A broker banned and fined £100,000 by the FSA has accused the FSA of ‘defamation of character’, claiming that the regulator is still yet to inform him personally of his punishment.

Last week, the FSA revealed that Stephen Jones, senior partner at Jones & Poole Independent Mortgage Specialists, had been adjudged to have exposed around 1500 customers to the risk of receiving unsuitable advice.

It found that he failed to control his business effectively or to make sure that it met regulatory requirements and he did not treat customers fairly when recommending mortgage contracts.

The FSA also found that before an FSA visit, Jones arranged for customers to sign and backdate retrospective fact-find documents for completed sales, so that it would appear that he had created contemporaneous sales documents, as well as providing a lender with false income information to support his own mortgage application.

Sponsored

Conversations you need to have with landlords before the Renters’ Rights Act

Sponsored by BM Solutions

Jonathan Phelan, head of retail enforcement at the FSA, said: “Jones’s fraudulent mortgage application and his dishonesty in attempting to cover up regulatory failings were completely unacceptable, warranting a ban and a large financial penalty.”

However, a furious Jones protested his innocence, pointing out that the firm had already been visited by Bankhall for a compliance check and given a clean bill of health before its review by the regulator. Both he and his partner, Simon Poole, were interviewed in October last year, with the FSA’s main concern that the firm traded from two separate locations – Jones in North Wales, and Poole in Chester.

Jones maintains that he has heard nothing from the FSA since November, when an FSA staff member called to inform him that they had taken over his case.

He said: “Prior to the FSA visit, I had already got out of the industry. It was only on 25 April 2008 that the FSA finally accepted we were no longer trading together and dissolved the partnership, but they only wrote to my ex-partner.

“I have been trading for 18 years and had no complaints. This is detrimental to my character. I have not had any documents or phone calls since November last year. I will be taking legal advice: the FSA implies I have committed fraud and am dishonest. I am adamant I have not.

“It is £100,000 that I do not have. For this amount of money, they could at least have had the courtesy to tell me. They have not given me any proof.”

A spokesman for the FSA said that all enforcement documentation is sent via recorded delivery, and that it was now checking to confirm receipt.

Poole was also fined by the regulator, in his case £7000, qualifying for a 30% discount after agreeing to settle at an early stage. The regulator found that he had exposed 750 clients to the risk of unsuitable advice, having failed to record whether he had assessed clients’ ability to afford a mortgage. He also failed to implement changes recommended by a compliance consultant.

Phelen commented: “Poole’s failings were of a lesser order and although they were deserving of a fine he has not been banned. It was in effect a dysfunctional partnership. It is important that partnerships which carry on regulated financial services business are organised so they can be controlled as a single business with clear lines of responsibility and accountability.”