rule or threshold applicable to firms. The FCA imposed a financial penalty under section 66 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and a prohibition order under section 56 of that Act, following settlement and withdrawal of the Upper Tribunal referral. The FCA found a breach of Statement of Principle 6, requiring an approved person to exercise due skill, care and diligence in managing the business of the firm.

Key dates

2020-11-13

The High Court disqualified Howard Roland Duckett from acting as a company director for 10 years under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

2020-12-04

The 10-year company-director disqualification took effect and is stated to run until 2030-12-04.

2025-11-20

The FCA identified this date in consumer communications as the point after which payments requested by Beauforce should be reported; the firm was restricted from regulated activities and ordered to stop accepting consumer money.

2026-08-18

The FCA announced the prohibition of Howard Roland Duckett from performing functions in relation to regulated activities.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review fitness-and-propriety checks for current and prospective senior managers, including searches for director disqualifications, litigation findings, insolvency events, and other adverse information.
• Firms should consider confirming that senior managers have disclosed all matters relevant to their approval and that changes affecting their fitness, propriety, or ability to perform an SMF are escalated and notified to the FCA where required.
• Firms should consider testing compliance with FCA Principle 11, COCON 2.2.4R, and SUP 10C.14.18R in relation to open, cooperative, and timely dealings with the FCA and notification of disqualifications or other relevant changes.
• Boards and compliance functions may wish to assess whether regulatory records, management-accountability maps, company-director registers, and evidence supporting senior-manager attestations are complete, consistent, and independently verifiable.
• Consumer-credit firms should consider reviewing controls over debt-management client payments, client-money safeguarding, communications, and contingency arrangements for transferring customers if permissions are restricted or withdrawn.
• Firms should consider screening current staff and approved persons against the FCA Financial Services Register and relevant Companies House director-disqualification information before appointment and periodically thereafter.
• Compliance teams may wish to use the case in senior-manager and conduct-risk training to reinforce that misleading the FCA or relying on fabricated information can independently support prohibition, even where the underlying misconduct occurred at an unrelated company.

What changed

The FCA made an individual prohibition order under section 56 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and withdrew Duckett’s approval to perform the SMF3 Executive Director and SMF16 Compliance Oversight functions under section 63 of that Act. This is an enforcement outcome against a specific individual rather than a new generally applicable rule. The underlying conduct included inadequate company records, repeated lies and reliance on fabricated evidence in High Court proceedings, and failure to notify the FCA of a director disqualification.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review application of Individual Conduct Rule 1 (Integrity) and related training for senior managers and certified staff, using this case as a concrete example of prohibited behaviours such as falsification of documents and misleading regulators during transaction processes.
• Firms should consider revisiting governance and controls around change-in-control, acquisition and due diligence processes, ensuring that any representations to counterparties, the FCA or the PRA about ownership of assets, funding sources or balance sheet strength are independently verified and properly documented.
• Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR) frameworks may need to be assessed to confirm that integrity risks are captured within fit-and-proper assessments under FIT, including checks on honesty in communications with regulators and counterparties and escalation processes where concerns arise.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to review internal investigation procedures, including how interviews are conducted and recorded, to ensure that employees understand the expectation of candour and the potential regulatory consequences of providing false or misleading statements during internal investigations.
• Boards and risk committees at FCA-authorised firms should consider whether their culture and conduct risk programmes sufficiently stress the expectation of honesty in all regulatory engagement, and whether additional monitoring or attestations from senior executives involved in M&A or capital-raising transactions are warranted.
• HR and compliance teams may wish to update disciplinary and regulatory notification policies to reflect that dishonesty in external deal negotiations or in internal investigations can trigger regulatory reporting obligations and potential fitness and propriety concerns.
• Firms involved in potential acquisitions of regulated entities should consider implementing pre-clearance and compliance review steps for all documentation and representations provided to target firms, regulators, and advisers, focusing on verification of asset ownership and financial claims.
• Compliance monitoring plans may be enhanced to include thematic reviews of communications with regulators and key counterparties in high-risk transactions, assessing whether there is adequate oversight and evidence of accuracy and integrity.

