15 April 2021: FCA Prohibition of Simon Varley: a Cautionary Tale About Competence and Integrity

Posted on 24 May 2021

The FCA has prohibited Simon John Varley and imposed a financial penalty on him of £68,300.  Whilst an unsurprising result given the facts, the case provides a reminder about how the cover up can often be far worse than the underlying issue; matters relating to competence can become far more serious questions of integrity.  As discussed below, this is particularly timely given the now completed roll-out of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR). 

The facts are relatively involved, but can be summarised for present purposes as follows.  Varley had held various controlled functions at Dickinsons Financial Management Ltd since 2005. These included the director function, the compliance function and the customer function.  Dickinsons' business involved providing financial advice to retail clients.  On 31 December 2012, the FSA's Retail Distribution Review (RDR) took effect.  The core purpose of RDR it will be remembered, was to bring about an enhanced minimum standard of training and competence for retail investment advisers. On 28 January 2013, Varley submitted a Form C on behalf of Dickinsons to withdraw his customer function (CF30).  He later told the FCA that he had done so because he had failed one of the necessary examinations to meet the requirements of RDR, that he had successfully re-taken the exam in the following weeks and then re-applied to have his CF30 status re-instated. Varley also told the FCA that after waiting 6 months before placing business, he believed that his application had been acknowledged by the regulator, and so he commenced placing retail business for Dickinsons again.  However, the FCA had no record of any re-application (Form A) from Varley to perform the CF30 function and his business register showed that he had placed business from January 2013 onwards, without any hiatus. 

On three occasions in 2013 and once in August 2017, only when challenged, Varley provided information to the board of Dickinsons that the matter of his qualifications and FSA/FCA approval was in hand.   It was not until September 2017 that one of the directors of Dickinsons called the FCA to enquire as to why Varley's name still did not appear on the FCA register as a CF30.  When challenged, Varley also told Dickinsons that he had taken the required exam successfully and made an application.  Varley was subsequently suspended by Dickinsons who instructed an internal investigation into the matter.  This concluded that Varley did not have the relevant qualifications and that he had misled Dickinsons and its clients (Varley signed off on suitability reports containing a declaration that he was FCA approved) regarding his FSA/FCA approved status.  In December 2017 Dickinsons notified the FCA of these matters. 

This all had a significant knock-on impact on Dickinsons.  In May 2018, PI insurers avoided cover for that policy year, refused any claims in respect of Varley for the same period and reserved its rights in respect of claims in preceding policy years. This meant that Dickinsons was in effect not insured for the advice that Varley provided (though to date the FCA reports that only one complaint has actually been made, which was not upheld by the FOS).  Varley had been the individual at Dickinsons responsible for preparing the indemnity proposal forms, which also contained inaccurate and misleading information about his qualifications.  In 2019, Dickinsons was placed into voluntary liquidation.

The FCA concluded that Varley had knowingly performed the CF30 controlled function when he knew that he was neither qualified nor approved to do so.  The FCA further concluded that Varley had sought to mislead it, the board of Dickinsons, its insurers and its clients.  The FCA determined that Varley lacked fitness and propriety by virtue of failures of honesty and integrity.  It imposed a full prohibition and a financial penalty of £68,300 based on an assessment that Varley's wrongdoing was at level 4 of 5 in terms of its seriousness. 

Comment

That the FCA determined that Varley's conduct lacked honesty and integrity and that a full prohibition was warranted, is completely unsurprising.  As Mark Steward (Head of FCA Enforcement) said in an associated press release, Varley abused his position of trust and posed a risk to consumers and the UK financial system. 

This case is reminiscent of the decision of RDC (upheld by the Upper Tribunal, albeit for different reasons) in Arif Hussein (2018). In that case, what was in essence a failure of competence became a matter of integrity because of Hussein's submissions as part of the subsequent enforcement process and proceedings before the RDC and Upper Tribunal. This speaks to a broader point of significance that we often come across in the context of misconduct at regulated firms. That is, that the approach taken by a regulated person to dealing with an act or omission, whether as part of an internal process or subsequent regulatory proceedings, can be as important, if not more important, than the underlying act/omission.  It has the potential to turn even low-level matters, or matters relating to competence only, into significant failures of honesty and integrity.  This is important, not least because only very serious competence failings will result in a prohibition.   

How can we help you?
Help

How can we help you?

Subscribe: I'd like to keep in touch

If your enquiry is urgent please call +44 20 3321 7000

Crisis Hotline

COVID-19 Enquiry

I'm a client

I'm looking for advice

Something else