Related provisions for ICOBS 4.1.4
61 - 80 of 121 items.
1The grounds on which the FCA may exercise its power to cancel an authorised person's
permission under section 55J of the Act are the same as the grounds for variation and for imposition of requirements. They are set out in section 55J(1) and section 55L(2) and described in EG 8.1.1. Examples of the types of circumstances in which the FCA may cancel a firm'sPart 4A permission include: (1) non-compliance with a Financial Ombudsman Service award against the
If the person with or for whom the firm is carrying on an activity is acting through an agent, the ability of the firm to treat the agent as its client under COBS 2.4.3 R3 (Agent as client) will not be available. For example, if a general insurer is effecting a general insurance contract through a general insurance broker who is acting as agent for a disclosed policyholder, the policyholder will be a client of the firm and the firm must comply with the Principles accordingly.
4As well as potentially breaching the requirements in this section, misleading statements by a firm may involve a breach of Principle 7 (Communications with clients) or section Part 7 (Offences relating to financial services) of the Financial Services Act 2012, as well as giving rise to private law actions for misrepresentation.
(1) 21Authorised fund managers of UCITS schemes or EEA UCITS schemes should bear in mind that where a UCITS scheme, or an EEA UCITS scheme that is a recognised scheme under section 264 of the Act, employs particular investment strategies such as those in (2)21, COBS 4.13.2R (Marketing communications relating to UCITS schemes or EEA UCITS schemes) and COBS 4.13.3R (Marketing communications relating to a feeder UCITS) contain additional disclosure requirements in relation to marketing
713If a complaint relates to the sale of a payment protection contract, knowledge by the complainant that there was a problem with the sale of the payment protection contract generally (for example where there has been a rejection of a claim on the grounds of ineligibility or exclusion, or the complainant has received a customer contact letter explaining that they may have been mis-sold) would not in itself ordinarily be sufficient to establish for the purposes of the three-year