R - Regulated activity
15/3/24
KUMAR v LSC FINANCE LTD [2024] EWCA Civ 254
Although a loan agreement had not contained a sufficient declaration to give rise to a presumption that the loan fell outside the scope of FCA regulation, the declaration taken with other evidence had been sufficient to establish that the loan had been made for business purposes and had not been to provide the borrowers with a dwelling, so the agreement was an investment property loan and not a regulated mortgage contract.
30/6/20
THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY v ACADE LTD [2020] EWHC 1673 (Ch)
Considers whether activities by a company which did not have FCA authorisation had been regulated activities within the FSMA 2000. Considers whether the company had been “making arrangements” for investments within article 25 of the Regulated Activities Order (RAO) [193] and advising on investments within article 53 of the RAO [298]. Also considers the meaning of financial promotions [356], whether false or misleading statements had been made [379] and whether the individuals involved had been knowingly concerned in the contraventions [448] for the purpose of making restitution orders against them under s 382 FSMA. On the facts the contraventions alleged by the FSA had been made out and the individuals were found to have been knowingly concerned in the relevant infringements.
5/2/14
THAKKER v NORTHERN ROCK (ASSET MANAGEMENT) PLC [2014] EWHC 2107 (QB)
Non-compliance with the Mortgage Conduct of Business Rules (MCOB) did not provide a defence to a mortgagee’s claim for possession.
2/8/13
When positions on the complainant’s forex trading account were opened and closed, he acquired rights within article 85(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001. Those rights were a kind of investment specified for the purposes of s 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and therefore FOS had jurisdiction under s 226 over the complainant’s complaint about the management of his account.
18/6/13
EMPTAGE v FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPENSATION SCHEME LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 729
A claimant given negligent advice to increase her mortgage and invest in Spanish property, was entitled to compensation in respect of the Spanish property. The compensation scheme had been wrong to refuse compensation on the ground that the purchase of the Spanish property was unregulated business outside the scheme. All the loss flowed from the negligent mortgage advice which was within the scheme. Credit would have had to be given for the value of the asset purchased but the Spanish property had no residual value so there was no element of double recovery.
© Copyright 2014 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer