Mortgage & Lending

Key dates

2016-07-01

Beginning of the period during which Sunshine Loans entered into contracts containing the unlawful amendment fee.

2019-03-13

Relevant fee contraventions became civil penalty provisions; civil penalties were available only for contraventions from this date.

2020-11-01

Sunshine Loans ceased charging the amendment or rescheduling fee shortly after ASIC intervention.

2022-06-01

ASIC commenced Federal Court civil penalty proceedings against Sunshine Loans.

2024-04-12

The Federal Court found that Sunshine Loans had contravened the National Credit Code by imposing, charging and accepting the prohibited fee.

2025-03-24

The Full Federal Court dismissed Sunshine Loans' liability appeal and determined the relevant appeals in ASIC's favour.

2026-03-18

The High Court unanimously dismissed Sunshine Loans' appeal concerning the recusal issue, allowing the penalty matter to return to the Federal Court.

2026-11-06

The Federal Court ordered Sunshine Loans to pay a $5.5 million civil penalty and ASIC's costs.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every fee and charge applied to small amount credit contracts and map each one to an expressly permitted category under the National Credit Code.
• Lenders should consider testing repayment-date changes, hardship arrangements, restructures and other contract variations to confirm that fees are not imposed when a consumer is not in default.
• Firms should consider conducting a historical review of fee configuration, customer communications, contract templates, payment records and general ledger data to identify comparable conduct and quantify affected consumers.
• Where potentially unlawful fees are identified, firms should consider stopping the relevant charging logic, preserving records, assessing remediation and notifying relevant governance bodies and regulators where appropriate.
• Credit licensees may wish to strengthen legal review and compliance sign-off for product terms and fee changes, including documented evidence supporting the legality of each fee.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether compliance monitoring adequately tests fee restrictions for products used by financially vulnerable consumers and whether identified issues are escalated promptly.
• Firms should consider reviewing whether their dispute-resolution and remediation processes enable affected consumers to obtain redress through internal complaints handling and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new legislative rule. The Court confirmed that small amount credit contract providers may impose only the fee categories permitted by the National Credit Code: an establishment fee, a monthly fee, a fee payable on default, or a government fee, charge or duty. A $35 fee for rescheduling a repayment where the consumer was not in default did not fall within those categories.

Key dates

2026-11-02

The FCA published an earlier statement warning about demands for repayment of disguised-remuneration scheme loans, the possible need for a Validation Order and undue pressure in debt collection.

2026-11-05

The FCA published the intervention and the restrictions agreed with Ethica Resolve Limited and West 28th Street Limited.

Suggested considerations

• Firms servicing or collecting historic disguised-remuneration loans should identify affected portfolios, pause demands and litigation activity falling within the FCA restrictions, and confirm the precise scope of any agreed requirements with the FCA.
• Ethica should complete and evidence the required consumer communications, including the explanation that payment is not currently enforceable, and maintain records of recipients, delivery attempts and unresolved cases.
• Compliance teams should review whether correspondence, telephone contact, default notices, letters of claim and court instructions could create undue pressure or inaccurately imply that immediate payment is legally required.
• Firms should establish a vulnerability-identification and support process covering consumers experiencing health, financial or comprehension difficulties, with appropriate escalation, reasonable adjustments and management information.
• Debt servicers should verify the creditor's ownership, the chain of assignment, the original lender's regulatory status and any applicable consumer-credit permissions or exemptions before pursuing repayment.
• Legal and compliance teams should assess whether any proposed enforcement requires an FCA Validation Order or other court permission, recognising that a Validation Order is not guaranteed and that the FCA has stated that the debt may remain unenforceable if required permission is not granted.
• Firms should ensure that no default judgment is sought in the affected claims and that consumers continue to receive accurate information that formal court documents should not be ignored.
• Senior management should review outsourcing, agency and oversight arrangements where an authorised firm acts for an unauthorised debt purchaser, including conduct risk, consumer-outcome monitoring and escalation to the FCA where harm may have occurred.

What changed

Ethica must write to affected consumers explaining that they do not currently have an enforceable obligation to pay and therefore do not need to make payment at this stage. Ethica must not make further demands for payment from affected consumers in the current proposed court claim while the relevant issues remain unresolved. Ethica and West 28 must not seek default judgments against consumers who have not responded to a legal claim. Ethica must identify affected vulnerable consumers and put additional protections in place.

Key dates

2026-11-04

MPC meeting ended and the committee voted 8–1 to increase Bank Rate by 0.25 percentage points to 4%; one member voted for 4.25%.

2026-11-05

The November 2026 Monetary Policy Summary and Minutes were published and the Bank Rate increase was reported as effective.

2027-02-01

The MPC’s Market Participants Survey median expectation referenced in the minutes placed Bank Rate at 4.25% in February 2027; this is an expectation, not a scheduled regulatory change.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance, treasury and risk teams may wish to confirm that systems, product disclosures and contractual interest calculations use the revised 4% Bank Rate where applicable from the relevant effective date.
• Mortgage and consumer-credit providers should consider assessing customer communications, affordability monitoring and conduct-risk impacts for tracker, variable-rate and refinancing products affected by the increase.
• Banks and other lenders may wish to reassess interest-rate, credit, liquidity and concentration-risk assumptions, including scenarios involving inflation near 5% in 2027 Q2 and further Bank Rate increases.
• Investment firms and trading businesses should consider reviewing valuation, margin, collateral, hedging and client-risk controls for sterling rates, gilts, swaps and other rate-sensitive positions.
• Firms may wish to monitor the MPC’s identified indicators of second-round effects, including wage settlements, firms’ pricing behaviour, household and business expectations, energy-cost pass-through and economic slack.
• Governance committees may wish to document the effect of the rate decision and the Bank’s adverse and weaker-demand scenarios in applicable risk assessments, recovery planning, stress testing and customer-outcome monitoring.
• Treasury and product teams should consider verifying that forecasts and liquidity plans reflect the Bank’s warning that further tightening remains possible if elevated energy prices become persistent or feed into wages and prices.

What changed

This is a monetary-policy decision rather than a new binding compliance rule. Bank Rate increased from 3.75% to 4%, raising the reference cost relevant to floating-rate lending, tracker mortgages, treasury funding, derivatives valuation and certain contractual interest calculations. The MPC stated that monetary policy is not on a pre-set path and will be reassessed at each meeting, with particular attention to underlying pay, pricing behaviour, economic slack and the transmission of higher energy prices.

Key dates

2026-11-04

ASIC published the enforcement notice covering 22 large proprietary companies and confirmed total payments of $4,356,000.

2025-08-01

Approximate month in which ASIC commenced its data-focused surveillance of large proprietary companies and other entities for late or missing financial reports.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map every Australian entity in the corporate group against its financial reporting obligations, including changes in size, ownership, control, corporate structure and operations.
• Firms should consider maintaining a central obligations register recording each entity's financial year end, applicable reporting category, audit requirements, board approval milestones and ASIC lodgement deadline.
• Finance and governance functions may wish to schedule audit planning, management accounts, director approvals and electronic lodgement sufficiently early to address audit-related delays.
• Directors and company secretaries should consider reviewing whether any financial reports, directors' reports or auditors' reports are overdue and arranging prompt lodgement rather than waiting for ASIC contact.
• Groups may wish to document controls for identifying newly reportable entities, including entities that become large proprietary companies or become foreign-controlled.
• Compliance teams should consider retaining evidence of deadline monitoring, auditor engagement, escalation of reporting delays and remediation of overdue filings in case ASIC opens a surveillance review.
• Where ASIC has contacted an entity or an infringement notice has been paid, firms should consider confirming whether all outstanding reports have been lodged because ASIC states that its investigation may continue and payment does not resolve separate reporting obligations.

What changed

No new statutory reporting rule was introduced. ASIC has escalated enforcement of existing obligations under the Corporations Act 2001, including the requirement for large proprietary companies and other prescribed entities to prepare, audit and lodge required financial reports, directors' reports and auditors' reports within the applicable statutory period. For most entities required to lodge, the general deadline is within four months after financial year end; disclosing entities, registered schemes and registrable superannuation entities generally have three months.

Key dates

2026-11-03

PRA and FCA publish the joint discussion paper and open the feedback period.

2027-03-05 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the discussion paper to be submitted to the PRA and FCA.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess the discussion paper against their size, growth trajectory, business model, lending mix, capital methodology, governance arrangements and operational-risk profile.
• Credit unions may wish to submit evidence to the PRA and FCA by 5 March 2027, including quantified costs and benefits of simplified requirements, risk-based capital treatment, revised reporting and any proposed thresholds.
• Compliance and risk teams should map current internal-audit, regulatory-documentation, capital, leverage-ratio, risk-weighted-asset, capital-add-on and stress-testing requirements so that the impact of possible future options can be assessed without assuming that any proposal is yet effective.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether planned growth, aggregator arrangements, mortgage or fixed-rate lending, outsourcing and technology investment are matched by appropriate governance, liquidity, credit-risk, operational-resilience and third-party oversight capabilities.
• Firms considering new products or services should identify statutory, prudential, conduct, systems and outsourcing barriers and document the safeguards that would be needed to support a credible response to the regulators.
• Credit unions should review current wind-down, transfer and restructuring plans and identify legislative or contractual barriers to sale of loan books, transfer of business or conversion to another mutual form.
• Industry bodies and service providers may wish to coordinate submissions on FCA fees, shared-service models, CUSO capability, third-party guidance and the practical consequences of applying Small Domestic Deposit Takers rules.

What changed

This is a discussion paper, not a consultation proposing or committing to specific policy changes, so existing PRA and FCA requirements continue to apply. The regulators are examining whether internal-audit and regulatory-document requirements could be reduced for smaller and simpler credit unions; whether larger or more complex credit unions should move to a risk-based framework with more flexible capital requirements; and whether relevant Small Domestic Deposit Takers rules, including the standardised approach for risk-weighted assets, could replace the current simple leverage-ratio...

Key dates

2026-11-03

PRA published CP15/26 for consultation.

