We’re inviting applications from senior practitioners at smaller regulated firms in the general insurance and consumer credit sectors to join the panel. The Smaller Business Practitioner Panel provides independent advice and challenge from the perspective of smaller firms, helping to shape our work at a time of significant change in UK financial services regulation.Its key remit is to provide input to the FCA from the industry to help us meet our strategic and operational objectives from a sm...
The PRA’s Policy Statement PS13/26 finalises the CP20/25 proposals on UK branches of third‑country (re)insurers, including raising the subsidiarisation threshold, embedding existing reporting and investment waivers into the Rulebook, and updating supervisory expectations on ORSA and resolution. Compliance teams at third‑country branches must now recalibrate threshold monitoring, overhaul reporting processes, and update governance and documentation to align with the revised Third Country Branches and Reporting Parts of the PRA Rulebook, updated SSs, and new Statements of Policy.
---
What Changed
- The PRA confirms an increase in the third‑country branch subsidiarisation threshold for liabilities covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) from £500 million to £600 million,...
Third‑country branch undertakings are now explicitly required to notify the PRA where projections show their FSCS‑covered liabilities may exceed the £600 million subsidiarisation threshold within a...
The PRA embeds in the Rulebook new quantitative thresholds for regulatory reporting, replacing the existing modification by consent (MbC) under Solvency II Reporting 2.2(1) for third‑country...
Under the new regime, only branches (excluding pure reinsurance branches) with at least £1 billion gross written premiums or £2 billion in branch provisions (based on the prior year’s annual...
The PRA discontinues quarterly reporting for certain non‑life claims templates and reinstates two annual reporting templates (IR.19.01.01 – non‑life insurance claims and IR.20.01.01 – development of...
Suggested Considerations
Assess current and projected FSCS‑covered UK branch liabilities against the new £600 million subsidiarisation threshold and implement or update a robust three‑year forecasting process to identify potential threshold breaches.
Update internal PRA notification procedures and early‑warning triggers so that the branch informs the PRA promptly if forecasts show FSCS‑covered liabilities could exceed the £600 million threshold within three years.
For branches approaching or exceeding the new threshold, initiate or refresh internal structural options analysis (branch vs subsidiary), including timeline, capital, governance, and operational impacts, and prepare for early engagement with the PRA on subsidiarisation expectations.
Map gross written premiums and branch provisions against the new £1 billion GWP and £2 billion provisions reporting thresholds and determine whether the branch will be subject to the full or reduced suite of third‑country branch regulatory reporting templates from 31 December 2026.
Redesign regulatory reporting processes, systems, and controls to align with the new reporting perimeter, including identifying which templates will be required, adjusting data capture, and ensuring capacity to produce reinstated templates IR.19.01.01 and IR.20.01.01 on an annual basis.
Key Dates
16 September 2025
– PRA publishes CP20/25, proposing changes to third‑country branch policy, including the higher subsidiarisation threshold and new reporting thresholds
16 December 2025
– Consultation period for CP20/25 closes; representations received from affected firms and stakeholders
Q1–Q2 2026
– PRA indicates that the increase in subsidiarisation threshold from £500 million to £600 million would take effect on publication of the relevant policy statement (PS13/26), with immediate relevance for threshold monitoring and branch vs subsidiary planning
31 December 2026
– Rulebook and policy changes (including amendments to the Third Country Branches and Reporting Parts, reinstatement of annual templates IR.19.01.01 and IR.20.01.01, embedded reporting thresholds, embedded pure reinsurance relief, updates to SS44/15, SS41/15, SS19/16, SoP6/24, SoP7/24, and SoP1/19, and disapplication/restatement of EIOPA Branch Guidelines) are scheduled to come into force
Compliance Impact
The impact is material for all UK branches of third‑country (re)insurers, particularly those near the new subsidiarisation and reporting thresholds, with consequences including potential forced subsidiarisation, expanded reporting burdens, or supervisory challenge if expectations on forecasting, ORSA, or resolution planning are not met. Non‑compliance could trigger PRA supervisory interventions, restrictions on business, and increased scrutiny during authorisation and ongoing supervision.
Half (49%) of young drivers have bought insurance through social media or messaging apps, new research reveals. With 4 in 10 (39%) unconfident in spotting the signs of a fake policy, thousands could be paying for cover that doesn’t exist. The FCA is warning 17-to 25-year-old drivers about 'ghost broking' scams where criminals sell bogus insurance policies through social media and messaging platforms.Ghost brokers pose as legitimate insurance sellers but offer cheap rates. The policies they se...
Why frontier AI matters for firmsArtificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve rapidly. Frontier AI models represent a step-change in capability, with significant implications for cyber security and operational resilience.The cyber capabilities of current frontier AI models are already exceeding what a skilled practitioner could achieve, and at a significantly higher speed, greater scale, and lower cost. These capabilities, if used maliciously, amplify cyber threats to firms’ safety and so...
The FCA is reviewing how consumer investment firms support bereaved customers and whether they're getting it right. Fewer than half of bereaved customers (47%) felt they received the support they needed from financial firms, according to research (PDF).What the FCA is looking atThe review will focus on firms that advise, manage, or administer investments - including platforms, advisers and wealth managers. The FCA will examine the experience customers have from the moment the firm is told abo...
The FCA has banned Frank Breuer from working in UK financial services and fined him £755,000 for repeatedly acting without integrity and putting customers at risk for personal financial gain. Mr Breuer was the joint owner and sole director of Bluesky Wealth Management Limited (Bluesky), which provided advice on investments and pensions. Although authorised to advise on defined benefit (DB) pension transfers, the firm did not have the appropriate professional insurance in place from April 2019...
We are launching a review of the claims management market, following concerns that consumers are being failed by some claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms. The review will look at the root causes of poor practices across the market, like aggressive marketing, misleading advertising and unfair exit fees. Other concerns include consumers being signed up without their consent - without clear, upfront explanations of the implications of signing up or ticking a box, for example on soci...
Funded reinsurance transactions involving UK life insurers will face enhanced regulatory requirements under new proposals unveiled today by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA).
We have published findings from our Financial Adviser Survey. The findings provide an updated picture of how the UK financial advice market is evolving and what this means for firms, consumers and future growth. The survey brings together responses from more than 4,100 financial advice firms; alongside analysis of data we already hold on around 31,000 advisers.Overall, it shows a market that remains broadly stable and continues to support millions of clients, even as firms adapt to consolidat...
The PRA's CP7/26 consultation proposes fee rates and amendments to the Fees Part of the PRA Rulebook for 2026/27 to meet a Total Funding Requirement (TFR) of £346.6 million, down 1% from 2025/26, primarily funding Ongoing Regulatory Activities (ORA) at £329.3 million. This matters for PRA-authorised firms as it involves adjusted periodic fees across blocks, increased allocations for initiatives like Future Banking Data, and other targeted fees, requiring budget planning and potential consultation responses.
