FCA fine CMC Hall and Hanley Ltd for unauthorised copying of client signatures

[Legal Beagles]

The First-tier Tribunal (the Tribunal) has upheld a fine of �91,000 imposed on Hall and Hanley Limited (H&H) by the Claims Management Regulator (CMR), the former regulator for claims management companies (CMCs). The hearing for the Tribunal was conducted by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) which has taken over the functions of the CMR.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-re...d-unauthorised

when reviewing a sample of 16 of H&H's client files, the CMR found that in 8 of the files clients' signatures on claim documentation (including letters of authority) had been copied without authorisation. The CMR considered the unauthorised copying of clients' signatures, submitted by H&H to financial firms, to be a serious matter and considered H&H to have been negligent in failing to detect and prevent this conduct by one of its employees.

In the Ruling ( https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2019/CMS-2019-0001.html )

7.CMR also decided, following concerns that lenders to whom claims in respect of payment protection insurance (“ PPI”) had been submitted on behalf of certain of H & H's customers may have been supplied with letters of authority on which signatures had been forged, that in a number of cases signatures were forged on letters of authority by copying signatures from other documents in the possession of H & H. CMR said in the Decision that because this issue related to half the files it had reviewed, the issue was likely to be widespread in H & H's business practices and had the potential to cause detriment to clients. CMR therefore decided that H & H had acted in breach of General Rule 2 which, inter-alia, required a business to make representations to a third party that substantiate and evidence the basis of a claim to be specific to each claim and not fraudulent, false or misleading and Client Specific Rule 1 which requires a business to act fairly and reasonably in dealings with all client

For the reasons we have given above, we regard the issue regarding the copying of signatures as being serious as well. The detriment caused had the potential to affect a considerable number of consumers and the fact that there were no actual complaints from consumers is not relevant. In those circumstances, CMR was correct in regarding the nature of the breaches being escalated, and the seriousness as medium, according to CMR's guidance, as set out at [35] to [36] above.

The company were fined for sending millions of nuisance texts in May 2019 https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2019/05/ico-fines-ppi-claims-company-120-000-for-millions-of-nuisance-texts/

Also the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against them - https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/hall-and-hanley-ltd-a16-366890.html


The company are still FCA authorised with NO REQUIREMENTS - https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_Fir...000000i9XxeAAE

[monsal]

This is the second fine for a CMC announced this week. I would like to think that this is the start of tighter and proper regulation of these firms but only time will tell

[Amethyst]

One can only hope.

[R0b]

Seems like a slap on the wrist if I may say so. Forgery is a fraudulent act and is deemed one of the most serious offences so it's surprising to see that they continue to be authorised. If this was any other sector, be it solicitor, accountant, doctor etc. they would have been struck off.

If the FCA are not looking into their permissions after being found guilty of being dishonest and acting in a fraudulent manner, there is something seriously wrong.

[EXC]

This is the second fine for a CMC announced this week. I would like to think that this is the start of tighter and proper regulation of these firms but only time will tell

In both of these cases the fines were actually imposed by the previous regulator, appealed by the CMCs to the Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld them after FCA happened to have taken over. I don't think the FCA can claim any credit for them or that they are in any way a result of tighter regulation. The jury's still out on that.

[monsal]

In both of these cases the fines were actually imposed by the previous regulator, appealed by the CMCs to the Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld them after FCA happened to have taken over. I don't think the FCA can claim any credit for them or that they are in any way a result of tighter regulation. The jury's still out on that.

I know.....but its Christmas and I was being unusually positive and hoping that the FCA will have this as one of their New Year's resolutions!

[EXC]

I know.....but its Christmas and I was being unusually positive and hoping that the FCA will have this as one of their New Year's resolutions!

Fair enough!