What changed

This publication does not introduce new rules but illustrates the FCA’s application of existing powers under section 66 FSMA 2000 (financial penalties for misconduct) and section 56 FSMA 2000 (prohibition orders) to serious integrity breaches by senior managers. It reinforces the practical interpretation of Individual Conduct Rule 1 (Integrity) in the Conduct Rules sourcebook (COCON), showing that dishonest statements and falsified documents directed at counterparties and regulators in the context of acquisitions are treated as egregious misconduct.

Key dates

31 July 2023

- Consumer Duty came into force for open products and services and firms were expected to have outcomes monitoring capability in place from day one

31 July 2024 Deadline

- The final Consumer Duty implementation deadline applied to all in-scope financial services firms

2025

- The FCA reviewed firms’ approaches to outcomes monitoring over the past year and published its findings in this blog and related review material

TBD (ongoing)

- Firms are expected to continue regular monitoring, testing, and evidence-gathering on an ongoing basis under PRIN 2A.9

Suggested considerations

• Firms must establish and maintain a documented outcomes monitoring framework that defines good and poor customer outcomes for each relevant product or service.
• Firms must map metrics to the full customer journey, including product design, communications, customer support, and distribution arrangements.
• Firms must collect MI that can identify poor or potentially poor outcomes, root causes, and emerging risks before harm crystallises.
• Firms must document the rationale for each metric, threshold, and tolerance, including why those measures are appropriate for the customer population and product.
• Firms must maintain a clear audit trail linking MI, governance review, decisions, remediation, and outcome improvement testing.

What changed

• - The FCA expects firms to regularly assess, test, understand, and evidence the outcomes retail customers are receiving under the Consumer Duty.
• Firms should use monitoring to identify whether any group of retail customers is experiencing different outcomes from another group for the same product and understand why those differences exist.
• Monitoring frameworks should define what good outcomes look like in practice and translate those outcomes into measurable indicators tied to the customer journey.
• Firms should not rely on broad or high-level MI alone; they must use information to challenge performance, identify risks, and drive improvements.
• Firms should be able to explain why metrics and tolerances were chosen and whether any actions taken have been tested and shown to reduce harm or friction.

Suggested considerations

• Conduct a board-level review of the firm’s business model, focusing on vertical integration, ownership and financing relationships to identify where commercial incentives may misalign with customer interests and create conflicts of interest.
• Map the full insurance value chain (underwriting, distribution, premium finance, ancillary services) within the group or related parties, and document actual and potential conflicts of interest at each link and interaction point.
• Review and, where necessary, update the firm’s conflicts-of-interest policy and SYSC 10 framework to explicitly cover vertically integrated structures, premium finance arrangements, delegated authorities and any intra-group referrals.
• Establish or strengthen governance arrangements to ensure clear senior management accountability for conflicts-of-interest management, including allocation of responsibilities in Statements of Responsibilities and the Management Responsibilities Map.
• Assess product design, panel construction and distribution strategies to ensure they are not unduly influenced by internal group relationships or remuneration structures that could lead to poor customer outcomes or unfair value.

What changed

• - The FCA explicitly highlights vertically integrated insurance business models (combining underwriting, distribution, premium finance and related services within one group) as a source of heightened...
• Ownership and financing relationships, including private and non-transparent arrangements within groups or between firms, are now clearly framed as potential conflicts drivers that must be assessed...
• The FCA reiterates that having conflicts of interest is not inherently unacceptable, but firms must actively identify, manage and evidence those conflicts through effective governance, senior...
• The FCA states that disclosure on its own is not sufficient; firms remain obligated to properly manage conflicts, and cannot rely solely on informing customers to discharge their duties.
• Firms are expected to review how they design products and panels, structure remuneration, and communicate with customers to ensure that commercial relationships and incentives do not distort customer...

