Call for input: PIMFA seeks feedback from firms on impact of FSCS costs

We are seeking member views on the impact of the FSCS on their respective businesses. A link to the survey can be found here

This is the second iteration of PIMFA’s FSCS Survey to firms. Your input is crucial in providing PIMFA with an evidence base to make representations to government and the regulators regarding material impacts to your business. Whilst our previous survey focused on measuring the total cost of funding the FSCS (as well as associated PI costs) the purpose of this survey is to measure the material impact the cost of funding the FSCS has on your business. In doing so, we can make direct representations to HMT to support our campaign to find alternative sources of funding for the FSCS.

Our intention is to collate the responses from this survey into a short public report. As a result, your responses are both valued and any longer form answers which bring the impact of the levy on your business to light are welcomed.

For further information or to provide additional views, please contact Simon Harrington

Evidence gathering to update PIMFA Fraud Trends Guide

In 2021 we published our Fraud Trends Guide which sets out detailed examples of scams and frauds experienced by our member firms. As fraudsters are constantly developing new techniques and tactics and the scam landscape is subject to fast and continuous change, we would like to update our guide to include any new fraud typologies.

At this stage we are carrying out an evidencegathering exercise in order to collect as much information as we can on what current fraud and scams ‘look like’. We would therefore be very grateful if you could provide us with as much detail as possible on scams and frauds you have come across. This could be in the form of case studies, scenarios, screen shots of cloned websites or Instagram ads. Information relating to how a scam was detected and what factors raised any red flags would also be very useful.

We need your help and input in order to provide a good update to our guide and to ensure that it continues to be a useful tool in fraud prevention for our firms.

If you are able to help, please get in touch with Alexandra

Roberts

Economic Crime Levy

The Government has introduced an Economic Crime Levy (ECL) to fund the fight against economic crime (anti-money laundering).

The levy will be collected by HMRC, the FCA, and the Gambling Commission The levy will be paid annually and determined by a firm’s UK revenue. The levy will apply to AML regulated businesses (details in link). Impacted firms will see the new levy appear on invoices from July

2023 (those subject to the money laundering regulations between 6th April 2022 and 5th April 2023) Firms must submit their data via new Reg Report from 1st April to ensure they are charged the right amount.

FCA Authorises First LTAF

The FCA has announced that it has authorised the first Long Term Asset Fund (LTAF).

The LTAF is a new category of open-ended authorised fund designed to invest efficiently in longterm assets. The new regulatory regime for these funds came into force in 2021.

The FCA has worked with the Bank of England, the Treasury and industry, through the Productive Finance Working Group – to create an environment which support economic growth and the transition to a low carbon economy by enabling the ability to invest in illiquid assets, through appropriately designed and managed investment vehicles.

The FCA consulted on broadening access to LTAF in August 2022; final rules on this aspect are expected in H1/2023.

FOS Consults on Changes to Reporting BusinessSpecific

The Financial Ombudsman Service have published proposals which seek to amend the way in which the FOS reports business specific complaints data

In short, the FOS is proposing to create a separate category to their biannual business specific complaints data to record any complaint that is resolved by a fair and reasonable offer put forward by a business within 14 days of the FOS requesting the respondents business complaints file. Complaints settled in this way would be reported as ‘proactively settled’ and these outcomes would not contribute to a business’ overall ‘uphold rate’ and will be applicable to new complaints.