What Changed
- Proposed fee rates to cover the 2026/27 Annual Funding Requirement (AFR) of £329.3 million (ORA only, down 2% from 2025/26).
Increased cost allocation for the Future Banking Data (FBD) programme, from £3.2 million to £6.8 million (111% rise), contributing to 'other fees to industry' rising 26% to £17.4 million.
Adjustments to specific fees: internal model application fees, model maintenance fee (£9.6 million, unchanged), Special Project Fee for restructuring, and new firm authorisation fees for Type 1...
Fee block variations, e.g., A1 (Modified Eligible Liabilities) fee rates down 7% despite 6% tariff data growth; A3 (Gross Written Premiums) down 4%, Best Estimate Liabilities down 2%; minimum fees...
Overall TFR down 1% to £346.6 million, with provisional figures subject to revision based on final costs.
Suggested Considerations
Review proposed fee impacts using tariff data (e.g., via PRA-provided tables) and budget for 2026/27 TFR, including potential increases in FBD/other fees.
Submit responses by 15 May 2026, indicating confidentiality preferences, consent to name publication, and whether responding individually or for an organisation; personal data will be handled per Bank privacy notice.
For new applicants or restructuring firms: Factor in updated authorisation and Special Project Fees during planning.
Monitor PRA Business Plan 2026/27 for funded activities context.
Key Dates
15 May 2026DEADLINE
Consultation response deadline; (responses via email to CP7_26@bankofengland.co.uk or post to PRA Fees Policy Team)
2026/27
Proposed effective period for new fee rates; (following policy statement; exact implementation tied to PRA Rulebook amendments, typically post-consultation)
June/July 2026 (expected)
Policy statement with final rules; (analogous to FCA timeline in CP26/11)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Medium – Firms must incorporate provisional fee changes into 2026/27 financial planning, but overall TFR/ORA reductions mitigate immediate pressure; however, block-specific adjustments (e.g., FBD uplift) and consultation response could affect budgets, with non-response risking unaddressed cost impacts. Dual-regulated firms face compounded effects from FCA CP26/11 (1% fee uplifts).
The 2026/27 Business Plan sets out the workplan for each of our strategic priorities and our strategy to advance our primary and secondary objectives. This year’s business plan confirms the PRA’s continued focus on safety and soundness and policyholder protection, alongside a proportionate and efficient approach to regulation.
The FCA has set out plans to take action against Hartley Pensions Limited and an individual involved at the firm. Hartley was a Self-Invested Personal Pension operator, which went into administration in July 2022. The FCA alleges that Hartley provided it with false and misleading information and improperly withdrew and invested substantial amounts of customers’ pension funds, without their consent, to benefit an individual at the firm.The FCA alleges that the individual dishonestly used the p...
The PRA has finalized the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) Management Expenses Levy Limit (MELL) for 2026/27 at £113 million, effective April 1, 2026. This policy statement confirms the proposed budget following consultation, establishing the maximum amount that FSCS-levy-paying firms must fund for the compensation scheme's operating costs, with implications for all PRA and FCA-authorized firms across banking, insurance, and investment sectors.
What Changed
The final MELL for 2026/27 comprises:
Management expenses budget: £108 million (£4.4 million increase from 2025/26, broadly in line with inflation)
Unlevied reserve: £5 million (for unforeseen costs without requiring further consultation)
Total MELL: £113 million
Budget allocation details:
Investment budget: £5.5 million (10% increase from 2025/26) supporting the FSCS' new five-year strategy launching in 2026/27
Suggested Considerations
*Immediate compliance actions for affected firms:
*Budget planning: Incorporate the £113 million MELL into financial forecasting and levy allocation models for the 2026/27 financial year (April 1, 2026 onwards)
*Levy calculation: Ensure systems are updated to reflect the new budget allocation across PRA and FCA funding classes (detailed in Appendix 4 of CP1/26)
*Reserve provisioning: Account for the £5 million unlevied reserve in contingency planning, recognizing FSCS may levy additional funds at short notice for unforeseen costs
*RCF cost allocation: Confirm whether your firm is subject to the expanded RCF cost allocation (particularly relevant for credit unions, which raised concerns during consultation)
Key Dates
13 January 2026
- Consultation Paper CP1/26 published
10 February 2026DEADLINE
- Consultation deadline
31 March 2026
- Policy Statement PS8/26 issued
1 April 2026
- MELL 2026/27 effective date; FSCS financial year begins
We sympathise with former members of the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) who lost money after they were given unsuitable advice from people they trusted. Complaints are a valuable source of feedback which help us improve and learn. There have also been 4 independent reports into the BSPS since 2018, which have helped us learn lessons. We have accepted several of their recommendations and implemented improvements, including those below.We now have much closer collaboration between the FCA,...
AI Analysis
The FCA's response to the Complaint Commissioner's report on the British Steel Pension Scheme addresses systemic failures in pension transfer advice that affected approximately 7,700 members, with 47% receiving unsuitable advice. This statement demonstrates the FCA's acknowledgment of regulatory shortcomings and outlines remedial measures implemented to prevent similar harm, including enhanced inter-agency collaboration, stricter product governance rules, and a £106 million redress scheme now benefiting 1,870 affected members.
What Changed
The FCA has implemented the following regulatory and operational changes in response to BSPS failures:
Enhanced inter-agency collaboration: Closer coordination between the FCA, The Pensions Regulator, Pension Protection Fund, and Money and Pensions Service to improve intelligence sharing on defined...
Data collection and monitoring: Expanded collection of pension transfer data from advisory firms to proactively identify emerging risks and market trends
Contingent charging ban: Prohibition of contingent charging arrangements for DB pension transfers to eliminate conflicts of interest where adviser compensation depends on transfer completion
Consumer transparency tool: Development of a self-assessment mechanism enabling consumers to identify whether they may have received unsuitable DB pension transfer advice
Suggested Considerations
*For firms that provided DB pension transfer advice:
*Conduct retrospective suitability reviews of all DB pension transfer advice provided, particularly during 2015-2018, identifying unsuitable recommendations
*Calculate and pay redress to affected customers to restore them to their pre-transfer financial position, with reference to the FSCS redress methodology
*Implement enhanced governance for DB pension transfer advice, including:
Documented suitability assessments with clear rationale
Key Dates
Late 2017
- FCA received initial intelligence about poor pension transfer advice quality
December 2018
- FCA published initial findings showing less than 50% of reviewed advice was suitable
May 2020
- FCA directed 45 firms to conduct suitability assessments (Past Business Reviews)
April 2022
- FCA imposed asset retention rules for DB pension transfers
April 2023
- BSPS redress scheme formally introduced, requiring firms to review advice suitability and pay redress
We will set out our approach on motor finance redress shortly after markets close on Monday 30 March, having consulted on a compensation scheme in October 2025.