Key dates

18 November 2025

– Consultation on the proposed motor finance redress scheme closes (CP25/27), feeding into the final PS26/3 rules

5 December 2025 Deadline

– Firms must start sending final responses to any motor leasing complaint in line with normal complaint‑handling rules (outside the scheme‑specific pause)

1 May 2026

– FCA confirms its motor finance compensation scheme has been legally challenged, triggering the Upper Tribunal process

31 May 2026

– FCA lifts the general pause on handling certain motor finance complaints, returning many complaints to standard DISP timeframes, alongside the emerging scheme

30 June 2026

– Original end of the implementation period for loans taken out from 1 April 2014 under PS26/3 (now effectively paused for redress calculation/payment/communications)

Suggested considerations

• Identify and maintain a complete inventory of motor finance complaints and agreements that fall within the scheme scope (regulated motor finance with relevant commission arrangements between April 2007 and 2024).
• Continue to gather, centralise and validate data on commission structures, commission levels, and disclosure practices for all in‑scope agreements, including by issuing targeted information requests to brokers and dealers.
• Implement internal workflows to ensure brokers respond to lenders’ information requests within one month, or formally confirm where requested documents or data are not held.
• Review and classify complaints to determine which consumers are not owed compensation under the scheme, including cases outside scope and those lacking discretionary, high or tied commission arrangements, and prepare appropriate communications.
• Assess complaints for time‑bar issues and apply the scheme’s limitation and out‑of‑time principles consistently, documenting rationale for any reliance on time‑bar to decline redress.

What changed

• - Parts of the FCA motor finance consumer redress scheme under PS26/3 are formally suspended by order of the Upper Tribunal, on terms agreed between the FCA and four challengers (Consumer...
• During the suspension, firms are not required to calculate redress, pay compensation, or send communications about compensation owed under the scheme according to the original timetable.
• All non‑suspended rules remain fully applicable, including duties to identify in‑scope complaints and agreements, gather commission and disclosure data (including from brokers), and maintain records.
• Lenders must continue to identify relevant complaints and agreements falling within scheme scope (motor finance agreements between 2007 and 2024 with potentially unfair commission arrangements).
• Firms must continue to gather data on commission arrangements and disclosure practices, including obtaining information from brokers and confirming where such information is not held.

Key dates

31 July 2022

- FCA expected to make the original Consumer Duty rules following CP21/13, establishing the baseline regime and Principle 12

31 July 2023

- Consumer Duty comes into force for open (non‑closed‑book) products and services, triggering initial implementation across retail distribution chains

First half of 2026

- FCA planned consultation on revisions to the Consumer Duty scope and exemptions, including clearer delineation of business‑to‑business activity, reliance arrangements in distribution chains and removal of non‑UK customers from scope

Late 2026 (TBD)

- FCA to consult on further changes to client classification, sharpening the distinction between retail and professional markets and clarifying the treatment of sophisticated investors under the Consumer Duty

June 2026 (indicative)

- FCA expected to issue a consultation paper on Duty scope, proportionality and application to wholesale‑only and early‑chain firms, including potential changes to definitions and categorisation of manufacturers versus supporting firms

Suggested considerations

• Map all business lines and activities to identify which are genuinely wholesale, early‑chain or business‑to‑business, and assess where the firm does or does not “shape consumer outcomes” at the end of the chain.
• Review existing Consumer Duty scoping decisions for activities such as market making, custody, safeguarding and other wholesale services, and prepare to adjust those decisions in line with FCA case studies and clarified boundaries.
• Re‑evaluate cross‑border business conducted for non‑UK clients to determine which products and services may fall outside the Consumer Duty under the proposed narrowed territorial scope, and document the basis for this classification.
• Analyse multi‑party distribution chains and co‑manufacturing arrangements to clearly delineate responsibilities, reliance points and escalation mechanisms where other firms are expected to meet their Consumer Duty obligations.
• Update product governance and Consumer Duty frameworks to distinguish between “manufacturers” and supporting firms, ensuring manufacturers continue to meet full Duty requirements while supporting firms apply Principle 12 and cross‑cutting rules proportionately.

What changed

• - The FCA is consulting on clearer scope boundaries for the Consumer Duty to confirm that wholesale, business‑to‑business activities that do not shape retail consumer outcomes should normally be out...
• The FCA will provide case studies and examples of “grey areas” to illustrate when activities are, and are not, caught by the Duty, particularly for early‑chain and wholesale‑only firms.
• The FCA is clarifying accountability in multi‑firm arrangements, confirming that each firm is responsible for its own activities, can rely on other firms to meet their obligations where appropriate,...
• The FCA plans to reduce duplication of obligations across distribution chains, including refining how the “look‑through” concept and co‑manufacturing apply where firms do not directly interact with...
• The FCA is narrowing the territorial scope of the Consumer Duty so that business conducted for genuinely non‑UK customers will generally be out of scope, aligning with the principle that local...

