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 바카라 사이트“- application for a direction to suspend effect of Notice until reference disposed of 바카라 사이트“ Notice varied a Part IV permission by removal of all regulated activities with immediate effect 바카라 사이트“ 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) 바카라 사이트“ 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 바카라 사이트“ whether Tribunal satisfied that a direction to suspend the effect of the Notice would not prejudice the interests of consumers 바카라 사이트“ no 바카라 사이트“ whether necessary for notice to take effect immediately - yes 바카라 사이트“ whether removal of all regulated activities proportionate to the concerns being addressed by the Notice 바카라 사이트“ yes 바카라 사이트“ application dismissed 바카라 사이트“ Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules 2001 SI 2001 No. 2476; Rule 10(1((e) and 10(6).