2026-12-04

Northern Ireland Assembly consultation on the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill closes; this is a legislative scrutiny date, not a stated PRA consultation deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to track the Northern Ireland Assembly’s passage and final commencement provisions for the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill rather than treating the consultation proposals as final requirements.
• Credit unions considering member referrals should assess governance, counterparty due diligence, member eligibility and service-specific responsibilities, and consider whether contracts prevent inappropriate transfer of credit risk back to the referring credit union.
• Credit unions considering loan participation should consider documenting originator and participant roles, borrower relationship ownership, underwriting and monitoring responsibilities, security and enforcement rights, default allocation, concentration limits, large-exposure treatment, provisioning and capital treatment.
• Boards and senior managers may wish to assess whether existing risk appetite, lending policies, management information, stress testing and internal controls are proportionate to the additional activities contemplated by the PRA.
• Firms may wish to map existing lending-limit, large-exposure, provisioning and capital processes against the proposed treatment of participation loans and identify data or systems changes needed before implementation.
• Credit unions that do not intend to undertake the new activities may wish to document that decision and retain evidence that their existing governance and control framework remains appropriate for their current business model.
• Affected firms may wish to monitor the PRA’s final policy statement and any revised SS2/23 or Rulebook text before committing to new products or contractual arrangements.

What changed

The PRA proposes amendments to the Credit Unions Part of the PRA Rulebook and SS2/23 – Supervising Credit Unions. Member referral arrangements would be treated as an additional activity; the receiving credit union would retain responsibility for the referred member’s credit risk, and firms would be expected to maintain effective governance, due diligence and clear contractual allocation of responsibilities.

Key dates

2026-11-03

PRA publication date for DP2/26 and FCA publication date for the parallel credit-union discussion paper DP26/1.

2027-03-05 Deadline

Deadline for responses to DP2/26, submitted to [email protected].

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider whether to submit evidence or a response to DP2/26 by 2027-03-05, addressing the questions most relevant to their size, business model, activities and growth plans.
• Compliance teams may wish to map current prudential, reporting, governance and operational-resilience requirements against the proposed distinction between small and simple firms and larger or more complex credit unions.
• Credit unions considering growth should assess whether board expertise, senior-management capacity, capital and liquidity planning, credit-risk controls, member-servicing capability and operational resilience will scale with membership and lending volumes.
• Firms may wish to review governance and controls for aggregator-driven growth, mortgage lending, fixed-rate products, outsourced activities, third-party providers and CUSO relationships, because these are identified as areas where future safeguards or supervisory expectations may develop.
• Boards and senior managers should consider how existing responsibilities under Rule 11.5(3) of the Credit Unions Part of the PRA Rulebook are evidenced, including oversight of regulatory compliance, risk management and business growth.
• Credit unions may wish to evaluate their current solvent-exit and wind-down arrangements, including the feasibility of transferring business, selling a loan book, restructuring or maintaining continuity of member services.
• Trade associations and service organisations may wish to provide data on compliance costs, asset-based thresholds, barriers to permitted activities, common-bond expansion, CUSO use and the practical effects of different prudential models.
• Firms should monitor subsequent PRA and FCA consultations and any legislative proposals; no implementation plan or transition timetable has been established at this stage.

What changed

No rules, thresholds, permissions or supervisory requirements have been amended by DP2/26. The regulators are seeking evidence on six outcomes: proportionate regulation; consumer confidence and protection; competition and innovation; long-term sustainability; operational resilience and risk management; and orderly market exit.

Key dates

2026-11-02

The FCA published its expectations for lenders making voluntary motor finance settlement offers; the page was updated on 2026-11-03.

2026-10-01

Barclays Partner Finance identified customers whose complaints had been acknowledged on or before this date as a cohort for some early settlement offers.

2027-02-16

The scheduled start of the legal challenges to the FCA motor finance compensation scheme.

2027-03-03

The scheduled end date of the hearing window for the legal challenges to the FCA motor finance compensation scheme.

Suggested considerations

• Firms considering early settlements should assess each offer against the maximum redress that would have been available under the FCA motor finance compensation scheme, rather than using a lower discretionary amount.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish governance and second-line review for the methodology, calculations, customer segmentation and approval of settlement communications.
• Firms should consider notifying the FCA before making offers and supplying the FCA factsheet with each customer communication.
• Offer letters should clearly state the amount, calculation basis, the full-and-final effect of acceptance, the inability to claim more later, the option to reject and remain within the scheme, and the consequences for the existing complaint.
• Firms should consider allowing at least one month for customers to respond and retaining evidence that customers had sufficient information and time to make an informed decision.
• Marketing, customer-service and complaints teams should avoid language suggesting FCA endorsement, approval or validation of an individual offer.
• Firms should consider controls to prevent accepted settlements from being subsequently processed as scheme claims or referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
• Motor finance lenders should continue preparing for the compensation scheme and progress complaints as far as possible during the partial suspension, even if scheme compensation is not currently calculated or paid.

What changed

Lenders may make voluntary settlement offers before the partially suspended FCA motor finance compensation scheme is implemented, but the FCA expects each offer to provide at least the compensation the customer would receive under the scheme, calculated by reference to the relevant agreement and the scheme methodology. Firms intending to make offers are expected to notify the FCA, provide the FCA factsheet to customers, and ensure communications are clear, fair and not misleading.

Key dates

2026-10-07

PRA published CP13/26 proposing automatic indexation of in-scope regulatory thresholds every five years, with a proposed first update on 1 July 2031.

2026-10-14

PRA published PS19/26 setting out the final policy on high loan-to-income lending.

2026-10-22

PRA published CP14/26 consultation on phase 2 of SM&CR reform.

2026-10-26

Bank of England and FCA published the 2026 survey results on artificial intelligence and machine learning in UK financial services.

2026-10-28

PRA rules and supervisory statement on high-LTI lending commenced; the firm-specific 15% cap was removed and the revised monitoring and governance framework became effective.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Consultation deadline reported for the PRA and FCA phase 2 SM&CR consultations.

2027-02-07 Deadline

Consultation deadline for CP13/26 and the associated discussion of additional thresholds potentially suitable for indexation.

2031-07-01

Proposed date for the first automatic update of in-scope regulatory thresholds under CP13/26, subject to final policy and implementation.

Suggested considerations

• Mortgage lenders should assess their high-LTI lending strategy against risk appetite, capital and credit-risk tolerances now that the firm-specific 15% cap has been removed.
• Mortgage lenders should establish or validate rolling four-quarter calculations for individual high-LTI flows and retain evidence supporting any adjustments, limits or risk appetite decisions.
• Relevant firms should review governance, underwriting, affordability, concentration and stress-testing controls to demonstrate prudent management of high-LTI lending under the new PRA expectations.
• Compliance and regulatory-reporting teams should monitor the PRA’s quarterly aggregate high-LTI publications and assess whether lending plans remain consistent with the FPC’s aggregate 15% limit.
• PRA-regulated firms should map current Rulebook and supervisory-statement thresholds against the 128 proposed in-scope thresholds and identify systems, permissions, reporting and policy documents that would require future updates.
• Affected firms should consider submitting responses to CP13/26 and its associated discussion questions by 7 February 2027, particularly where indexation could alter regulatory categorisation, reporting, capital, liquidity, governance or investment-flexibility requirements.
• SM&CR compliance teams should assess CP14/26 against current senior-manager responsibilities, certification processes, fitness and propriety controls, governance maps, handover arrangements and recordkeeping, while treating the proposals as non-final.
• Firms should monitor the related FCA SM&CR consultation and coordinate any response because implementation may require changes across PRA and FCA regimes.

What changed

PS19/26 removes the firm-specific 15% limit on high-LTI mortgage lending, while retaining the Financial Policy Committee’s aggregate 15% limit as the benchmark for overall market lending. Firms’ individual high-LTI flows and any required adjustments will be assessed on a rolling four-quarter basis, whereas aggregate high-LTI lending will continue to be monitored quarterly. The final rules and supervisory statement also introduce governance and risk-management expectations, and the PRA intends to publish aggregate high-LTI flow data quarterly.

Key dates

2026-10-29

FCA published Fair value in consumer finance and associated supervisory commentary; the examples are effective as supervisory guidance and do not create new rules.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every financial and non-financial charge across each product's full customer journey and lifetime, including contingent, arrears, repeat and cumulative charges.
• Firms should consider refreshing fair value assessments to reconcile current pricing and charging data with quantified or otherwise evidenced customer benefits, product limitations, service quality and foreseeable risks.
• Firms may wish to document how assumptions, management information, customer outcomes and governance challenge support each fair value conclusion, with clear ownership and audit trails.
• Firms should consider segmenting analysis by relevant customer groups, including vulnerability characteristics, credit risk, product usage, distribution channel and customers experiencing financial difficulty, and testing whether outcomes differ materially.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish monitoring for arrears, complaints, cancellations, usage, enquiries, refunds, waivers, repeat charges and customer understanding, with defined escalation thresholds and remediation options.
• Firms should consider testing whether fees and charges are communicated clearly, prominently and at the point customers need them to make informed decisions, including through customer-understanding testing.
• Firms may wish to review controls for grace periods, charge caps, fee waivers and refunds and evidence that those controls are appropriately designed, operating effectively and reducing foreseeable harm.
• Where late or missed repayment charges are justified by reasonable costs, firms should consider documenting the cost methodology, evidence relied upon and relationship between the methodology and the charge level, alongside the separate fair value assessment.

What changed

The publication does not amend the FCA Handbook or create new mandatory actions. It consolidates good and poor practice under the existing price and value outcome in PRIN 2A.4 and FG22/5, including the requirement for manufacturers under PRIN 2A.4.2R(2) to conduct and regularly review value assessments at intervals appropriate to the product's nature and duration.

Key dates

2026-10-29

MAS published the policy statement announcing the extension of motor vehicle financing restrictions to individual-owned PHCs.