AI Analysis
The FCA is scheduling its announcement on a proposed motor finance redress scheme—addressing historical commission disclosure failures in car loans—for shortly after markets close on Monday, 30 March 2026, following a consultation launched in October 2025. This matters because it signals imminent final rules that could impose up to GBP11 billion in costs on lenders, affecting millions of consumers and requiring urgent operational preparations to ensure timely payouts in 2026.
What Changed
- Introduction of a 3-month implementation period for most firms, extendable to 5 months for older motor finance agreements, to handle the scheme's scale and complexity.
Streamlined consumer journey: Pre-scheme complainants no longer need to opt out; lenders must notify them of owed compensation within 3 months post-implementation, with immediate acceptance options...
Removal of mandatory recorded delivery for customer communications, allowing flexible channels with fraud safeguards.
No final decision yet on proceeding, but likely modifications based on over 1,000 consultation responses, including backlash from lenders.
Suggested Considerations
Review and prepare systems: Firms must gear up for redress calculations, notifications, and payouts within the 3-5 month implementation window; voluntary early processing encouraged.
Monitor complaints: Advise customers to complain directly (avoiding CMCs to prevent 30%+ fee losses); process pre-scheme complaints under forthcoming rules.
Assess provisions: Quantify exposure (e.g., GBP11 billion industry-wide estimate) and update financial reserves, as done by Santander/Lloyds.
Compliance checks: Ensure communication channels meet fraud safeguards; cease non-compliant practices per FCA interventions.
Stakeholder engagement: Track the 30 March announcement (confirmed date forthcoming) and respond to any residual consultation feedback.
Key Dates
October 2025
Consultation on compensation scheme launched
~June 2026 (3 months post
announcement) - End of standard implementation period; lenders notify consumers of redress
~August 2026 (5 months for older agreements)DEADLINE
Extended implementation deadline
~September 2026 (3 months post
implementation) - Consumers informed of compensation amounts
30 March 2026 (shortly after markets close)
FCA to publish final rules/approach on motor finance redress
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – With the announcement just 6 days away (as of 24 March 2026), firms have minimal time to finalize preparations amid GBP11 billion cost risks, market disruption warnings, and lender pushback; delays could amplify redress delays, fines, or consumer harm claims.
Speech by Nikhil Rathi, FCA chief executive, at the JP Morgan Pensions and Savings Symposium 2026. Last year, I spoke about the importance of getting on the right track.That if we want better consumer outcomes – as well as stronger capital markets to support growth – we need to think beyond individual products and look at the whole financial journey.How pensions interact with housing wealth…How savings interact with advice…And how all these decisions evolve across a lifetime.Over the past yea...
PS7/26 finalizes PRA rules for standardized reporting of operational incidents and material third-party (MTP) arrangements, responding to CP17/24 consultation feedback by reducing firm burden through simplified templates and exclusions. This matters for compliance professionals as it enhances PRA oversight of operational resilience risks amid rising threats and third-party reliance, aligning with international standards like DORA and FSB FIRE while supporting identification of critical third parties (CTPs).
What Changed
- MTP Reporting: Amended notification rule for clarity; scope excludes credit unions with <£50m assets and all third-country branches; separated register and notification templates with reduced data...
Operational Incident Reporting: Merged three-phased reports (initial, interim, final) into one simplified, aligned template across PRA/FCA/Bank; removed fields, made more optional; clarified...
Guidance Enhancements: Updated SS2/21 with MTP identification examples; SS1/26 clarifies threshold interpretation, early-stage assessments, and systemic impact expectations.
Alignment: Full harmonization with FCA/Bank and international standards (DORA, FSB FIRE).
| Aspect | CP17/24 Proposal | PS7/26 Final Policy |
|--------|------------------|---------------------|
|...
Suggested Considerations
Identify and notify MTP arrangements via FCA Connect (excluding exemptions); maintain annual register with reduced fields.
Monitor/assess operational incidents against clarified thresholds (e.g., contagion, reputation); submit single report if met, within specified timelines.
Update policies per SS1/26 (thresholds) and SS2/21 (MTP identification).
Align reporting with PRA/FCA/Bank templates; use data for resilience prioritization.
For insurers: Integrate with ongoing operational resilience post-SS1/21 milestone (31 March 2025).
Key Dates
December 2024
- CP17/24 consultation published
H1 2026
- Final PRA/FCA rules on operational incident and third-party reporting effective (per industry analysis)
30 working days post
incident resolution; - Submit final incident report update (extendable to 60 working days in complex cases)
Annual
- MTP register reporting (exact date not specified; aligns with notifications)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High - Mandates new reporting infrastructure and processes amid rising operational threats; non-compliance risks supervisory action on resilience vulnerabilities. Reduced burden from CP mitigates costs, but timely implementation critical for PRA oversight and CTP identification; benefits (e.g., thematic analysis) outweigh costs per PRA.
SS1/26 outlines the PRA's expectations for firms to report operational incidents via a structured three-phase process (initial, intermediate, final) as mandated in the PRA Rulebook's Regulatory Reporting Part, Chapter 24, to enhance UK financial sector resilience by capturing incidents risking firm safety, policyholder protection, or stability. This matters because it standardizes reporting, enabling timely PRA oversight and reducing inconsistencies in incident data collection across regulated entities.
What Changed
- Introduces clear reporting thresholds in Regulatory Reporting Rule 24.2: Firms must report if an incident poses risks to UK financial stability, firm safety/soundness, or (for insurers)...
Mandates a phased reporting approach (Rule 24.1-24.4): Initial report as soon as practicable (expected within 24 hours of threshold determination); intermediate updates for significant changes (e.g.,...
Excludes near-misses (potential events without disruption/data loss to external users); aligns with but does not replace Fundamental Rule 7 or Notification Part Chapter 2 obligations.
Specifies reporting via a "Reporting Fields Document"; firms balance reporting with incident resolution.
Suggested Considerations
Assess incidents against PRA thresholds (e.g., risk to stability/soundness/policyholders, considering contagion, disruptions > thresholds, data loss, media impact); report if met, even if internally high-priority.
Submit phased reports using specified fields: Initial (basic details promptly); Intermediate (updates on changes like impact, strategy shifts, resolution); Final (full details post-resolution).
Maintain processes for prompt classification, data gathering, and submission while prioritizing resolution; continue ad-hoc supervisory notifications if needed.
Review internal policies to align severity ratings with PRA thresholds; document assessments.
For critical third-party (CTP) incidents, both firms and CTPs report uniquely.
