The Co-Operative Bank P.L.C.

FCA action

actions

3

in fines

£113k

most recent

February 2016

• Publicly censured on 2 February 2016

  On 11 August 2015, the PRA published a statement (“Public Censure”), pursuant to section 205 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, to the effect that the Co-operative Bank plc contravened regulatory requirements imposed on it. Specifically, between 22 July 2009 and 31 December 2013, it breached Principle 3 (management and control) and Principle 11 (relations with regulators) of the FSA’s (and after 1 April 2013, the PRA’s) Principles for Businesses.  In the circumstances of this case, the PRA considered that imposing a financial penalty on the Co-operative Bank plc would not advance its general objective to promote the safety and soundness of the firms which it regulates. Were it not for this consideration, the PRA would have imposed a financial penalty of £121.86 million for the breaches.  A copy of the Final Notice can be found on the Bank of England website and can be accessed.

• Publicly censured on 11 August 2015

  On 11 August 2015, the FCA published a statement (Public Censure) to the effect; the Firm contravened regulatory requirements, in that it breached the Authority's Listing Rule 1.3.3R between 21 March 2013 and 17 June 2013 (the Relevant Period) and breached Principle 11 of the FCA's Principles for Businesses between 25 April 2012 and 9 May 2013 (the Relevant Period).    The Firm agreed to settle in Stage 1. The serious failings in this case merited a substantial financial penalty, however given the circumstances of the case; the Authority did not impose a financial penalty. The Firm breached the Authority's Listing Rule 1.3.3R (misleading information not to be published). This was as a result of the statements made regarding its capital position in its Financial Statements for the year ending 31 December 2012.    The specific nature of the Firm's breach was as follows: (1) statements made about capital in the 2012 Financial Statements were false and misleading; (2) it should have been apparent to the Firm, that a statement made in relation to capital held above the Firm's Individual Capital Guidance (ICG), was a misleading statement; (3) there was no reasonable basis for stating that the Firm had adequate capital in the most severe stress scenarios, the same assertion had already been removed from another section of the Financial Statements after concerns were raised about its accuracy. In addition, the Firm breached Principle 11 by failing to notify the FCA of intended changes to senior individuals. The specific nature of the Firm's breach was as follows:  there were two separate discussions, during the Relevant Period, amongst certain senior individuals about the future position of two key individuals and, as a result, it was intended that the holders of these key positions would change. The FCA was not informed of either of these intended changes in a timely manner.

• Fined £113,300 on 9 January 2013

  On 9 January 2013 the FSA imposed a financial penalty of £113,300 on The Co-operative Bank plc (Co-op or the Firm) for breaches of Principle 6 (Customers' interests) of the FSA's Principles for Businesses (the Principles) and Rules in the Dispute Resolution: Complaints Sourcebook (DISP). The breaches occurred between 21 January 2011 to 9 May 2011 (the Relevant Period). Co-op agreed to settle at an early stage of the FSA's investigation. The Firm therefore qualified for a 30% (Stage 1) discount under the FSA's executive settlement procedures. Were it not for this discount, the FSA would have imposed a financial penalty of £161,910 on Co-op. In the Relevant Period there were serious failings in Co-op's handling of complaints arising from sales of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI). In August 2010, the FSA published Policy Statement 10/12, The Assessment and Redress of Payment Protection Insurance complaints' (PS 10/12). On 8 October 2010, the British Bankers' Association (BBA) and Nemo Personal Finance Limited (NPF) began judicial review proceedings (the JR) challenging the FSA's decision to introduce the measures set out in PS 10/12. On 21 January 2011, the FSA sent a letter to various trade associations (which was also published on the FSA website at the same time) setting out its expectations for PPI complaint handling during the course of the JR (the FSA Letter). The FSA Letter was a reminder that, despite the legal challenge to the PPI complaint handling measures, the FSA expected firms to progress PPI complaints received which were not affected by the issues raised in the JR. The FSA Letter outlined at a high level the types of complaint that the FSA considered could be progressed notwithstanding the JR, and provided examples of these. The JR was rejected by the High Court on 20 April 2011. On 9 May 2011, the BBA and NPF decided not to appeal against the judgment bringing the JR proceedings to an end. In dealing with PPI complaints in the Relevant Period, Co-op breached Principle 6 by failing to pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. Co-op's process for dealing with PPI complaints during the JR was inadequate and was likely to lead to a failure to identify complaints capable of being progressed during that period. As a result, Co-op incorrectly stayed PPI complaints that were capable of being progressed (and in circumstances specifically identified in the FSA Letter as the type of complaints which should be progressed during the JR). Co-op also failed to send a final response to some complainants within the eight-week timescale prescribed by DISP 1.6.2R. The FSA regards these failings as serious. The reasons for this are: (1) the failings occurred despite the FSA issuing the FSA Letter. This should have prompted Co-op to review its Policy and consider whether changes needed to be made in light of the FSA Letter. In fact, Co-op reviewed its Policy and decided no amendment was required notwithstanding the contents of the FSA Letter; (2) the FSA warned in the FSA Letter that action could be taken if failures were identified in the handling of PPI complaints during the Relevant Period; and (3) it is likely that a significant proportion of the complaints received in the Relevant Period were delayed without appropriate justification. The FSA also recognises that: (1) Co-op's process delayed rather than denied consumers redress; (2) in order to address the undue delay in the resolution of complaints, interest was paid to consumers in a manner which Co-op considered to be in line with FSA guidance. Accordingly, the FSA understands that no customer suffered additional financial loss as a result; (3) there is no evidence that the breach indicates a widespread problem or weakness at Co-op; and (4) Co-op has cooperated with the FSA in relation to this matter.

Ombudsman complaints

new complaints, January–June 2025

353

upheld, against a 31% median

40%

about banking and credit

302

A bigger firm gets more complaints simply because it has more customers.

Customer compensation schemes

The FCA has ordered this firm to review past sales and pay back customers who lost out.

• January 2015 To address possible selling issues affecting customers who purchased Card Security Products provided by Affinion International Limited, where the sale (or renewal) of such products was on or after 14 January 2005 and…