2026-10-30 Deadline

New restrictions take effect for individual-owned PHC purchases where the sales agreement is signed on or after this date; where there is no sales agreement, they apply if the COE is obtained on or after this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at affected lenders should update eligibility, LTV and tenure controls so that individual-owned PHCs are treated as private cars for transactions falling within the effective-date tests.
• Firms should confirm that the LTV calculation uses the full purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable, and that the OMV threshold is applied at $20,000.
• Lenders and finance providers should review onboarding and documentation controls to distinguish individual or sole-proprietor ownership from business-owned PHC ownership and to evidence the sales-agreement or COE date.
• Providers should assess pending applications, approvals, hire-purchase agreements and conditional sales near the 30 October 2026 transition point, including whether any transaction was restructured to avoid the new restrictions.
• Car dealers and platform operators should consider updating customer disclosures, application workflows and referral arrangements so that individual buyers are not presented with financing terms inconsistent with the new limits.
• Firms should review dealer, leasing and in-house financing products for potential regulatory perimeter or circumvention risk, particularly because the Government has indicated that it may apply equivalent restrictions to additional arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor MAS and Government follow-up, including implementation guidance and any measures affecting in-house loans or platform-operated financing channels.
• Firms should consider controls and customer communications addressing unregulated leasing, lease-to-own or other arrangements that may be marketed as alternatives to regulated motor vehicle financing.

What changed

For an individual-owned PHC with an OMV of $20,000 or below, the maximum LTV is 70% of the purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable. For an OMV above $20,000, the maximum LTV is 60%; financing tenure is capped at seven years in both cases. The restrictions apply to motor vehicle loans provided by financial institutions and licensed or exempt moneylenders, and to hire-purchase and conditional sale agreements.

Key dates

2026-10-28

FOMC statement released; target federal funds range maintained at 3.75% to 4.00% and ample-reserves policy continued.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and risk teams may wish to record the October 28, 2026 target range of 3.75% to 4.00% and the 10-2 vote in regulatory change-management and market-risk records.
• Firms should consider reviewing interest-rate, basis, liquidity and funding-risk limits against scenarios involving a further 25-basis-point increase, including a possible December 2026 hike suggested by independent market commentary.
• Banks and other lenders may wish to assess the effect of persistently elevated rates on borrower affordability, refinancing risk, delinquency assumptions, fair-lending monitoring and customer communications.
• Treasury and finance teams should consider validating the treatment of the unchanged policy rate in transfer-pricing, liquidity-stress, valuation, hedge-accounting and capital-planning models.
• Broker-dealers, asset managers and leveraged funds may wish to reassess margin, collateral, redemption-liquidity and counterparty exposures under higher-for-longer rate scenarios.
• Compliance teams should consider monitoring the forthcoming FOMC implementation note and subsequent Federal Reserve communications for any operational details affecting reserve management or money-market conditions.
• Firms should consider documenting the distinction between this policy decision and a new regulatory rule: the statement contains no new prudential ratio, disclosure, reporting or customer-protection requirement.

What changed

The FOMC made no change to the federal funds target range, which remains 3.75% to 4.00%, and did not announce a change to its policy of maintaining ample reserves in the banking system. The statement upgraded its description of economic activity to expanding at a strong pace and characterized productivity growth and capital investment as strong or robust, while stating that inflation remains elevated. The Committee emphasized that it will assess additional information in determining the policy stance needed to return inflation to its 2% goal. Lisa D. Cook and Beth M.

Key dates

2026-10-26

ASIC announced and made the interim stop order against the Murdoch Clarke Mortgage Fund PDS.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider suspending affected offers, issuances, sales, transfers and distribution activity and checking all intermediary and platform instructions against the terms of the interim order.
• Compliance teams may wish to conduct a line-by-line PDS review against Corporations Act 2001 sections 1013C, 1013D and 1013F, including whether all material information, fees and costs, risks and withdrawal terms are disclosed clearly, concisely and effectively.
• Fund managers should consider identifying and describing all actual, potential and permitted related-party transactions, including the parties involved, nature of the arrangements, decision-making controls, remuneration and associated conflicts.
• Compliance teams may wish to reconcile every fee, cost, spread, margin, related-party charge and indirect cost in the PDS with constitutions, investment management agreements, responsible-entity arrangements, financial statements and actual operating practice.
• Managers should consider presenting lending, property-security, interest-only, principal-repayment, valuation, concentration, liquidity, default, impairment and loss risks in a prominent and investor-comprehensible manner rather than relying on generic risk wording.
• Firms should consider prominently distinguishing the Fund's usual withdrawal processing practice from the responsible entity's legal discretion and maximum permitted timeframe, including any suspension, gate, queue, notice, liquidity or repayment conditions.
• Distributors and advisers may wish to review current product lists, advice templates, research ratings and retail communications to ensure they do not continue promoting or recommending the Fund while the order is in force.
• Private credit managers should consider reviewing comparable PDSs and target market determinations proactively, given ASIC's stated surveillance focus and the recent pattern of interim intervention followed by required disclosure remediation.

What changed

The interim order immediately halts the relevant fundraising and secondary dealing activities under the Fund's PDS; it is not a new generally applicable rule or a final finding of contravention. ASIC identified concerns that the PDS fails to disclose related-party transactions, inadequately explains fees and costs, provides insufficient or unclear risk information, and does not adequately and prominently explain withdrawals. ASIC may make a final stop order if the concerns are not addressed in a timely manner, after Murdoch Clarke has an opportunity to make submissions.

Key dates

2026-04-21

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Kingscrown Finance Ltd.

2026-09-25

Further voluntary restrictions were imposed on Kingscrown Finance Ltd, including limits on receiving payments from existing customers and an orderly wind-down requirement.

2026-10-07

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on MOMSB Ltd and Momentus Capital Ltd, including restrictions on new customers, new lending arrangements and certain payments from existing customers, together with independent AML-framework reviews.

2026-10-09

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Grosvenor Funding Ltd and Grosvenor Funding (North West) Ltd, including restrictions on new customers, new lending arrangements and certain payments from existing customers, together with independent AML-framework reviews.

2026-10-15

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Abbital Ltd, including specified conditions for taking on customers, entering into lending arrangements and accepting payments, together with an independent review of its AML systems and controls.

2026-10-23

The FCA announced the restrictions and reiterated its enhanced oversight of Annex 1 firms and due-diligence expectations for regulated firms dealing with them.

Suggested considerations

• Annex 1 firms should consider reviewing their business-wide AML risk assessment, customer and beneficial-owner due diligence, ongoing monitoring, suspicious-activity escalation, governance, management information, resourcing and independent-testing arrangements against the Money Laundering Regulations 2017.
• Annex 1 firms seeking registration or under FCA assessment should consider ensuring that policies and controls are tailored to their actual lending activities, customer base, delivery channels and growth plans, rather than relying on generic or group-level documentation.
• The six named firms should consider mapping their operational processes, customer communications, payment arrangements and lending activity to the precise terms of their voluntary restrictions and preserving evidence of compliance with those terms.
• FCA-authorised firms should consider identifying all Annex 1 counterparties and refreshing onboarding and periodic-review procedures to obtain direct confirmation of registration, conduct independent verification, understand the counterparty's business model and assess whether its AML controls create heightened relationship risk.
• Regulated firms should consider recording the rationale for accepting, continuing or restricting relationships with Annex 1 firms and escalating discrepancies between a firm's registered activities, actual activities, ownership, governance or AML framework.
• Groups with multiple Annex 1 entities should consider documenting entity-specific risk assessments and controls, since group-wide or off-the-shelf procedures may not demonstrate that each entity manages its own risks effectively.
• Lenders and their service providers should consider contingency arrangements for restricted firms, including payment handling, loan-book servicing, customer communications and orderly wind-down scenarios.

What changed

Kingscrown Finance Ltd is subject to restrictions limiting how it may receive payments from existing customers and requiring an orderly wind-down of its existing loan book. MOMSB Ltd, Momentus Capital Ltd, Grosvenor Funding Ltd and Grosvenor Funding (North West) Ltd are restricted from taking on new customers or entering into new lending arrangements, subject to the specified exceptions; restrictions also apply to accepting payments from existing customers, and the firms must obtain independent reviews of their AML frameworks.

Key dates

2019-05-30

The Central Bank’s ASP investigation into PTSB concluded; PTSB had admitted 42 regulatory breaches and received a €21 million fine and reprimand.

2023-12-01

The Central Bank published ASP Guidelines providing further detail on its inquiry process; the exact publication day is not specified in the source, so this date denotes December 2023 only.

2025-04-23

The Central Bank Inquiry Decision concerning PTSB and David Guinane was issued.

2026-10-22

IFSAT published its decision, upheld Mr Guinane’s appeal and overturned the Inquiry Decision; the Central Bank stated that it does not propose to appeal.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to record the IFSAT outcome in enforcement-risk assessments and monitor the High Court confirmation process.
• Banks and mortgage lenders may wish to review open or potential individual-enforcement matters involving historic conduct to confirm that the alleged contraventions, issues for determination, evidential basis and proposed sanctions have been clearly particularised and communicated.
• Firms may wish to preserve governance records showing how customer-impact risks, escalation decisions, approvals and follow-up controls were assessed, particularly for tracker mortgage, conduct and legacy remediation matters.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to assess whether the reasoning reported in the decision has implications for ongoing Central Bank inquiries, including fair-notice, statutory-authority, procedural-fairness and reasons requirements.
• Firms may wish to distinguish this case from the separate PTSB entity enforcement outcome: PTSB admitted 42 regulatory breaches and received a €21 million fine and reprimand in 2019, which this publication does not overturn.
• Firms may wish to track the Central Bank’s external review of wider enforcement activities and any revisions to inquiry procedures, ASP guidance or Individual Accountability Framework implementation.

What changed

No new regulatory obligation or rule has been introduced for firms. The specific inquiry decision against Mr Guinane has been overturned, and the Central Bank does not propose to appeal the IFSAT findings. Independent reporting indicates that IFSAT found the inquiry process and reasoning legally defective, including failures to give fair notice of certain issues and to provide adequate reasons. The Central Bank will apply to the High Court for confirmation of the IFSAT decision under the Central Bank Act 1942.

Key dates

2025-11-21

Daniel Juratowitch and Rachel Burdett of Cor Cordis were appointed liquidators of MWL.

2025-11-28

AFCA made a determination against MWL, which MWL failed to pay.

2026-09-16

The CSLR paid $90,031.34, including interest, in respect of the unpaid AFCA determination and notified ASIC.