Key Dates
18 March 2026
- Publication date of SS1/26
18 March 2027DEADLINE
- Effective date; firms must comply with reporting requirements
Within 24 hours
- Expected submission of initial phase report after determining threshold met (as soon as practicable)
Each significant change
- Intermediate phase update(s), including at resolution
Within 30 working days of resolution
- Final phase report (extendable to 60 working days if impracticable)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – With effectiveness just over one year away (18 March 2027), firms must urgently map incident management frameworks to new thresholds/phases, update policies, train staff, and test reporting (e.g., via simulations), as non-compliance risks enforcement under PRA rules and heightened scrutiny on resilience amid rising cyber/operational threats. This elevates operational resilience from preparation (e.g., IMT testing by March 2025) to active reporting, demanding integrated tech/governance upgrades.
The Prudential Regulation Authority has today published proposals aimed at ensuring banks can monetise liquid assets quickly in a fast-paced stress event – such as the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023.
AI Analysis
The PRA has launched a three-month consultation on modernized liquidity standards designed to ensure banks can rapidly convert liquid assets to cash during stress events, responding directly to lessons from the 2023 collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse. Rather than requiring banks to hold more liquid assets, the reforms focus on **operationalizing existing liquidity** through enhanced stress testing, removal of exemptions for sovereign bonds, and improved preparedness for central bank facility access.
What Changed
The consultation proposes four primary regulatory modifications:
Weekly stress testing requirement: Firms must conduct internal stress tests evaluating rapid outflows within one week, supplementing the existing monthly reporting framework
Removal of Level 1 asset exemption: Sovereign bonds and other "level 1 assets" will no longer be exempt from annual testing of monetization capability for non-liquid assets, closing a significant...
Barrier identification mandate: Firms must systematically evaluate their liquidity, identify barriers to asset monetization, and document findings
Central bank facility preparedness: Regulatory encouragement (not mandate) for operational readiness to access Bank of England facilities during stress
Critically, the PRA explicitly states these...
Suggested Considerations
*Immediate (by April 27, 2026):
Review the full consultation document and impact assessment
Identify internal stakeholders (Treasury, Risk, Operations, Compliance) for response coordination
Assess current liquidity stress testing capabilities against proposed weekly timeframe requirement
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has imposed a financial penalty of £10,625,000 on U K Insurance Limited (UKI Limited) in connection with a miscalculation of their Solvency II balance sheet during 2023 and 2024.
AI Analysis
The PRA fined U K Insurance Limited (UKI Limited) £10.625 million (reduced from £21.25 million via 50% Early Account Scheme discount) for breaching Solvency II reporting rules due to a miscalculation overstating its solvency balance sheet in 2023-2024, stemming from ineffective controls and resourcing in finance/actuarial functions. This landmark case highlights PRA's emphasis on accurate prudential reporting and rewards early self-reporting/cooperation, signaling heightened enforcement scrutiny on insurers' control frameworks. It matters as it demonstrates PRA's use of the EAS for efficiency and underscores risks of control failures undermining supervisory effectiveness.
What Changed
No new regulatory rules or requirements are introduced; this is an enforcement action applying existing PRA rules. Key breaches include:
PRA Fundamental Rule 6: Failure to organise/control affairs responsibly/effectively due to ineffective preventative/detective controls and resourcing issues.
Notifications Rule 6.1: Information to PRA not factually accurate or complete.
Reporting Rules 2.4 and 3.2: Submissions lacked completeness, reliability, and compliance with SFCR structure/principles.
This is the first EAS application, per PRA's enforcement approach (pages...
Suggested Considerations
Conduct control reviews: Assess finance/actuarial functions for preventative/detective control gaps, resourcing adequacy, and documentation (e.g., double-counting risks in Solvency II balance sheets).
Test reporting accuracy: Validate Solvency II submissions (e.g., SFCR, SCR Coverage Ratio) against Rules 6.1, 2.4, 3.2; ensure factual accuracy, completeness, and reliability.
Leverage EAS: Self-report errors early, provide candid root-cause analyses, and make admissions to qualify for penalty discounts.
Remediate proactively: Invest in control enhancements, as UKI did post-identification; align with PRA 2026 priorities on data quality, internal models, and operational resilience.
Document governance: Address longstanding resourcing concerns, per PRA's 2023 PSM letter risks.
Key Dates
2023
2024; Relevant period of miscalculation and breaches
13 August 2024
Firm notified PRA of error with preliminary root cause analysis
23 August 2024
Public disclosure via Regulatory News Service on SCR Coverage Ratio impact
1 July 2025
Aviva acquired DLG/UKI Limited (events pre-date)
10 March 2026
PRA issued Final Notice and imposed penalty
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – This enforcement validates PRA's zero-tolerance for solvency misreporting, risking supervisory misjudgment and policyholder threats; firms face similar fines without EAS discounts. It amplifies 2026 priorities on internal models, data quality, and controls amid softening markets/BPA pressures, demanding immediate control audits to avoid escalation.
We have appointed 2 new senior leaders, further strengthening our capability across key areas of our remit. Chris Knight will join us in July 2026 as director of insurance within our Supervision, Policy and Competition (SPC) division. He joins the FCA from Legal & General, where he has been the group chief risk officer for the last 5 years and member of the Group management committee. Prior to this, he was CEO of Legal & General Retail Retirement for 3 years.David Lymburn joined the Payment S...
The PRA Regulatory Digest is for people working in the UK financial services industry and highlights key regulatory news and publications delivered for the month.
This statement provides an early indication to industry of the Prudential Regulation Authority’s (PRA) intent to launch the next Life Insurance Stress Test (LIST) exercise in January 2028.
CP4/26 proposes targeted amendments to UK Solvency II own funds rules in the PRA Rulebook, addressing inconsistencies, clarifying requirements, and restating EU guidelines for better accessibility. These updates matter as they reduce regulatory burden, enhance clarity, and align rules with market practices, supporting PRA objectives of firm safety, policyholder protection, and competitiveness without introducing new risks.
What Changed
- Amendments to prior permission requirements for repaying or redeeming Tier 1 and Tier 3 own funds instruments, clarifying application to items classified under own funds permissions.
Clarification that Tier 2 basic own funds items can cover 20% of the Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR), while Tier 2 Ancillary Own Funds cannot.
Requirement that both minimum maturity date and first contractual opportunity to redeem must be met for Tier 1 and Tier 2 basic own funds classification.
Correction to reconciliation reserve calculation to avoid canceling eligible own funds increases from classification permissions for balance sheet liabilities.
Updates to guidelines on capital instrument redemption, including early calls for unforeseen regulatory/tax changes and treatment of tender offers.
Suggested Considerations
Review and respond to consultation by 24 April 2026 via email to CP4_26@bankofengland.co.uk or post, indicating confidentiality and publication consent preferences.
Assess current own funds instruments against proposed clarifications (e.g., redemption permissions, MCR eligibility, maturity requirements) and update internal classifications or applications if needed.
Evaluate reconciliation reserve calculations for potential adjustments post-permission grants.
