FSA fines and bans 'unqualified' Bolton mortgage broker

Author: Laura Miller
IFAonline | 20 Jan 2010 | 10:11

Categories: Industry

Topics: FSA| | mortgage fraud

FSA headquarters

The FSA has fined and banned a Bolton-based mortgage and insurance broker after discovering he had no relevant financial qualifications or experience.

Riaz Ahmad has been fined £5,000 and forbidden from working in regulated financial services for acting without competence and capability at Finance.com.

In an interview with the regulator Ahmad admitted he had no relevant qualifications or financial advisory experience, despite holding managerial roles as training and competency supervisor and complaints officer at Finance.com.

Ahmad's failings, including a lapses in compliance and risk management, were initially picked up by the FSA during a treating customers fairly (TCF) assessment when the regulator found he was unable to demonstrate the level of competence needed to be an approved person.

Without qualifications or experience the FSA concluded Ahmed could not understand the responsibilities associated with running a regulated mortgage business, putting customers at risk of receiving unsuitable mortgage advice.

It also found mortgage applications had been submitted to lenders containing inaccurate and misleading information.

Margaret Cole, director of enforcement and financial crime at the FSA says: "Ahmad failed to meet the minimum standards we require of an approved person; because of this we have concluded that he is not fit and proper to run a regulated firm.

"This action confirms our ongoing commitment to ensuring that customers are treated fairly. When firms fall short of these requirements, we will not hesitate to take action and the worst offenders will be punished severely."

Had it not been for Ahmad's financial hardship, the FSA would have sought a fine of £17,000.

As Ahmad is the sole director and only approved person at Finance.com, his ban means the firm is unable to continue trading.

Finance.com and Ahmad became authorised and regulated by the FSA in August 2005.

 

More industry news

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

No Qualifications!!!!

Pot calling the kettle black again. What qualifications have the FSA staff got? In the majority of cases, none at all. Another wooden spoon awarded to the FSA.

Posted by: Incompetent Regulators Awards Team

20 Jan 2010 | 10:59
Complain about this comment

OK I am very confused now

With mortgage broker firms, whilst it is only necessary under the rules to have ONE person who is qualified, how on EARTH did the FSA manage to make him an approved person in 2005 without evidence that he WAS qualified? Either he manufactured false qualifications or someone at the FSA cocked up. Has the member of staff at the FSA moved on or are they still there? Has the FSA staff member been disciplined/their bonus cancelled? What lessons have the FSA and the staff who failed to spot this at the application for approval stage learnt from this? If a client complains, why should the FSCS (and hence other firms) be expected to pick up the bill for upheld complainst for this firm, when the error was on the part opf the FSA approving someone who should not have been approved. This should come from the FSA's bonus pot before payemnt of bonuses and NOT from the FSCS first....

Posted by: Phil Castle

20 Jan 2010 | 11:11
Complain about this comment

Incompetent Regulators Awards Team

Stupid comment from the above about the regulators qualifications. How could someone become directly regulated in 2005, trade through the good years, get hit with only a £5000 fine. Forget being banned, he should never have been able to trade anyway. My questions Did he have indemnity insurance? Did he pay income tax? Is he going to be charged with fraud for obviously falisfying his application form? Who helped him? Who were the compliance professionals? What about anti-money laundering? I want 200 comments quickly, to raise awareness of this case. If the fine were more realistic to the tune of £100000's it would be on the BBC. The then head of new authorisations needs to be sacked. What's the point of playing by the rules if fraud pays?

Posted by: A bolton Broker

20 Jan 2010 | 11:20
Complain about this comment

Four years of approval with no qualifications?

The FSA need to answer some very serious questions as to how this person was approved in the first place and why it took 4 years to spot the mistake. I agree this is one the press should be taking up.

Posted by: Philip Bell

20 Jan 2010 | 11:41
Complain about this comment

Heads should roll

This is outrageous and would never had happened if the FSA were doing their job properly in taking the necessary due dilligence when authorising the man. Somebody needs to be found accountable at the FSA for allowing this to happen.

Posted by: Cheltenham IFA

20 Jan 2010 | 11:49
Complain about this comment

Xmas Party Fund

This bandit was unauthorised so how can the FSA fine him? Surely this is a criminal matter and not an excuse to top the social fund up. Did the lenders not check his authorisation to set up an agency? Well done for catching him but we are accountable for every solitary movement yet he escapes jail for fraud and obtaining money by deception unless there is a separate case.Leniency on the fine? He wasn't authorised !! Absolutely digusted!

Posted by: Peter Taylor

20 Jan 2010 | 12:01
Complain about this comment

Unqualified Bolton Mortgage Broker

This beggars belief. The man and woman in the street will be entitled to wonder whether the protection allegedly offered offered by FSA authorisation, is worth the paper it is written on.

Posted by: Edinburgh Broker

20 Jan 2010 | 12:44
Complain about this comment

Double Standards

'he put his customers at risk of unsuitable advice'? He presumably did not have the processes and controls to spot and stop a fraud being committed? So what procedures and controls have the FSA got to stop this happening? How did he obtain his CCL? Why was he only fined £5k, when a broker last year was fined £10k for submitting self-cert cases and getting clients to sign to confirm they could afford the payments. Was it only £5k because the FSA were embarrassed about their own failings? In which case, us advisers should demand compensation. This guy has damaged our good name, and could've risked the public's faith in the industry, all because the FSA wanted to boost their authorisation numbers in 2005!!

Posted by: Dermot Brannigan

21 Jan 2010 | 10:52
Complain about this comment

Related articles

Most Read

Audio / Visual

Coffee Lounge

View all the winners here

PPR Structured Product Awards 2011

View all the winners here

This year we have 14 awards designed to mark out the very best products in a highly competitive and innovative market. This includes three new awards for 2011 to reflect the developments in this rapidly growing market: Best Dual/Multi-Index Product, Best Structured (Oeic) Fund and Best Structured Product Provider.

Events

event logo

fund5live

21 Feb 2012 - 29 Feb 2012

London, UK

event logo

COVER Breakfast Briefing: Cash Plans

27 Mar 2012 - 27 Mar 2012

London, UK

event logo

Buy to Let Market Forum

17 Apr 2012 - 18 Apr 2012

London, UK

Poll

How long do you expect the coalition Tory/Lib Dem government to last?

In Focus

Viewpoints