Stephen Grant Forster t/a Premier Research and Marketing v The Financial Conduct Authority

Periodic regulatory returns are a central part of the supervisory system, not optional administrative paperwork. An authorised firm’s prolonged and complete failure to file returns may establish failure to satisfy the suitability Threshold Condition, even without evidence of dishonesty or proven consumer harm. Serious personal difficulties, firm size, long experience and the absence of complaints do not excuse wholesale non-compliance where the firm continues regulated activity. The relevant question on a reference is whether the regulator’s decision fell outside the range of reasonable decisions open to it. Cancellation may be proportionate where repeated reminders, extensions, stays and opportunities to file have produced no compliance and there is no credible prospect of future compliance.

The applicant, a sole-trader financial adviser authorised under Part 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, referred to the Upper Tribunal against the FCA’s Decision Notice of 21 November 2024. The FCA had cancelled his permission under section 55J after he failed to submit any periodic regulatory returns after 2019.

The applicant accepted the non-submission but relied on serious personal, medical and family circumstances, lack of administrative support, alleged disproportionality and alleged breaches of Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention. The central issue was whether cancellation was reasonably open to the FCA in light of the prolonged non-compliance, its supervisory consequences, the applicant’s prospects of future compliance and the available mitigating circumstances.

1. Reference dismissed. Under section 133 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Tribunal had to decide whether the FCA’s cancellation decision was within the range of reasonable decisions open to it on the evidence, rather than substitute its own decision. The reference was dismissed.
2. Periodic returns required by SUP 16 were a central component of supervision. They supplied information about financial resources, client money, professional indemnity insurance, adviser competence, business activity and complaints. The obligations applied equally to sole advisers, and many entries required only simple figures, confirmations or nil returns.
3. The complete failure to file any return for more than six years deprived the FCA of essential supervisory visibility and was a patent breach of the suitability condition in paragraph 2E of Schedule 6. Suitability required more than honesty; it included readiness, willingness and organisation to comply with regulatory obligations.
4. The applicant’s serious personal and family difficulties were accepted, but did not reasonably explain the failure to file even one return while he continued regulated activity. The FCA had repeatedly granted extensions, offered to accept the latest returns first and agreed stays. No concrete or credible basis established that further time would produce compliance.
5. Cancellation was proportionate. The comparison with North London Van Centre Limited v FCA showed that much shorter periods of late filing could justify cancellation, whereas this case involved complete non-submission and more than 120 outstanding returns. The absence of proven consumer harm, the applicant’s integrity, firm size and financial consequences did not alter the conclusion.
6. Articles 3, 6 and 8 were not breached. Article 3’s high threshold was not met. Any administrative procedural defect was cured by the de novo Tribunal hearing, and the timetable had repeatedly been adjusted. Any Article 8 interference, assuming engagement, was lawful, pursued consumer protection and was proportionate.

The reference arose from the FCA’s Decision Notice dated 21 November 2024, cancelling the applicant’s Part 4A permission under section 55J of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the reference.