Suggested considerations

• Conduct and evidence fair value assessments: Use frameworks considering product nature/benefits, limitations, total lifetime costs (fees/charges), relative to benefits; benchmark internally/externally; segment by consumer groups including vulnerables.
• Review and act on failures: If no fair value, implement mitigations (e.g., price adjustments, process improvements, product withdrawal); evidence processes and implementation.[FCA blog]
• Monitor markets/products ongoing: Assess at firm/market level, including intangible benefits (e.g., scam protection, support channels); prepare for FCA challenges/enforcement.
• Premium finance specific: All firms review offerings; outliers demonstrate workings or improve (e.g., APR reductions).[FCA blog]

What changed

• No new rules are introduced; this reinforces existing Consumer Duty requirements (effective July 2023 for new products, July 2024 for closed books) on fair value as one of four outcomes...
• Firms must demonstrate evidence of fair value, assessing price against benefits, costs, and services delivered.
• Ongoing reviews required throughout product lifecycle, with actions if fair value fails (e.g., improve, withdraw).
• FCA rejects prescriptive interventions like 0% APR in premium finance to avoid market harm, favoring firm-led assessments.[FCA blog]

Key dates

October 2025

- First cohort began testing (historical reference)

19 January 2026

- Second application window opens

2 March 2026 Deadline

- Application deadline for second cohort

April 2026

- Testing starts for second cohort

Mid

March 2026; - Notification of successful applicants

Suggested considerations

• Review FCA's Terms of Reference (PDF) for eligibility, focusing on mature POCs and enterprise-level AI systems.
• Submit application form via FCA portal by 2 March 2026 if ready for live testing; contact suptech@ fca.org.uk for queries.
• Prepare documentation on AI system components (model, context/risks, governance, human oversight, evaluation, controls) for three-phase process.
• Assess internal governance, data, risk frameworks, and monitoring for AI readiness; consider non-participation but monitor for future FCA expectations.
• Firms not selected should use insights from first cohort (e.g., evaluation frameworks) to strengthen internal AI practices.

What changed

This is not a mandatory regulatory change but a voluntary testing service launched by the FCA; no new enforceable requirements are imposed. Key elements include a holistic focus on the AI system (model + deployment context, risks, governance, human-in-the-loop, evaluation, input/output controls) rather than isolated foundation models. The program features three phases: Discovery, Framework validation, and AI system testing (quantitative/qualitative), emphasizing live monitoring, governance, and risk management. It complements the FCA's Supercharged Sandbox for earlier-stage AI exploration.

Suggested considerations

• Embed proactive monitoring: Regularly review customer outcomes under Consumer Duty, acting on foreseeable harm (e.g., communication barriers, vulnerable customer support).
• Respond swiftly to FCA contact: Engage with supervision teams on identified issues; prepare for tools like skilled person reviews or voluntary restrictions.
• Improve practices market-wide: Use FCA guidance (e.g., good/poor examples) to self-assess; ensure clear information, fair value, and accessible support.
• Evidence compliance: Map business to Consumer Duty, monitor biases, and demonstrate senior manager oversight via SM&CR.
• Facilitate redress: Identify and pay compensation promptly when issues arise, as seen in FCA interventions (£200m vehicle claims; £350k home insurance).

What changed

• No new rules or requirements are introduced; this is a supervisory strategy update highlighting FCA's full range of tools beyond enforcement. Key emphases include:
• Prioritizing supervision for quick fixes, such as multi-firm reviews, good/poor practice guidance, and skilled person reviews (s.166) under FSMA.
• Integration of Consumer Duty (Principle 12) as a core principle for assessing and remedying poor outcomes, e.g., unclear policy renewals or inadequate support.
• Examples from insurance (e.g., stolen vehicle claims yielding £200m redress; home emergency cover improvements reducing complaints by 61%).