The FCA has reviewed the training its consumer contact staff receive after someone was wrongly told an insurance broker firm would protect them if an investment failed.
It has also apologised and made a goodwill payment of £1,000 to the unnamed consumer who made a £22,000 investment in a hotel development in the USA.
Before making the investment in 2012 he had contacted the then-FSA and was told the firm they were dealing with was an introducer appointed representative of an insurance broker firm which would protect them if poor advice was provided by the introducer.
This was confirmed in an email from the FSA to the consumer later the same day.
The Complaints Commissioner has ruled this week the assurances the consumer received were incorrect and ordered the FCA to make the payment and review the training provided to its consumer contact centre staff.
In his decision commissioner Antony Townsend highlighted the fact that the consumer had contacted the FSA months previously and was told the investment scheme “had the hallmarks of a scam” and that it was unregulated activity.
He said: “I agree with the FCA that it should not act as a guarantor of investments which investors should know are inherently risky, but the answer to that is that the FCA should not give erroneous advice about guarantees.
“The complainant in this case may have been naïve to rely upon the FCA’s advice, but having obtained it in writing he was entitled to do so.”
In 2013 the arrangement between the insurance broker firm and the introducer was terminated and the consumer complained to the former that the investment had “failed”.
Mr Townsend added that if the consumer provides evidence of the extent of his losses than the FCA would have to refund the entire £22,0042.65 investment.
The FCA said: “Our CCC training has been reviewed in light of this case and found to be correct and fit for purpose.
“It is unfortunate that the complainant received incorrect information but that this appears to have been as a result of an error by the call handler involved.
“The call handler in this case misunderstood the issue the complainant was raising and subsequently did not follow the briefing on how to handle this type of call.”
The FCA said the call handler was provided with feedback about this case and that it has apologised to the consumer.