2026-10-12

ASIC cancelled MWL’s Australian credit licence and commenced the specified 12-month continuation of AFCA membership.

2027-10-12 Deadline

MWL’s required continuation of AFCA membership ends, subject to any further applicable requirements.

Suggested considerations

• Credit licensees should consider maintaining controls that identify AFCA determinations, track payment deadlines and escalate any threatened or actual inability to pay to senior management and the board.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether unresolved AFCA determinations could trigger CSLR involvement and the consequent mandatory licence-cancellation risk under the National Consumer Credit Protection framework.
• Firms approaching licence cancellation, surrender or liquidation should consider confirming continuing AFCA membership obligations and preserving complaint-handling, client-file and remediation records for the applicable post-exit period.
• AFCA members should consider reviewing procedures for responding to complaints involving related entities, former representatives and businesses that have ceased trading or entered liquidation.
• Credit providers and intermediaries should consider monitoring ASIC enforcement involving MWL, Shield Master Fund and related entities for indicators relevant to advice referrals, distribution oversight, representative supervision and complaint remediation.
• Businesses that have paid CSLR levies or may be exposed to future CSLR funding should consider incorporating unpaid AFCA determinations and insolvency trends into conduct-risk and financial-planning assessments.

What changed

MWL’s Australian credit licence was cancelled following the unpaid AFCA determination dated 2025-11-28 and the subsequent CSLR compensation payment dated 2026-09-16. ASIC stated that it has no discretion to avoid cancellation and that the decision is not subject to merits review. MWL must nevertheless retain AFCA membership until 2027-10-12, allowing further complaints to be lodged for 12 months after the cancellation.

Key dates

2025-07-09

The FPC made the recommendation to amend implementation of the high-LTI flow limit, allowing individual lenders to increase their share while seeking to keep the aggregate flow consistent with 15%.

2026-04-01

The FCA consultation on the proposed high-LTI lending guidance opened.

2026-07-01

The FCA consultation closed.

2026-10-14

FG26/11, the joint FCA/PRA policy changes and the PRA supervisory statement were issued and the replacement framework took effect.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map their regulated mortgage book against the 4.5 LTI definition, the listed exclusions and the £150 million or 300-contract de minimis test over the relevant consecutive four-quarter periods.
• Compliance and risk teams may wish to update policies, risk-appetite statements, underwriting controls and management information to reflect removal of the individual 15% cap and continued exposure to the aggregate 15% safeguard.
• Firms considering a strategy that would increase high-LTI lending above 15% should consider notifying the FCA or, for PRA-authorised firms, engaging with the PRA in accordance with the applicable supervisory arrangements before implementation.
• Firms should validate Product Sales Data submissions and establish quarterly controls for calculating individual high-LTI flows and reconciling them to the regulator’s published aggregate-flow data.
• Firms should maintain documented stress testing, affordability assessment, portfolio monitoring and governance demonstrating that high-LTI lending is managed prudently under the PRA supervisory statement.
• Firms should establish escalation and contingency procedures enabling rapid adjustment of high-LTI origination if the FCA issues temporary supplemental LTI guidance.
• Compliance teams may wish to review whether product, broker and customer communications accurately explain that the reform concerns portfolio flow limits and does not create an entitlement for an individual borrower to obtain a mortgage above 4.5 times income.
• Firms should monitor further FCA temporary supplemental guidance and PRA quarterly publications, as the market-wide mechanism can result in firm-specific reduction expectations even where the firm’s own lending remains commercially appropriate.

What changed

FG26/11 applies the FPC recommendation to firms with permission to enter into regulated mortgage contracts as lender, subject to specified exclusions. High-LTI lending remains lending at an LTI of 4.5 or above, and the aggregate high-LTI flow remains subject to the FPC’s 15% limit; however, the previous expectation that each in-scope firm must not exceed 15% has been removed.

Key dates

2026-10-14

PRA publishes SS2/26 – High loan to income lending. The statement sets out supervisory expectations and the quarterly aggregate-monitoring framework.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should determine whether they were below the de minimis threshold in both relevant consecutive four-quarter periods, using both the £150 million total-credit and 300-contract tests.
• Mortgage risk and compliance teams may wish to validate the firm’s classification of high-LTI contracts at the 4.5-times income threshold and confirm that excluded products are correctly removed from internal and regulatory monitoring.
• Boards and senior management may wish to approve explicit high-LTI risk appetite limits and management information covering current flow, forecast flow, concentrations, high-risk segments, arrears and performance outcomes.
• Firms considering a strategy that would increase high-LTI flow above 15% should prepare evidence of the supporting risk-management changes and discuss them through regular PRA supervisory engagement.
• Firms above the de minimis threshold should establish controls to reconcile internal high-LTI flow data with FCA Product Sales Data and the PRA’s quarterly aggregate publication, including a process for handling revised data.
• Mortgage lenders should maintain credible scenario plans for reducing future high-LTI originations, including underwriting, product, pricing, distribution and pipeline controls, while distinguishing future lending decisions from existing approved offers.
• Groups should document whether high-LTI governance and monitoring are operated at individual-firm or group level and ensure that group-level calculations include only relevant firms above the de minimis threshold.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor future PRA and FCA announcements for any fractional reduction rate, implementation timetable or withdrawal of adjustment expectations, since SS2/26 does not prescribe a permanent reduction rate in advance.

What changed

SS2/26 defines high-LTI lending as regulated mortgage contracts where credit is at least 4.5 times the relevant individual or joint income. It applies to firms within the Housing Part of the PRA Rulebook, including relevant UK subsidiaries, and requires high-LTI lending to be conducted prudently under an appropriate risk-management and compensating-controls framework.

Key dates

2026-10-28 Deadline

The PRA amendments to the Housing Part of the PRA Rulebook and SS2/26 commence; the FCA replacement general guidance also comes into effect and prior FCA high-LTI guidance is replaced.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess whether their high-LTI risk appetite, lending plans and business model support individual high-LTI flows above 15% from 28 October 2026.
• Firms should review and, where necessary, update board-approved policies, risk appetite statements, underwriting controls, affordability assessments, portfolio limits, stress testing and management information for high-LTI lending.
• Compliance teams may wish to map existing controls and reporting to the rolling four-quarter calculation for individual flows and distinguish this from the regulators’ single-quarter aggregate monitoring measure.
• Firms should establish a process to monitor the PRA’s quarterly aggregate high-LTI publication and the FCA’s notifications regarding expected adjustments, including escalation to senior management and the board where a reduction in lending may be required.
• Firms intending to operate above 15% should consider whether they can reduce high-LTI lending smoothly and predictably towards 15% if requested, including identifying practical management actions and avoiding abrupt changes to customer or intermediary pipelines.
• Firms should confirm that further advances and retirement interest-only mortgage contracts are correctly excluded from the relevant flow calculations and that other mortgage products are classified consistently with the final rules and guidance.
• Firms using the interim PRA modification by consent or FCA individual guidance should confirm that the relevant interim directions will fall away automatically on 28 October 2026 and align systems and procedures with the final framework.
• Senior managers and boards should document oversight of high-LTI strategy, risk appetite changes, portfolio performance, concentration risk and the potential effect of aggregate market developments on future lending.

What changed

The PRA will amend the Housing Part of the PRA Rulebook and the FCA will replace FG14/8, FG17/2 and FG25/4 with new general guidance. High-LTI lending remains lending at an LTI ratio of 4.5 times income or above, with the aggregate market limit remaining 15%; the individual firm-level 15% cap is removed. Individual firm high-LTI flows and any expected reductions will be assessed on a rolling four-quarter basis, while the regulators will monitor aggregate high-LTI flow using a single-calendar-quarter measure.

Key dates

2026-03-30

The FCA published PS26/3, establishing the motor finance consumer redress scheme for relevant agreements entered into from 6 April 2007 to 1 November 2024.

2026-05-31

The FCA's general pause on handling certain motor finance complaints ended; complaints outside the scheme scope generally reverted to the applicable ordinary complaint-handling framework from 1 June 2026.

2026-06-30

The implementation period for Scheme 2, covering agreements entered into from 1 April 2014 to 1 November 2024, was scheduled to end.

2026-08-31

The implementation period for Scheme 1, covering agreements entered into from 6 April 2007 to 31 March 2014, was scheduled to end.

2027-02-16

The Upper Tribunal hearing of the legal challenges to the motor finance compensation scheme is scheduled to begin.

2027-02-26

The scheduled window for the Upper Tribunal hearing of the legal challenges is due to conclude.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to maintain a documented inventory of complaints, agreements, commission data, consumer communications and redress calculations so that scheme preparation can resume promptly if the legal challenges fail.
• Lenders should continue complying with all motor finance scheme rules that have not been suspended, including required notifications to consumers who are not owed compensation.
• Firms should model both principal outcomes: implementation of the scheme after judgment and resumption of ordinary complaint handling if the scheme or relevant provisions are quashed.
• Operational planning may include capacity, case-management systems, data remediation, quality assurance, customer communications and escalation procedures for the ordinary DISP complaint process.
• Finance, risk and compliance teams should consider scenario-based provisions for scheme redress, litigation-related costs and ordinary complaint liabilities, and should engage auditors regarding assumptions, evidence and disclosure.
• Firms should review whether complaints outside the scheme scope are being handled under the ordinary DISP time limits, rather than being treated as covered by the suspended scheme arrangements.
• Senior management may wish to monitor the tribunal proceedings, FCA firm updates and any subsequent judgment, appeal or amendments to CONRED and DISP requirements.
• Firms should consider customer-outcome and conduct risks arising from delayed compensation, incomplete communications, duplicated claims-management fees and inconsistent treatment of consumers during the suspension.

What changed

The Upper Tribunal hearing window is now confirmed for 16 to 26 February 2027. The scheme remains partially suspended, so lenders are not required to calculate or pay compensation under the scheme until the legal process concludes, but the suspension does not remove the requirement to comply with unaffected scheme rules, including sending specified communications to consumers who are not owed compensation. The FCA has expressly warned lenders to prepare for the possibility that the scheme, or parts of it, are quashed and that there is consequently no scheme-based complaint-handling pause.

Key dates

2026-06-30

The three Funds had $251.8 million in assets under management, according to ASIC’s background information.

