Related provisions for SUP 15.3.20
21 - 40 of 51 items.
Where the FSA receives a complaint about a recognised body, it will, in the first instance, seek to establish whether the complainant has approached the recognised body. Where this is not the case, the FSA will ask the complainant to complain to the recognised body. Where the complainant is dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint, but has not exhausted the recognised body's own internal complaints procedures (in the case of a complaint against a UK recognised body, including
(1) 8If the UK firm'sEEA right derives from the Banking Consolidation Directive, the Investment Services Directive or the UCITS Directive, the FSA will give the Host State regulator a consent notice within three months unless it has reason to doubt the adequacy of a UK firm's resources or its administrative structure.8(2) 8(a) If the UK firm'sEEA right derives from the Insurance Directives, the FSA will give the Host State regulator a consent notice within three months unless
Business and internal control risks vary from firm to firm, according to the nature and complexity of the business. The FSA's assessment of these risks is reflected in how its rules apply to different categories of firm as well as in the use of its other regulatory tools. One of the tools the FSA has available is to give a firm individual guidance on the application of the requirements or standards under the regulatory system in the firm's particular circumstances.
The high level requirement for appropriate systems and controls at SYSC 3.1.1 R applies at all times, including when a business continuity plan is invoked. However, the FSA recognises that, in an emergency, a firm may be unable to comply with a particular rule and the conditions for relief are outlined in GEN 1.3 (Emergency).
Under Principle 11 and SUP 15.3.1 R, a firm must notify the FSA immediately of any operational risk matter of which the FSA would reasonably expect notice. SUP 15.3.8 G provides guidance on the occurrences that this requirement covers, which include a significant failure in systems and controls and a significant operational loss.
An approved person performing a significant influence function will not
always manage the business on a day-to-day basis himself. The extent to which
he does so will depend on a number of factors, including the nature, scale
and complexity of the business and his position within it. The larger and
more complex the business, the greater the need for clear and effective delegation
and reporting lines. The FSA will look to the approved person performing a significant
influence function
The FSAmay seek to vary a firm's Part IV permission on its own initiative
in certain situations including
the following:(1) If
the FSA determines
that a firm's management, business
or internal controls give rise
to material risks that are not fully addressed by its rules,
the FSAmay
seek to vary
the firm's Part
IV permission and impose an additional requirement or limitation on the firm.(2) If
a firm becomes or is to become
involved with new products or selling practices which
The following events are examples of events likely to affect an assessment of whether an overseas recognised body is continuing to satisfy the recognition requirements, or to have an effect on competition:(1) significant changes to any relevant law or regulation in its home territory, including laws or regulations:(a) governing exchanges or clearing houses;(b) designed to prevent insider dealing, market manipulation or other forms of market abuse or misconduct;(c) designed to
A firm should consider whether it should notify the FSA under Principle 11 if:(1) the firm expects or knows its auditor will qualify his report on the audited annual financial statements or add an explanatory paragraph; or (2) the firm receives a written communication from its auditor commenting on internal controls (see also SUP 15.3).