Virenda Rai Agarwala v The Financial Services Authority: Supervisory notice
Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery decision of Judge Brice and Member Carter on 15 January 2007.
Read the full decision in .
SUPERVISORY NOTICE 鈥�- application for a direction to suspend effect of Notice until reference disposed of 鈥� Notice varied a Part IV permission by removal of all regulated activities with immediate effect 鈥� reason for Notice being breach of threshold conditions and Principles 1 (conducting business with integrity); 6 (treating customers fairly); and 11 (dealing with FSA in an open and co-operative way) 鈥� in his applications for permission to conduct regulated activities the Applicant had failed to disclose that he had been erased from the Register of Practising Insurance Brokers in 1993; that he had been expelled from membership of the Personal Investment Authority in 1997; and that the Financial Ombudsman Service had expressed the preliminary view in 2003 that advice to a client about pension arrangements had not been suitable and that the Applicant should pay redress if there had been any loss 鈥� whether Tribunal satisfied that a direction to suspend the effect of the Notice would not prejudice the interests of consumers 鈥� no 鈥� whether necessary for notice to take effect immediately - yes 鈥� whether removal of all regulated activities proportionate to the concerns being addressed by the Notice 鈥� yes 鈥� application dismissed 鈥� Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules 2001 SI 2001 No. 2476; Rule 10(1((e) and 10(6).