2026-10-08

ASIC announced the interim stop order, which took effect to halt offers, issues, sales and transfers under the affected PDSs while the order remains in force.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should review retail private-credit PDSs against Corporations Act 2001 sections 1013C(3), 1013D and 1013F and ASIC Regulatory Guide 168, with particular attention to whether material risks and costs are presented clearly, concisely and effectively.
• Compliance teams may wish to reconcile all stated loan-portfolio and diversification metrics to current underlying data, define the calculation methodology and test whether concentration by property type, geography, borrower, security ranking, loan-to-value ratio and maturity is readily understandable.
• Firms should consider documenting all costs associated with disposing of, redeeming or transferring an interest, including circumstances in which an exit may be delayed, restricted or priced below investor expectations.
• Product issuers may wish to explain the purpose, funding, governance, triggers, permitted uses and limitations of any investor reserve, impairment or capital-loss account, including whether it provides contractual protection or merely represents an internal allocation.
• Distribution teams should consider suspending or reviewing affected marketing, application and transfer processes where a PDS is subject to a stop order, and checking that advisers and platforms are not facilitating prohibited conduct.
• Private-credit fund managers should consider broader reviews of fee structures, margin arrangements, valuation and impairment practices, liquidity, conflicts of interest and retail-client distribution, given the issues identified in independent industry reporting as part of ASIC’s broader 2026 scrutiny of the sector.
• Boards, responsible entities and compliance committees may wish to retain evidence of PDS review, data validation, legal sign-off, escalation and remediation decisions in anticipation of further ASIC surveillance or a final stop-order process.

What changed

The interim stop order applies to the PDSs for the ASCF Premium Capital Fund, ASCF Select Income Fund and ASCF High Yield Fund. While the order remains in force, ASCF cannot offer, issue, sell or transfer interests under those PDSs. This is an enforcement action rather than a sector-wide rule change; however, ASIC’s application of the Corporations Act 2001 PDS and stop-order provisions reinforces that private-credit issuers must explain loan-portfolio composition, diversification metrics, the cost of disposing of an interest and the operation of investor reserve accounts in a sufficiently...

Key dates

2027-02-07 Deadline

Deadline for responses to CP13/26 and the associated discussion-paper section.

2031-07-01

Proposed effective date for the first automatic update of in-scope thresholds, subject to finalisation of the framework.

Suggested considerations

• Consider submitting responses on the proposed framework, the proposed in-scope threshold list, the methodology and the separate discussion-paper thresholds by 2027-02-07.
• Map the firm's current and forecast assets, exposures, liabilities, lending and reporting metrics against relevant PRA thresholds, including proposed thresholds that may be revised before finalisation.
• Assess whether nominal GDP indexation could move the firm out of, or into, a threshold-defined prudential treatment from 2031 onwards, while recognising that firms growing faster than nominal GDP would still be expected to cross thresholds.
• Review regulatory reporting, capital, liquidity, governance, risk-management and policy systems that hard-code fixed threshold values or effective dates, and consider designing controlled update mechanisms for future indexed values.
• Assess the effect of the proposed five-year update cycle on business planning, acquisitions, balance-sheet growth, lending strategies and group-structure decisions.
• Consider providing quantitative evidence to the PRA on implementation costs, cliff-edge effects, reporting impacts and whether additional discussion-paper thresholds should be included.
• Monitor the final PRA policy statement, the final automatic-indexation statement of policy and the consolidated threshold list before treating any proposed uprating as a binding change.

What changed

The PRA proposes to replace the current predominantly ad hoc threshold-review process for eligible fixed nominal thresholds with a rules-based framework. In-scope thresholds would be indexed using UK nominal GDP, based on data produced by the Office for National Statistics, on a common five-year cycle; the first automatic update would take effect on 1 July 2031, subject to final policy.

Key dates

2026-10-07

MAS published the written parliamentary reply and stated that approximately 4,000 households could face cash shortfalls under the severe stress scenario.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and consumer-credit teams may wish to confirm that mortgage portfolios have documented processes for identifying deteriorating repayment performance and other early indicators of financial stress.
• Banks should consider reviewing whether frontline and collections staff consistently contact borrowers early, assess individual circumstances, and record the rationale for any restructuring, refinancing, forbearance, or other assistance offered.
• Mortgage lenders may wish to test whether vulnerable segments identified by the MAS stress test, including lower-income middle-aged HDB borrowers and borrowers with sizeable private-housing loan balances, are adequately represented in portfolio monitoring and scenario analysis.
• Firms should consider maintaining clear customer communications directing borrowers who anticipate repayment difficulty to contact the lender before arrears arise.
• Banks and relevant agencies may wish to review referral arrangements with HDB, Credit Counselling Singapore, and appropriate social-service agencies, including escalation and hand-off procedures.
• Risk committees may wish to retain evidence that severe interest-rate, income-reduction, unemployment, and liquidity-buffer scenarios are considered in mortgage portfolio risk management, while distinguishing scenario-based vulnerabilities from actual current borrower distress.
• Firms should avoid describing the approximately 4,000-household figure as a forecast of current arrears or as an individually identified list of affected customers.

What changed

No binding regulatory requirement, threshold, reporting obligation, or enforcement measure was introduced by this parliamentary reply. MAS confirmed that financial institutions monitor repayment performance and engage borrowers showing signs of financial stress, with assistance tailored to individual circumstances. HDB-financed borrowers may approach HDB for restructuring discussions, bank-financed borrowers may approach their banks, and borrowers already experiencing debt repayment difficulties may seek counselling and debt-management guidance from Credit Counselling Singapore.

Key dates

2026-04-22

The CFPB published a final rule amending Regulation B provisions concerning special purpose credit programs, including new restrictions applicable to programs offered or participated in by for-profit organizations.

2026-07-21

The CFPB's Regulation B amendments became effective. For-profit special purpose credit programs offered or participated in on or after this date must comply with the amended requirements, including the prohibition on using race, color, national origin, or sex as a common eligibility criterion.

2026-08-25

The seven agencies rescinded the 2022 interagency statement and OCC Bulletin 2022-3, effective immediately. Creditors should no longer rely on those issuances or related guidance.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory special purpose credit programs, marketing, eligibility criteria, underwriting policies, written plans, and monitoring practices that were developed or supported by the 2022 interagency statement, OCC Bulletin 2022-3, or related guidance.
• Firms should consider reassessing any program that uses race, color, national origin, or sex as a common eligibility criterion, particularly for credit extended on or after July 21, 2026, against 12 CFR 1002.8 as amended.
• For-profit creditors may wish to confirm that each written special purpose credit program plan contains evidence of need, explains why the relevant class would not receive credit under the organization's ordinary creditworthiness standards, and supports any eligibility characteristic used by the program.
• Compliance teams may wish to remove rescinded guidance from policies, procedures, training materials, legal inventories, product governance documents, and examiner-facing materials, while retaining records needed to explain prior program design and implementation.
• Firms should consider reviewing program communications and applicant data practices for potential discrimination or misleading reliance on the rescinded statement, including communications suggesting that protected-class distinctions are broadly authorized.
• Banks and credit unions may wish to brief fair-lending, legal, product, underwriting, marketing, and model-risk stakeholders and document the governance decision regarding whether each program should be amended, suspended, or continued under current law.

What changed

The 2022 interagency statement and OCC Bulletin 2022-3 are rescinded, effective immediately, and creditors are instructed not to rely on those issuances or related guidance. The rescission does not eliminate the statutory or regulatory framework for special purpose credit programs under ECOA and Regulation B, including 12 CFR 1002.8; rather, it clarifies that those programs remain subject to applicable fair-lending prohibitions. The agencies specifically identify the prior version of Regulation B referenced by the 2022 statement as having been amended.

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.

Key dates

2026-08-14

The CFPB announced and implemented the cessation of discretionary publication of complaint narratives and associated visualizations in the Consumer Complaint Database; previously published narratives remain subject to proactive FOIA Reading Room disclosure.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to continue treating CFPB complaints as supervisory and potential enforcement inputs, notwithstanding the removal of narratives from the public database.
• Firms should consider maintaining controls that support complete, accurate, and timely responses to CFPB complaints, including documented investigation, escalation, remediation, and quality-assurance procedures.
• Complaint-management owners may wish to monitor whether the removal of public narratives affects internal trend analysis and should preserve their own historical complaint records and supporting evidence.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should consider reviewing previously published complaint narratives concerning the firm in the CFPB FOIA Reading Room and assessing whether existing disclosure, litigation, reputation, and remediation processes remain appropriate.
• Firms should consider retaining evidence supporting complaint responses because complaint information may continue to be shared with prudential regulators, the FTC, and federal or state agencies, and may remain accessible through FOIA.
• Management may wish to avoid interpreting the change as a basis for reducing complaint-governance staffing, monitoring, root-cause analysis, or board and senior-management reporting.

What changed

The CFPB will no longer publish consumer-submitted complaint narratives or related data visualizations in the Consumer Complaint Database. The Bureau characterizes publication of these materials as discretionary rather than statutorily required and states that the materials are unverified, potentially misleading, and not necessarily evidence of legal violations.

Key dates

20 March 2026

- The FCA published the statement announcing increased scrutiny of Annex 1 firms and warning that registration applications should be expected to take longer

TBD (ongoing, from the date of publication)

- Annex 1 firms that are not registered should submit a registration application before continuing Annex 1 activity, because the FCA states such firms need to be registered for AML purposes

TBD (ongoing supervisory cycle)

- Around 900 Annex 1 firms are subject to FCA information requests to support supervisory risk assessment and intelligence gathering

Suggested considerations

• Confirm whether any UK business line falls within Annex 1 scope and, if so, verify that the entity is registered with the FCA for AML purposes before continuing the activity.
• Submit a registration application immediately if the firm carries on Annex 1 activity without being registered.
• Reassess the firm’s AML framework at entity level, rather than relying on group-level policies or parent-company controls, and document why the controls are appropriate for the firm’s own risks and operations.
• Replace any generic or off-the-shelf procedures with policies, controls, and procedures tailored to the firm’s actual products, customers, geographies, and delivery model.
• Prepare evidence of MLR compliance for FCA review, including risk assessment logic, governance arrangements, customer due diligence processes, and monitoring controls.