Engage PRA on concurrent transactions (e.g., redemptions) for streamlined processes under clarified expectations.
Prepare for Rulebook updates by mapping impacts to Own Funds, Reporting, Group Supervision, Glossary, and SCR Standard Formula parts.
Key Dates
24 April 2026DEADLINE
- Consultation response deadline
2026 H2
- Publication of dedicated policy statement (PS) with effective date for remaining changes
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Medium – Proposals are refinements and clarifications rather than new burdens, with modest impacts focused on error corrections and alignment with practices; however, they affect core own funds calculations critical for solvency, requiring review before H2 2026 implementation to avoid misclassifications or PRA engagement delays.
We've launched our new Regulatory Priorities reports, starting with the insurance sector. This marks a new approach that will help to transform our supervision and streamline regulation.We expect regulated firms to follow the rules and stay informed about any changes. This is important for maintaining a safe and resilient market. Our mission to be a smarter regulator means reducing burden where we can, so that firms can get the information they need as efficiently as possible.Our Regulatory P...
The Upper Tribunal has upheld the FCA's decisions to ban Stephen Joseph Burdett and James Paul Goodchild from working in financial services. Mr Burdett and Mr Goodchild previously held senior roles at Synergy Wealth Limited (Synergy) and Westbury Private Clients LLP (Westbury), respectively.The FCA banned the pair from working in regulated financial services for recklessly exposing pension holders to unsuitable investments.The Tribunal also found that it was appropriate for the FCA to impose ...
CP2/26 is a PRA consultation paper proposing targeted reforms to UK securitisation rules to reduce prescriptiveness and burden while maintaining prudential soundness, building on recent CRR restatements. It matters for compliance professionals as it streamlines due diligence, risk retention, disclosures, and capital treatments, potentially lowering costs for PRA-authorised firms in the securitisation market amid Basel 3.1 implementation. These changes aim to enhance proportionality without compromising investor protection or oversight.
What Changed
The proposals amend PRA rules and supervisory guidance in the Securitisation Part of the PRA Rulebook, including:
Due diligence: Remove prescriptive verification of credit-granting criteria (Chapter 2 Article 9), risk retention (Chapter 2 Article 6 and Chapter 4), STS criteria, specific information availability,...
Risk retention: Introduce a new combined modality merging two existing ones.
Market disclosure (transparency): Streamline for all securitisations; amend underlying documentation, delete PRA templates (use revised FCA Handbook templates), disapply templates for investor...
Review and respond: Analyse proposals against current operations; submit feedback by 18 May 2026 to CP2_26@bankofengland.co.uk, indicating confidentiality and publication consent.
Gap analysis: Assess due diligence processes, risk retention setups, disclosure templates, reporting (e.g., COREP), and capital models for resecuritisations/MGS loans; update for proportionality.
Coordinate with FCA: Align on shared templates/transparency (per FCA CP26/6); prepare for repository shift.
Policy updates: Revise internal policies, training, and systems for new risk retention modality, reduced verifications, and readability improvements post-final PS.
Monitor legislation: Track HM Treasury SI and PRA policy statement for final rules.
Key Dates
1 January 2026
- Related CRR/Solvency II restatement (PS12/25) already effective, preserving core securitisation requirements
18 May 2026DEADLINE
- Consultation response deadline
1 January 2027
- Expected implementation aligning with Basel 3.1 and CRR restatement (PS3/26), with transitional arrangements to 2030
Post
SI (TBD); - Changes to repository requirements effective upon HM Treasury Statutory Instrument amending UK Securitisation Regulation 2024
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – Proposals reduce burden (e.g., less prescriptive due diligence, streamlined disclosures) but require immediate review ahead of 18 May 2026 deadline and 1 January 2027 implementation, aligning with Basel 3.1. Non-response risks misaligned systems during CRR restatement transition; benefits include cost savings and proportionality, but firms must validate ongoing compliance with retained prudential standards.
The Bank of England held roundtable meetings with representatives from regulated firms on the responsible adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI and ML), to better understand the constraints that firms may be facing.
The FCA and Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) are warning claims management companies and law firms (representatives) involved in motor finance claims to make sure clients don’t have multiple representatives for the same claim and are not charged excessive termination fees We have seen some clients with up to 4 different representatives for the same claim. They risk being charged termination fees, which could be deemed excessive, should they try to cancel duplicate agreements.
AI Analysis
The FCA and SRA have issued a joint warning to claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms handling motor finance commission claims, addressing multiple client representations (up to 4 per claim observed) and excessive termination fees, which risk unfair consumer treatment. This matters because regulators are intensifying scrutiny amid a paused complaints-handling period (ending May 2026) and a forthcoming redress scheme, with enforcement actions already underway against non-compliant firms.
What Changed
This is a non-binding joint message reinforcing existing obligations under FCA's Consumer Duty, Claims Management Conduct of Business Sourcebook, Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), and SRA standards, rather than introducing new rules. Key emphases include mandatory robust onboarding due diligence to prevent multiple representations, clear upfront disclosure of termination fees, and justification of any fees charged (especially if onboarding was inadequate).
Suggested Considerations
Engaging clients and other representatives to confirm client wishes and establish single representative.
Notifying respondent firms promptly of the sole representative.
Supporting file transfers with client consent and considering no-charge resolutions if onboarding was poor.
Robust onboarding checks (e.g., confirm no prior representation).
Entering new agreements only after prior termination and informed consent.
- Snapshot of SRA's 89 open HVCC investigations and 7 firm closures
5 February 2026
- FCA launches consumer advertising campaign warning of scammers (post-dated relative to publication)
End of March 2026
- FCA to publish final rules on proposed Motor Finance Consumer Redress Scheme (CRS)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High - Immediate risk of enforcement; FCA/SRA using CRA/DMCA 2024 powers (e.g., info requests from 9 law firms), 5 CMCs paused onboarding, 1 under investigation, SRA closed 7 firms. Matters due to paused complaints (ending soon), impending CRS, consumer harm from fees/delays, and proactive monitoring signaling broader crackdown on HVCC misconduct like excessive fees or poor due diligence.
Speech by Sarah Pritchard, FCA deputy chief executive, at the ABI Annual Conference. IntroductionIt’s hard to think of a more symbolic venue to discuss driving change in the insurance sector than the QEII Centre.Step outside, and you’re in the shadow of both the Houses of Parliament, and Westminster Abbey. Scrutiny, change and serving citizens on one side. Tradition on the other.That’s where insurance sits, too.As an industry, you have to balance the new with the non-negotiables – finding way...
People who pay monthly for their insurance are saving around £157m a year, with over half the firms the FCA reviewed as part of a market study lowering the cost of premium finance. Interest rates for premium finance have fallen by an average 4.1 percentage points since 2022, saving consumers £8 on a typical motor policy and £3 on a typical home policy per year. The changes result from regulatory attention, fair value assessments and base rate reductions. The FCA has seen even more significant...
