Somal added: “Whilst I am pleased that the FCA has acknowledged its service failings in addressing your complaint, I do still feel that the wording used in its four weekly update emails to you created an incorrect impression about how your complaint would be progressed and that it should apologise to you for any confusion that this caused to you.
“I also feel that moving forwards the FCA should consider reviewing the wording of its update emails to better communicate that its next correspondence will confirm whether the complaint can be investigated under the complaints scheme and if it can that it will provide the complainant with its understanding of their complaint at that time.”
In the FCA's response published yesterday (December 7), it said it accepted the wording used in some of its correspondence with the complainant would have been confusing and created an incorrect impression.
“We have written to the complainant to apologise for this,” it said. “In relation to the recommendation to review the wording of our update letters, we have not accepted this on the basis that the relevant correspondence has already been reviewed and updated in response to a recommendation made in another recent complaint.”
“In relation to the suggestion that we may wish to review the information we hold about PII cover for firms first authorised by the Financial Services Authority in 2005, we do not propose to carry out a review as suggested.
“All authorised firms submit the same PII information to us under their regulatory returns, irrespective of the date when they were first authorised.”
sonia.rach@ft.com
What do you think about the issues raised by this story? Email us on FTAletters@ft.com to let us know