What changed

• - The FCA is closely scrutinising applications to register as an Annex 1 firm, indicating a tougher gateway for new registrations and potentially more refusals or delay where evidence is weak.
• Annex 1 firms must demonstrate compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations, rather than merely assert that controls exist.
• The FCA is warning firms that registration applications will take longer, which affects launch plans, transaction timing, and group structuring decisions.
• The FCA has sent an information request to around 900 Annex 1 firms to better understand their activities, business models, and risks.
• The FCA says it will use this information, together with other intelligence, to identify and disrupt financial crime risks in the sector.

Key dates

2026-08-04

Publication of the Federal Reserve Board notice of proposed rulemaking ‘Regulatory Modernization and Relief for Mutual Holding Companies’ in the Federal Register (91 FR 49490; FR Doc. 2026-15774) amending Regulations Q (12 CFR part 217) and MM (12 CFR part 239).

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment deadline for submitting responses to the Federal Reserve Board on the proposed amendments to Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26).

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at mutual holding companies and savings and loan holding companies may wish to review the proposed amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), particularly the sections on dividend waivers, mutual-to-stock conversion processes, post-conversion restrictions, chartering requirements for subsidiary holding companies, and updated model charters and bylaws, to assess operational and governance impacts.
• Firms planning or contemplating mutual-to-stock conversions should consider comparing their current conversion documentation, use of FR MM-PS, FR MM-OC and FR MM-OF forms, and liquidation account methodologies with the proposed streamlined forms, corrected liquidation account calculations, and revised rules on stock pricing, repurchases, offers and sales, employee stock ownership plan financing and benefit plans.
• Institutions that issue, or are considering issuing, mutual capital certificates should review the proposed Appendices B and C to Regulation Q (12 CFR part 217) to evaluate whether their existing or planned instrument terms align with the model key terms for qualification as Common Equity Tier 1 or Additional Tier 1 capital, including permanence, loss-absorption, distributions and redemption features.
• Subsidiary holding companies of thrift mutual holding companies may wish to analyze the proposed elimination of the federal charter requirement and related changes to Subpart C of Regulation MM to determine chartering options, corporate structure implications, and any needed updates to organizational documents and regulatory commitments.
• Governance and legal teams at MHCs could review the proposed revisions to membership rights, proxy processes, postal mail requirements, voluntary dissolution, and the model charter and bylaws in Appendices A, C and D to Regulation MM, with a view to aligning internal policies and corporate governance frameworks with the modernized regime once finalized.
• Risk and capital management functions at bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies and state member banks should consider evaluating capital planning assumptions and buffers in light of the clarified eligibility of mutual capital instruments as regulatory capital under Regulation Q, and identify any systems or reporting changes that may be required if the proposal is adopted.
• All affected firms may wish to prepare internal impact assessments and, where appropriate, draft comment letters addressing specific elements of Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26), including any perceived risks around conflicts of interest, reduced accountability, or adjustment costs noted in the economic analysis.
• Compliance monitoring teams should plan to track the rulemaking through the comment close date and subsequent Federal Reserve actions so that, if the proposal is finalized, implementation plans can be developed for policy updates, staff training and revisions to regulatory reporting and capital instrument documentation.

What changed

The NPR proposes targeted amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239) governing mutual holding companies (MHCs), including eliminating certain dividend waiver requirements that currently apply to MHCs and their subsidiary holding companies, and revising post-conversion restrictions to reduce burdens following mutual-to-stock conversions.

Key dates

23 August 2018

– Initial version of CMI 27/2018 “Controls and Disclosures to be Implemented by Licensed Securities-Based Crowdfunding Operators” published by MAS

08 October 2018

– MAS publishes FAQs on Lending-based Crowdfunding, clarifying licensing and prospectus requirements and interacting with SCF-related guidance

05 March 2021

– Updated version of CMI 27/2018 and Annex A / A1 / A2 for issuer default notification uploaded, refining default reporting and controls expected of SCF operators

21 January 2025

– Revision of Guidelines on Criteria for the Grant of a Capital Markets Services Licence (SFA 04-G01), which interact with licensing expectations for SCF operators

14 July 2026

– Last revised date of circular CMI 27/2018, signalling the most recent MAS expectations on controls and disclosures for licensed SCF operators

Suggested considerations

• Review existing issuer due diligence policies and procedures and update them to align with MAS’s expectations on structured checks, documentation, and investor disclosure of due diligence scope for all SCF offers.
• Implement a formal policy prohibiting the use of new loans to repay existing overdue loans, except where legitimate reasons exist; define those reasons, approval thresholds and documentation requirements for exceptions.
• Enhance lending workflows to ensure that, when new loans are extended to borrowers with outstanding loans, the platform system automatically collates and presents total outstanding exposure and the rationale for the new loan to investors in pre-investment disclosures.
• Develop and approve a detailed issuer default management framework that defines escalation triggers, recovery options, decision criteria, investor communication templates, and record-keeping requirements.
• Update investor terms and conditions and consent mechanisms so that investors explicitly agree to any potential recovery-related costs, with clear fee schedules and scenarios disclosed before costs are incurred.

What changed

• - Licensed SCF operators must implement structured due diligence checks on issuers, including clear policies on information to be obtained, risk assessment criteria and documentation standards, and...
• Lending-based SCF operators are generally prohibited from allowing a borrower to take up a new loan to repay an existing overdue loan, unless there are legitimate, documented reasons to extend a new...
• Where a lending-based SCF operator does extend a new loan to a borrower with outstanding loans, it must disclose the borrower’s total outstanding loans and the reasons for extending the new loan so...
• SCF operators must establish formal policies and procedures for issuer default management, documenting circumstances under which the operator will pursue various recovery options (e.g.
• Operators must disclose to investors the different recovery options and associated costs and must seek and obtain investors’ consent before incurring any recovery-related costs that will be borne by...

Key dates

2026-06-08

CFPB issued the Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status referenced by the agencies

2026-07-13

FDIC, OCC, and NCUA issued the interagency guidance on lending to individuals not legally authorized to work in the United States

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review underwriting standards to confirm that capacity-to-repay analysis captures employment-authorization-related income instability.
• Firms should consider whether credit policy, risk grading, and portfolio monitoring procedures explicitly address elevated repayment uncertainty for non-work-authorized borrowers.
• Institutions may wish to reassess documentation and verification controls for income, employment, and supporting records in light of the agencies' stated focus on safe-and-sound lending.
• Teams should consider whether fair-lending, TILA, and ECOA controls are aligned with the CFPB's June 8, 2026 statement and the interagency guidance.
• Risk and finance functions may wish to evaluate whether allowance, concentration risk, and credit-loss assumptions need updating where exposure to this borrower segment is material.

What changed

The publication does not create a new lending ban or a new standalone rule. Instead, it restates that institutions should identify, measure, monitor, and control the credit risks associated with borrowers who are not legally authorized to work in the United States through underwriting practices that assess willingness and capacity to repay according to the credit terms. The guidance specifically links this issue to the CFPB's June 8, 2026 Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status and reminds creditors of obligations under the Truth in Lending Act as implemented by Regulation Z,...

Key dates

2026-07-13

OCC, FDIC, and NCUA issued the interagency guidance

2026-06-08

CFPB issued its Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status, referenced by the guidance

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review underwriting standards to confirm that repayment capacity, source of repayment, and overall financial condition are assessed consistently for borrowers whose work authorization is uncertain.
• Firms may wish to test whether account management, credit classification, and allowance methodologies adequately capture elevated credit risk linked to employment authorization uncertainty.
• Institutions may wish to review consumer compliance controls for alignment with TILA, Regulation Z, ECOA, and Regulation B when evaluating applicants affected by immigration or work-authorized status.
• Risk and compliance teams may wish to update portfolio monitoring, concentration analysis, and documentation standards so that the identified credit risk factors are reflected in governance and reporting.
• Community banks may wish to verify that loan policy language and examiner-facing documentation clearly show how these risks are being identified, measured, monitored, and controlled.

What changed

The publication is guidance, not a new rule or statute, and it reinforces existing expectations rather than imposing a new legal prohibition. It states that lending to individuals not legally authorized to work in the United States may present elevated credit risk because their ability to generate income, maintain employment, and remain financially stable may be more uncertain.

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

15 October 2013

- Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 enters into force, granting the ECB sanctioning powers for prudential supervision of credit institutions (contextual basis for this enforcement)

Q4 2023

- Start of the period during which BIL failed to apply its approved internal models to expected loss calculation for defaulted retail and corporate exposures, leading to overstated capital

Q1 2024

- Second consecutive quarter in which incorrect expected loss and IRB shortfall calculations continued to affect reported capital and capital ratios

Q2 2024

- Third consecutive quarter of miscalculation; end of the period identified by the ECB as affected by the breach

29 June 2026

- The ECB publishes its decision imposing an administrative penalty of €3.255 million on BIL for the severe breach of its decision on internal models

Suggested considerations

• Review and confirm that all regulatory capital calculations, including expected loss and IRB shortfall for defaulted exposures, consistently use the approved internal models as authorised by the ECB or national competent authority.
• Map and reconcile the internal-model implementation across risk systems, finance, and regulatory reporting to ensure that there are no manual overrides, alternative methods, or parallel calculations that deviate from the approved model specifications.
• Strengthen model risk governance by ensuring that any proposed changes to expected loss methodologies, including for defaulted retail and corporate portfolios, are formally approved by the competent authority before being used in regulatory capital reporting.
• Implement robust controls and periodic testing within Finance, Risk, and Regulatory Reporting functions to detect and prevent misapplication or non-application of approved internal models, with clear escalation procedures for identified discrepancies.
• Ensure that the calculation of IRB shortfall (difference between expected loss and accounting provisions) is independently validated and appropriately deducted from CET1 capital in accordance with CRR and ECB internal models guidance.