What does 'fair value' mean in financial services? It might sound like dry regulator speak, but it’s really asking a simple question – are customers paying a reasonable price for a product, compared to the benefits they get in return?This is not us setting a particular price or level of profit which firms can make. But it's a challenge to firms – can they provide evidence that their customers are getting a fair deal? If they can’t, then they need to look again.This applies across financial se...
AI Analysis
This FCA blog post clarifies the 'fair value' concept under Consumer Duty, emphasizing that firms must evidence a reasonable price-to-benefits relationship without the FCA dictating prices or profits. It matters because it signals ongoing FCA scrutiny and enforcement in sectors like cash savings, investment platforms, and premium finance, with demonstrated consumer savings of £167m annually from interventions. Compliance professionals must prioritize robust fair value assessments to avoid challenges, remedial actions, or enforcement.
What Changed
No new rules are introduced; this reinforces existing Consumer Duty requirements (effective July 2023 for new products, July 2024 for closed books) on fair value as one of four outcomes...
Firms must demonstrate evidence of fair value, assessing price against benefits, costs, and services delivered.
Ongoing reviews required throughout product lifecycle, with actions if fair value fails (e.g., improve, withdraw).
FCA rejects prescriptive interventions like 0% APR in premium finance to avoid market harm, favoring firm-led assessments.[FCA blog]
Suggested Considerations
Conduct and evidence fair value assessments: Use frameworks considering product nature/benefits, limitations, total lifetime costs (fees/charges), relative to benefits; benchmark internally/externally; segment by consumer groups including vulnerables.
Review and act on failures: If no fair value, implement mitigations (e.g., price adjustments, process improvements, product withdrawal); evidence processes and implementation.[FCA blog]
Monitor markets/products ongoing: Assess at firm/market level, including intangible benefits (e.g., scam protection, support channels); prepare for FCA challenges/enforcement.
Premium finance specific: All firms review offerings; outliers demonstrate workings or improve (e.g., APR reductions).[FCA blog]
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – FCA is actively intervening (e.g., £157m savings in premium finance, £10m in platforms), with threats of enforcement for poor processes/evidence. Matters due to cultural shift under Consumer Duty; weak assessments risk fines, remediation, or product halts, especially in high-complaint areas like savings/insurance. Firms without frameworks face immediate exposure in supervisory reviews.
The PRA Regulatory Digest is for people working in the UK financial services industry and highlights key regulatory news and publications delivered for the month.
The FCA has called on the insurance industry to help more consumers access products that support them and their families if they become critically ill or die. The interim findings of its competition review of pure protection products found that, for those consumers that have taken out protection insurance, the market mostly works well. There are a wide range of products, most consumers can claim when they need to, and the costs of cover have remained stable in the last few years.But 58% of ad...
FCA PS25/19 finalizes rules to streamline complaints reporting by replacing multiple existing returns with a single consolidated return, enhancing data quality, consistency, and vulnerability identification while reducing burdens. This matters for compliance teams as it mandates system and process updates to improve regulatory oversight and consumer protection, with implementation required within 12 months.
Permission-based reporting: Firms report only sections relevant to their regulated permissions, targeting reporting to specific activities.
Simplified nil returns: Proportionate approach allows upfront selection for firms with no complaints.
Removal of group reporting: Shifts to individual legal entity-level reporting for greater transparency and oversight.
Updated complaints taxonomy: Revised categories reflect modern products/services, reducing use of 'Other' and improving categorization.
Suggested Considerations
Review and update internal complaints recording, categorization, and reporting systems to align with new consolidated return, taxonomy, permission-based sections, and vulnerability data points.
Integrate FCA Vulnerability Guidance into complaints processes for identification and reporting.
Test and prepare for fixed 6-monthly submissions via FCA systems; complete nil return simplifications where applicable.
For Retail Banking, Insurance, Payment Services, and CMCs: Retain and adapt contextualised data capture.
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – With publication on 3 Dec 2025 and a 12-month implementation window (to ~Dec 2026), firms must prioritize system changes now, as the first period starts 1 Jan 2027; non-compliance risks enforcement, especially on vulnerability reporting and transparency, amid FCA's focus on consumer protection data quality.
The FCA's updated Statement of Policy outlines its approach to statutory investigations into possible regulatory failures under Part 5 of the Financial Services Act 2012, including criteria for triggering investigations and producing reports for HM Treasury. It matters because it clarifies when the FCA must self-scrutinize serious lapses in regulation, helping firms anticipate rare but high-profile probes into systemic issues affecting consumer protection, market integrity, or competition. The primary update adjusts inflation-linked monetary thresholds for assessing "significant" consumer detriment, ensuring the policy remains relevant.
What Changed
- Inflation-adjusted monetary thresholds for consumer detriment: Detriment exceeding £210 million is more likely deemed "significant," while below £45 million is unlikely to meet the threshold unless...
No other substantive changes from the 2013 policy; refinements emphasize internal "lessons learned" reviews for non-statutory cases to avoid resource duplication in formal probes.
Clarified two-part statutory test: (1) Events indicating significant failure in consumer protection or adverse effects on integrity/competition objectives; (2) Events might not have occurred (or...
Suggested Considerations
Monitor for triggering events: Firms should self-assess operations against the two-part test, particularly potential consumer detriment exceeding £45m/£210m thresholds or impacts on FCA objectives.
Enhance internal reviews: Conduct "lessons learned" exercises post-incident to align with FCA's non-statutory approach, reducing escalation risk to formal probes.
No direct firm obligations: This is FCA policy on self-investigation; firms face no new reporting or compliance mandates but should prepare for FCA enquiries if events suggest regulatory system failures.
Document qualitative factors (e.g., vulnerability) in risk assessments to contextualize detriment.
Key Dates
14 November 2025
- Publication date of updated Statement of Policy
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Medium. This update signals FCA's commitment to accountability without imposing new firm-level rules, but it heightens focus on significant failures (£45m+ detriment), potentially leading to public reports exposing industry-wide gaps. Firms with high consumer exposure (e.g., retail-facing) should prioritize as probes, though rare, amplify reputational and remedial risks via Treasury publication.
The FCA's PS25/22 establishes a new regulatory framework for **targeted support**—a form of financial guidance that allows authorised firms to provide ready-made suggestions to consumer segments without conducting individualised suitability assessments. This framework addresses the UK's "advice gap" by enabling firms to deliver affordable, scalable financial support to an estimated 18 million consumers within a decade, fundamentally shifting how retail investors and pension savers access guidance on investment and retirement decisions.
What Changed
The framework introduces several material regulatory changes:
New Specified Activity Status
Targeted support will be designated as a new specified activity under the Regulated Activities Order, meaning only FCA-authorised firms can provide this service. This creates a regulatory boundary distinct from both unregulated guidance and regulated investment advice.