What changed

• - The ECB has reaffirmed that institutions using internal ratings-based (IRB) approaches must apply their approved internal models consistently for expected loss calculation on defaulted retail and...
• The ECB has underscored that the IRB shortfall (difference between expected loss and accounting provisions) must be correctly calculated and deducted from regulatory capital whenever expected loss...
• The ECB has classified intentional failure to apply approved internal models to expected loss calculations as a “severe” breach under its Guide to the method of setting administrative pecuniary...
• The enforcement action confirms the ECB’s readiness to use its sanctioning powers under Article 18 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 against internal-model users that misreport capital due to...
• The case highlights that miscalculation of expected loss and IRB shortfall over multiple reporting periods, even without an explicit capital ratio breach of minima, can be sanctioned where capital...

Key dates

26 June 2026

- CBI publishes the warning notice against Loan Empower Solution as an unauthorised retail credit firm and lists the firm under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013

Suggested considerations

• Review and update internal unauthorised-firm and scam monitoring procedures to ensure Loan Empower Solution and its identifiers (name, website, address, email, telephone number) are captured in watchlists, fraud rules, and staff guidance.
• Screen recent and ongoing customer transactions and communications for any references to Loan Empower Solution or similar lending scams requesting upfront “loan fees”, and escalate any matches to fraud and compliance teams.
• Update customer-facing communications and website scam warnings to highlight the risk of advance fee fraud in retail credit, referencing the need to check the CBI registers and unauthorised-firms list before engaging with lenders.
• Ensure call centre, branch, and digital support staff are trained to identify and respond to customers approached by unauthorised lenders, including how to advise customers to verify authorisation status on the CBI website and to report suspected scams.
• Incorporate checks against the CBI unauthorised firms search into onboarding, due diligence, and third-party risk management processes for any lending-related partnerships, introducers, or lead generators.

What changed

• - The CBI has added Loan Empower Solution (website: lesolution.eu) to its public list of unauthorised firms and explicitly categorised it as an unauthorised retail credit firm operating without the...
• The CBI has publicly stated that Loan Empower Solution appears to be operating an advance fee fraud model, where upfront payments are requested for credit services that are never provided.
• The CBI has confirmed that the firm is using a purported Irish business address (The Merrion Buildings, 18–20 Merrion Street, Dublin 2, D02 XH98), a non-Irish telephone number, and a specified...
• The firm’s name has been published under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013, reaffirming the CBI’s use of its statutory power to publicly identify entities...
• The CBI has directed the public to its unauthorised firms search and financial scams information pages, implicitly reinforcing expectations that firms promote use of these tools in their consumer...

Key dates

21 May 2026

- OSFI launches a 60‑day public consultation on targeted amendments to Guideline B‑12 – Interest Rate Risk Management and related IRRBB Pillar 3 disclosure expectations

20 July 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for stakeholders to submit comments on the draft Guideline B‑12 amendments and associated IRRBB disclosure proposals to [email protected]

10 September 2026

- OSFI plans to publish the final revised Guideline B‑12, together with a non‑attributed summary of comments received and OSFI’s responses

01 November 2026

- Revised Guideline B‑12 becomes effective for institutions with a fiscal year ending 31 October

01 January 2027

- Revised Guideline B‑12 becomes effective for institutions with a fiscal year ending 31 December

Suggested considerations

• Perform a gap analysis comparing current interest rate risk in the banking book methodologies, shock scenarios, and assumptions against the proposed revised Guideline B‑12 parameters and BCBS‑aligned calibration approach.
• Engage internal stakeholders (risk management, treasury/ALM, finance, regulatory reporting, model validation, and internal audit) to review the consultation text and identify operational, data, and model impacts from the extended December 2015–December 2023 calibration window and new shock design.
• Prepare and submit a detailed written response to OSFI at [email protected] by 20 July 2026, highlighting any concerns with scenario calibration, procyclicality, data availability, systems impacts, and implementation timelines.
• Update IRRBB models, interest rate scenario engines, behavioral assumptions (e.g., non‑maturity deposits, prepayments), and risk metrics (e.g., economic value of equity and earnings‑at‑risk) to incorporate the revised OSFI shock scenarios once the final guideline is published on 10 September 2026.
• Revise internal IRRBB policies, risk appetite statements, limits frameworks, and governance documentation to align with the updated Guideline B‑12 expectations and ensure Board and senior management oversight reflects the new calibration.

What changed

• - OSFI proposes to amend Guideline B‑12 – Interest Rate Risk Management to update prescribed interest rate shock scenarios used for measuring interest rate risk in the banking book.
• The interest rate shock calibration will be aligned with the most recent BCBS methodology for IRRBB, including improved treatment of environments where policy rates are close to zero or negative.
• The time series used to calibrate interest rate shock scenarios will be extended from a previous cut‑off of December 2015 to now incorporate data through December 2023, capturing the recent period of...
• OSFI intends to strengthen transparency and market discipline by consulting simultaneously on proposed amendments to Pillar 3 disclosure expectations related to interest rate risk in the banking book.
• The revised B‑12 guideline will introduce updated expectations for IRR measurement, monitoring, and reporting that ensure institutions recognize more recent market experience in their internal risk...

Key dates

14 April 2026

Publication date of warning notice; Immediate public alert on unauthorised status of Finance Advice Help.[Source URL: https://www.centralbank.ie/news/article/finance-advice-help--central-bank-of-ireland-issues-warning-on-unauthorised-firm]

Suggested considerations

• Verify firm status: Use CBI's unauthorised firms search tool before engaging with any retail credit provider (https://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/how-we-regulate/authorisation/unauthorised-firms/search-unauthorised-firms).
• Report suspicions: Contact CBI at (01) 224 5800 or via direct reporting portal for any dealings with Finance Advice Help or similar entities.[Source URL: https://www.centralbank.ie/news/article/finance-advice-help--central-bank-of-ireland-issues-warning-on-unauthorised-firm]
• Educate clients/staff: Disseminate scam protection guidance from www.centralbank.ie/financialscams; implement "SAFE test" for verification.[Source URL: https://www.centralbank.ie/news/article/finance-advice-help--central-bank-of-ireland-issues-warning-on-unauthorised-firm]
• Monitor clones: Screen for impersonation risks, as seen in related warnings (e.g., Shamrock Lend clone).

What changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement action via a public warning notice. It reinforces existing requirements under the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 (section 53), which empowers CBI to publish names of unauthorised firms offering regulated services like retail credit. No new rules are introduced; it signals ongoing vigilance against unauthorised retail credit providers.[Source URL: https://www.centralbank.ie/news/article/finance-advice-help--central-bank-of-ireland-issues-warning-on-unauthorised-firm]

Key dates

08 April 2026

Announcement and effective date; CBI press release details the amendment, with immediate application implied for qualifying bridging loans (no explicit phase-in mentioned)

Suggested considerations

• Update lending policies: Identify and classify principal home bridging loans (max 18 months, repayment from property sale, no capital repayments required during term) to apply LTI exemption but enforce 90% LTV.
• Enhance underwriting: Conduct individual suitability and affordability assessments beyond macroprudential limits; do not rely solely on exemption.
• Strengthen consumer protections: Fully inform borrowers of risks (e.g., sale delays, interest costs); ensure products suit circumstances per consumer protection rules.
• Internal monitoring and reporting: Track bridging loan volumes within flexibility allowances; prepare for CBI inquiries as part of ongoing assessments.
• Staff training and systems updates: Revise origination, disclosure, and compliance systems promptly to operationalize changes.

What changed

• - Exemption from LTI limit: Principal home bridging loans—defined as short-term loans (maximum 18 months) enabling homeowners to buy a new principal home before selling their current property, repaid...
• LTV limit retained: Maximum 90% LTV continues to apply to these loans, alongside the 15% flexibility allowance for first-time/second/subsequent buyer lending.
• No other changes: All remaining mortgage measures, including consumer protection rules and lenders' prudent underwriting obligations, stay intact.
• Monitoring commitment: CBI will track the exemption's operation within its regular mortgage measures assessments for unintended risks.

Key dates

1 February 2021

12 December 2023; Period of Buckley's admitted misconduct (diverting payments and misrepresenting qualifications)

25 February 2026

Effective date of the indefinite prohibition on Buckley performing any controlled functions

01 April 2026

Publication date of the CBI press release announcing the Prohibition Notice

Suggested considerations

• Firms employing similar roles: Immediately review invoicing processes to ensure payments direct only to firm accounts, with segregation of duties and dual approvals for client billing.
• Fitness and Probity assessments: Conduct enhanced due diligence on customer-facing staff, verifying qualifications via independent sources and monitoring for personal financial gain conflicts.
• Incident reporting: Escalate any suspected integrity breaches (e.g., qualification misrepresentation or fund diversion) to CBI under fitness and probity notification obligations.
• Training programs: Update mandatory training on Fitness and Probity Standards (available at https://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/fitness-and-probity), focusing on honesty in client interactions.
• Prohibition checks: Screen all controlled function holders against CBI's public prohibitions list before approvals or role changes.

What changed

This is not a new regulation but an enforcement outcome under the existing Fitness and Probity Regime, established by the Central Bank Reform Act 2010, which mandates high standards of competence, integrity, and honesty for individuals in controlled functions. No regulatory changes are introduced; instead, it reinforces enforcement mechanisms, including investigations and prohibitions for breaches, particularly in customer-facing roles where honesty is paramount.

Key dates

9 July 2025 Deadline

PRA offers interim modification by consent applications; firms must submit business plan/risk info within 1 month, then monthly reports (first covering prior 3 months)

11 July 2025

£150M threshold increase effective

TBD 2026 Deadline

PRA consultation on permanent LTI flow limit changes (due course post-review)

30 June 2026

Interim modifications expire (or earlier if rules amended)

Suggested considerations

• Apply for modification (if seeking >15% high-LTI): Submit detailed business plan (incl. quarterly high-LTI projections), risk appetite, management frameworks; provide monthly notifications on approvals/completions.
• Monitor thresholds: Track rolling 4-quarter mortgage volumes/contracts (≥£150M and ≥300 contracts in two periods triggers limit).
• Record-keeping: Document high-LTI allowances, group allocations, exclusions.
• Respond to consultation: Provide feedback on CP6/26 proposals via PRA channels (deadline not specified in summary; check full paper).
• Engage regulators: FCA firms contact FCA for tailored guidance on high-LTI increases.

What changed

• - Review of LTI flow limit: PRA is reviewing the rule limiting new residential mortgages with LTI ≥4.5x to 15% of total new lending, following FPC recommendations; no final changes proposed yet, but...
• Threshold increase (prior update): Flow limit now triggers only for firms issuing ≥£150M in residential mortgages annually (up from £100M), effective 11 July 2025, exempting ~80 smaller lenders (up...
• Interim modification by consent: Firms can apply to disapply the 15% cap temporarily; requires submitting business plans, risk frameworks, and monthly reporting on high-LTI volumes.
• Exclusions remain: No LTI limit for re-mortgages (no principal change), lifetime mortgages, or second/subsequent charge mortgages (per historical rules).
• Group allocations: Firms in groups can share high-LTI allowances, with record-keeping required.

Key dates

6 April 2007

1 November 2024; Scope of agreements eligible for compensation

26 March 2020 Deadline

Cut-off for excluding high commission cases if clearly disclosed (firms must explain and allow FOS challenge)

2026 (this year)

Millions compensated

30 June 2026

End of implementation for 1 April 2014+ loans; lenders then have 3 months to notify complainants of redress

31 August 2026

End of implementation for 6 April 2007-31 March 2014 loans; lenders then have 3 months to notify complainants and 6 months for eligible non-complainants

Suggested considerations

• Identify all in-scope agreements (2007-2024 with broker commissions); assess eligibility against tightened criteria (e.g., undisclosed DCA/high commission/tie).
• Contact complainants within 3 months post-implementation; eligible non-complainants within 6 months; invite scheme participation (6-month consumer response window).
• Calculate redress per formula (commission-based, capped, with interest); pay promptly, allowing set-off against customer debts where applicable.
• Gather records now (FCA expectation pre-rules); handle exclusions/exceptions with explanations; prepare for FOS challenges on time-bars.
• Brokers: Respond to lender information requests.

What changed

• - Tightened eligibility: Excludes minimal commission agreements (£120 or less pre-1 April 2014; £150 or less post), zero APRs, unused DCAs, and contractual ties where lenders prove visible...
• Two schemes: Separate for 6 April 2007-31 March 2014 and 1 April 2014-1 November 2024 to mitigate legal challenges on pre-2014 powers.
• Compensation adjustments: Reflects higher 2007-2014 losses; capped in ~1/3 cases to avoid over-compensation.
• Streamlined operations: Lenders contact only complainants or eligible non-complainants; no recorded delivery required, cutting delivery costs >40%.
• Scope expansion: Covers DCAs, high commissions, and contractual ties under Consumer Credit Act 1974 ss.140A-C; includes deceased consumers.

Key dates

17 December 2018

- Original issuance of Circular CSSF 18/703 introducing semi-annual reporting

25 March 2026

- Publication date of Circular CSSF 26/908 (today)

Suggested considerations

• Download and review the full Circular CSSF 26/908 (291.96Kb PDF) and the updated consolidated Circular CSSF 18/703 (258.91Kb PDF) from the CSSF website: https://www.cssf.lu/en/Document/circular-cssf-26-908/.
• Conduct a gap analysis of current reporting processes against the amended requirements for borrower-related residential real estate indicators.
• Update internal systems, data collection templates, and reporting workflows to ensure accurate semi-annual submissions to the CSSF.
• Train relevant compliance, risk, and finance teams on changes; document compliance confirmations for audit trails.

What changed

The circular introduces amendments to the original Circular CSSF 18/703 (itself amended by Circulars CSSF 20/737 and 21/772), focusing on semi-annual reporting of indicators tied to borrowers in residential real estate. Specific changes are not detailed in the provided summary or full content excerpt, but they likely involve refinements to reporting templates, data granularity, or submission processes to align with evolving EU prudential standards on real estate risk monitoring. The updated consolidated version of Circular CSSF 18/703 is now available as a 258.91Kb PDF.

Key dates

December 3, 2020

- CSSF Regulation No 20-08 originally published

January 1, 2021

- Regulation and LTV limits became effective for residential real estate credit on Luxembourg territory

May 21, 2024

- CSSF Regulation No 24-04 introduced temporary adjustments to LTV limits

December 30, 2024

- CSSF Regulation No 24-10 extended temporary adjustments

January 7, 2025

- Most recent Technical FAQ version published (prior to March 9, 2026 update)

Suggested considerations

• *For all lenders:
• *Verify LTV compliance calculations for all new residential mortgage originations using the framework specified in the FAQ, ensuring own funds are calculated as actual equity contributions from borrowers
• *Implement dual LTV tracking for borrowers financing new property through sale of existing property, ensuring compliance with both interim and final LTV ratios
• *Document own funds sources carefully, particularly when cash collateral or sale proceeds are used, as these are only permitted for loans with initial LTV below 100%
• *Prepare for June 30, 2025 transition by:

What changed

• The most recent update (March 9, 2026) to the Technical FAQ reflects the regulatory framework established by CSSF Regulation No 20-08 (as modified by Regulation No 24-10).
• First-time buyers: LTV limit of up to 100%
• Other buyers: LTV limit of 90%, implemented via portfolio allowance Buy-to-Let Residential Loans:
• Standard LTV limit of 80%
• Temporary exemption (until June 30, 2025): Lenders may apply LTV ratios up to 95% for up to 10% of annual production Other Residential Real Estate Loans:

Key dates

17 Dec 2018

Original Circular CSSF 18/703 published; reporting obligation introduced

19 Feb 2020

Circular CSSF 20/737 and FAQ published; clarified exemptions and scope

10 May 2021

Circular CSSF 21/772 amendment published

25 Mar 2026

Circular CSSF 26/908 amendment published (today's date); immediate implementation expected for upcoming cycles

Ongoing (semi Deadline

annual); Reports due in April (ref. 31 Dec) and October (ref. 30 Jun) each year

Suggested considerations

• Download and use the dedicated RRE data template from the CSSF website (https://www.cssf.lu/en/Document/circular-cssf-18-703/).
• Assess total outstanding RRE exposure; if > EUR 10 million, collect data on new/outstanding exposures per reference dates (30 Jun/31 Dec).
• Ensure IT systems store/process RRE indicators (e.g., borrower debt metrics, collateral details) for semi-annual extraction.
• Submit reports to CSSF in April/October; review amendments (20/737, 21/772, 26/908) and FAQ for updates.
• For exempt banks: Confirm eligibility annually; no zero report required.

What changed

• - Original Scope (CSSF 18/703, 17 Dec 2018): Requires semi-annual reporting of RRE indicators for loans secured by Luxembourg residential real estate (existing dwellings, under construction,...
• Amendment CSSF 20/737 (19 Feb 2020): Clarified reporting thresholds and processes; banks with total outstanding RRE exposure ≤ EUR 10 million are exempt from reporting (no zero report needed if no...
• FAQ (19 Feb 2020): Specifies reporting for new exposures (Jan-Jun or Jul-Dec) and outstanding exposures as of 30 June/31 Dec; exemption applies only if exposure < EUR 10 million.
• Amendment CSSF 21/772 (10 May 2021): Further refinements to data template and indicators.
• Amendment CSSF 26/908 (25 Mar 2026): Latest update to reporting template and processes, effective immediately given publication date. Data is collected via a CSSF template on the website, focusing on...

Key dates

24 March 2025

- CBI publishes revised CPC 2025, Standards for Business Regulations, Consumer Protection Regulations, and guidance

24 March 2026

- CPC 2025 takes effect; existing 2012 Code ceases (12-month implementation period ends)

Until 24 March 2026

- 2012 Code (with addenda) remains in force

Suggested considerations

• Gap analysis: Map current policies/processes against CPC 2025 using CBI's mapping tool; update for new obligations like digital service design, vulnerability screening, fraud measures.
• Policy/system updates: Implement "secure customers’ interests" framework; enhance disclosures (e.g., mortgages, charges, unregulated activities); train staff on conduct standards/vulnerable consumers.
• Governance/risk: Strengthen board oversight, risk management for cyber/fraud/digital risks; distinguish regulated/unregulated activities.
• Testing/monitoring: Develop records/compliance systems; test advertising/bundling; integrate sustainability claims checks.
• Stakeholder engagement: Review CBI guidance/FAQs; prepare for supervision during implementation.

What changed

• The CPC 2025 comprises Standards for Business Regulations (governance, resources, risk management, conduct standards) and Consumer Protection Regulations (cross-sectoral and sector-specific rules for...
• Core obligation: Firms must "secure customers’ interests," shifting to a proactive, customer-focused mindset.
• Cross-sectoral requirements: Knowing the consumer/suitability; conflicts of interest/remuneration; vulnerable consumers (updated definition); digitalisation (customer-focused design); effective...
• Specific enhancements: Fraud/scam protections; mortgage switching disclosures; greenwashing prevention via clear sustainability claims; expanded consumer definition (e.g., SMEs up to €5m turnover...
• Supporting materials: Guidance on securing interests/vulnerable consumers, mapping tool for legacy codes, redline amendments.

Key dates

2024

FCA letter to CEOs of Annex 1 firms raising AML concerns.; - **Late 2025 - FCA follow-up engagement with 300 Annex 1 firms.**

Suggested considerations

• Verify Annex 1 registration status directly from the firm and via independent checks (e.g., FCA Register).
• Understand the Annex 1 firm's business model, products, and risks, aligning with MLRs and 2025 NRA.
• Manage identified risks, such as AML deficiencies or consumer encouragement into limited company structures for unregulated lending.
• Document due diligence to demonstrate compliance, integrating into broader financial crime frameworks (e.g., BWRA/CRA per FCA findings).

What changed

No new rules or legislative changes are introduced; this is a supervisory reminder reinforcing existing obligations under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (MLRs). It emphasizes enhanced due diligence on Annex 1 firms, referencing the 2025 National Risk Assessment (NRA) for risk management. The FCA highlights proactive engagement, including a 2024 letter to CEOs and follow-up with 300 firms in late 2025, signaling intensified supervision without altering the registration-only regime under the Financial Services and Markets Act.

Key dates

25 February 2026

- MFS entered administration

20 March 2026

- FCA enforcement investigation opened (current date context)

No specific deadline provided Deadline

for investigation completion or enforcement action