Purpose Statement Refinement
The FCA amended its original purpose statement from "better outcomes" to "better position" to clarify policy intent and avoid confusion with the Consumer Duty requirement for "good outcomes." This...
Suggested Considerations
*Immediate (January–February 2026):
*Pre-Implementation (March 2026):
Consumer segment definitions with supporting rationale
Ready-made suggestion frameworks
Communication templates explaining the nature of targeted support
Key Dates
29/08/2025
- Consultation period closed (CP25/17 and CP25/26)
11/12/2025
- Policy Statement PS25/22 published with near-final rules
March 2026
- Firms may begin applying for targeted support permission
06/04/2026
- New rules expected to come into force (subject to Government legislation making targeted support a specified activity)
The FCA's PS25/23 finalizes guidance on tackling **non-financial misconduct (NFM)** in financial services, amending the COCON sourcebook to clarify how serious NFM breaches conduct rules and integrating it into FIT assessments for fitness and propriety. This matters because it aligns rules across banks and non-banks, enhances accountability, deters harmful workplace cultures, and supports FCA objectives like consumer protection and market integrity by ensuring consistent handling of issues like bullying or harassment.
What Changed
- COCON amendments: Expands scope to non-banks for work-related serious NFM involving financial services personnel; provides flowcharts, examples, and factors (e.g., seriousness, pattern, dishonesty,...
FIT sourcebook updates: Integrates NFM into fit and proper tests for employees/senior personnel; firms assess case-by-case without investigating implausible claims or breaching privacy; removes...
Managerial accountability: Relative to knowledge/authority under ICR2; no expansion into purely private life.
Minor tweaks from CP25/18 feedback: New diagrams, employment law alignment, withdrawn burdensome factors.
Suggested Considerations
Review and update policies/handbooks to incorporate COCON/FIT guidance on NFM assessment, including flowcharts and factors for breaches/fitness.
Train HR, compliance, and managers on applying rules consistently, emphasizing seriousness thresholds, case-by-case judgement, and alignment with employment law/privacy.
Enhance regulatory reference processes to disclose past NFM; ensure reporting of serious breaches to FCA.
Assess current NFM handling for gaps (e.g., non-bank alignment); document decision-making to demonstrate fairness/decisiveness.
Firms not to investigate trivial/improbable allegations or overstep privacy laws.
Key Dates
1 September 2026
- New COCON rules and guidance come into force (non-retrospective)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – With rules effective 1 September 2026 (9+ months from today), firms have preparation time, but PS25/23 closes FCA's NFM policy work, shifting to supervision/enforcement focus; non-compliance risks enforcement, FIT failures, and reputational damage amid trust-building priorities in FCA Strategy 2025-2030.
The FCA and PRA are consulting on setting the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) Management Expenses Levy Limit (MELL) at £113 million for 2026/27, comprising a £108 million management expenses budget (up £4.4 million from 2025/26, broadly in line with inflation) and a £5 million unlevied reserve. This matters because it caps the operating costs (e.g., IT, staff, legal, claims handling) that FCA- and PRA-authorised firms must fund via levies, excluding separate compensation payments, ensuring FSCS efficiency while controlling firm burdens.
What Changed
- Proposed MELL of £113 million for 2026/27: £108 million budget + £5 million unlevied reserve.
Budget increase of £4.4 million (4%) from 2025/26, aligned with inflation; excluding new revolving credit facility (RCF) enhancement costs, it reflects a £6.6 million nominal and £11 million...
Budget allocated across PRA and FCA fee blocks based on firms' regulated business volume, with smaller firms contributing less.
No changes to compensation levies, which remain separate and forecast at £342 million total levy including compensation.
Suggested Considerations
Review CP26/2 (FCA) and CP1/26 (PRA) alongside FSCS January 2026 Budget Update for allocation details.
Submit feedback on proposed MELL by 10 February 2026 to PRA (email or 20 Moorgate, London EC2R 6DA).
Budget for potential levy payments starting 1 April 2026, based on firm's share of PRA/FCA classes (see Appendix 4 in CP).
Monitor post-consultation Policy Statement/Handbook Notice for final MELL confirmation.
Key Dates
13 January 2026
- Consultation opens (CP26/2 FCA; CP1/26 PRA)
10 February 2026
- Consultation closes; submit comments via email or post to PRA (accepted on behalf of both regulators, shared anonymously with FSCS)
1 April 2026
- Final rules effective (start of FSCS financial year); PRA Policy Statement and FCA Handbook Notice expected post-consultation
31 March 2027
- MELL period ends
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Medium - Firms face predictable levy increases aligned with inflation, with levies allocated by business volume (minimal for small firms), but must act on consultation feedback by 10 February 2026 (today is 25 January 2026, leaving ~2 weeks). Matters for financial planning and budgeting, as MELL ensures FSCS operational funding without covering volatile compensation costs; failure to engage risks unaddressed cost concerns in final rules.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has today published its supervisory priorities for 2026, outlining in a letter its sector-specific priorities for the coming year to all banks, building societies, insurers and other PRA-regulated firms.
The PRA and FCA have jointly issued consultation paper CP1/26 proposing to set the **Management Expenses Levy Limit (MELL) for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) at £113 million for 2026/27**, comprising a £108 million management expenses budget and a £5 million unlevied reserve. This consultation determines the maximum amount the FSCS can levy on authorised financial services firms to fund its statutory compensation scheme operations, directly affecting compliance costs for all regulated entities.
What Changed
The proposed MELL for 2026/27 introduces the following material changes:
Budget increase of £4.4 million from 2025/26 (from approximately £103.6 million to £108 million), broadly aligned with inflation
Nominal reduction of £6.6 million on a like-for-like basis when excluding the cost of enhancements to the FSCS's revolving credit facility (RCF)
Real terms reduction of £11 million when accounting for inflation adjustments
RCF enhancement to £3 billion to support the Bank of England's recapitalisation powers and enable faster depositor payouts
Suggested Considerations
*Review the consultation paper (CP1/26) in detail, particularly Appendices 3 and 4 detailing budget line items and PRA/FCA funding class allocations
*Assess levy impact on your firm's 2026/27 budget based on your regulated business volume and funding class allocation
*Prepare internal stakeholder communication regarding the £4.4 million aggregate increase and its implications for your firm's regulatory costs
*Monitor the FSCS January 2026 budget update for detailed cost breakdowns and compensation levy forecasts
*Submit consultation responses if your firm wishes to comment on the proposal by 10 February 2026
Key Dates
10 February 2026DEADLINE
– Consultation deadline for comments on CP1/26
1 April 2026
– Effective date: proposed MELL applies from start of FSCS financial year
Pension schemes must now publish transparent data on their performance, costs, and service quality, according to new proposals from the FCA, DWP, and TPR. Pension schemes will need to publish clear data on their performance, costs and quality of service, under proposals announced today by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and The Pensions Regulator (TPR). If a pension offers poor value, firms and trustees must then fix it by moving savers to bet...
The Berne Financial Services Agreement (BFSA) is a mutual recognition agreement between the UK and Switzerland, effective from 1 January 2026. This agreement enhances cross-border market access for financial services between the two countries.
On 21 November 2025, Michael Pettifer Insurance Brokers Limited, trading as MPI Brokers, entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation. Robert Cooksey of Bridgestones Limited has been appointed as liquidator. MPI Brokers was authorised and regulated by the FCA to sell and arrange insurance policies. The firm specialised in travel insurance.If you need to contact the liquidator, please contact Bridgestones using the details below:Email: mail@bridgestones.co.ukIn writing: MPI Brokers (In Liquidation...
Supervisory Statement SS2/25 from the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) provides guidance on prudential considerations for UK insurance and reinsurance undertakings transferring risk to Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs). It clarifies expectations for ensuring such transfers comply with Solvency II requirements, focusing on risk transfer validity, capital relief recognition, and supervisory approval processes. This matters because it aims to enhance transparency and risk management in reinsurance arrangements, reducing potential regulatory arbitrage while supporting efficient risk mitigation for insurers amid evolving market dynamics.
What Changed
- Risk Transfer Validation: Firms must demonstrate that SPV risk transfers provide genuine economic risk transfer (ERT), not just accounting or regulatory capital relief, with PRA emphasizing...
Capital Relief Criteria: Introduces stricter tests for recognizing capital relief, including full collateralization requirements, independent third-party guarantees, and prohibitions on circular...
Governance and Documentation: Mandates robust board-level oversight, detailed transaction documentation (including stress testing and scenario analysis), and pre-transaction PRA notification for...
SPV Oversight: SPVs must be structured to operate independently, with PRA reserving rights to challenge approvals if governance is inadequate or conflicts of interest arise.
Alignment with Solvency II: Builds on existing rules (e.g., Article 211-213) but provides PRA-specific interpretations, including updated expectations on limited risk appetite and post-transfer...
Suggested Considerations
Immediate Review (by Q1 2026): Conduct gap analysis of all existing SPV portfolios against SS2/25 criteria, documenting ERT evidence and collateral adequacy.
Governance Updates: Enhance board policies for SPV approvals, including mandatory stress testing (e.g., 1-in-200 year events) and independent validation by external actuaries.
Pre-Transaction Processes: Implement PRA notification templates for transfers >10% SCR; prepare deal packs with legal opinions on SPV independence.
Reporting Enhancements: Update internal systems for RFR disclosures on SPV exposures; train Senior Insurance Managers (SIMs) on accountability under SIMR.
Remediation: For non-compliant legacy SPVs, unwind or restructure by June 2027, notifying PRA of plans by March 2027.
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – This is not a full regime shift but imposes immediate review obligations on firms with SPV exposure (estimated 20-30% of PRA-regulated insurers). Non-compliance risks capital add-ons, transaction disapprovals, or enforcement under PRA's Fundamental Rules, especially as PRA ramps up thematic supervision post-2025. Matters for capital efficiency in a high-interest-rate environment where SPVs are popular for cat risk.
We're expanding the significant work we had planned to improve standards in the home and travel insurance markets, following Which?’s super complaint. Read our response to Which? (PDF)While 79% of consumers who make an insurance claim are satisfied with how it was handled, our work shows there's room for improvement - with 3 in 10 (31%) saying there isn’t enough information to judge the quality of different policies. Over the next year, we will do more to: Improve claims handling, by reviewin...
AI Analysis
The FCA is expanding its planned supervisory work in home and travel insurance markets in response to a Which? super complaint, focusing on improving claims handling, information provision, and overall standards. This matters for compliance professionals as it intensifies scrutiny under Consumer Duty, requiring firms to demonstrate better consumer outcomes amid ongoing simplification of insurance rules. It signals heightened FCA expectations for evidence-based improvements in customer satisfaction and transparency.
What Changed
This statement announces an expansion of existing planned work rather than new rules, with specific emphases over the next year on:
Improving claims handling through reviews of firms' processes.
Enhancing information available to consumers for judging policy quality (addressing the 31% dissatisfaction rate).
Building on prior simplification efforts, such as risk-based product reviews (replacing annual mandates), removal of prescriptive CPD requirements (e.g., 15 hours), and reduced data returns, as...
Suggested Considerations
Review and enhance claims handling processes to ensure efficiency and fairness, preparing evidence for FCA supervisory reviews.
Improve pre-sale information on policy quality, addressing gaps where 31% of consumers lack sufficient data.
Adopt risk-based product and distribution reviews (per PS25/21), documenting rationale for frequency based on harm risks; align with co-manufacturers.
Embed Consumer Duty via outcomes monitoring, data-driven MI on customer behavior/complaints, and vulnerability support; shift from process compliance to evidenced effectiveness.
Retain records, respond to FCA data requests, and invest in governance/MI for supervision.
Key Dates
Over the next year (from publication, approx. late 2025)
- FCA to conduct expanded reviews on claims handling, information provision, and standards improvement
2026
- FCA to decide on changes to GAP insurance product-specific rules
Q2 2026
- FCA consultation on removing non-UK customers from Consumer Duty scope, with parallel review of ICOBS and PROD application
H1 2026
- FCA consultations on Consumer Duty amendments for distribution chains and UK customer focus
September 2026
- Conduct Rules (COCON) expand to non-financial misconduct
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High - This expands active FCA supervision in 2026, overlapping with Consumer Duty embedding and insurance simplification; non-compliance risks intensified reviews, enforcement, or redress schemes (as seen in motor finance). Firms gain flexibility but face accountability for outcomes, with scrutiny on data quality and vulnerability handling amplifying risks in a trust-based regime.
With over 20 years’ experience and responsibility for supervising 5,000 firms, I know that when an issue arises, the first question is often: 'What action will you take?'That’s a fair question – enforcement is one of the most visible ways we act. It often grabs headlines with big fines and publicity.But our role as supervisors is to exercise judgement - selecting the right tool to achieve the best and fastest outcomes for consumers and markets.While enforcement is a vital part of the kit, it’...
AI Analysis
This FCA blog post outlines the regulator's supervisory "toolkit" for addressing consumer harm, emphasizing proactive supervision over enforcement to achieve faster outcomes like redress and market-wide improvements. It matters because it signals FCA's preference for swift, non-enforcement interventions (e.g., skilled person reviews, voluntary requirements), urging firms to respond promptly to supervisory feedback to avoid escalation. Compliance teams should view this as a reminder to prioritize Consumer Duty compliance, as supervision tools are increasingly tied to it for rapid harm prevention.
What Changed
No new rules or requirements are introduced; this is a supervisory strategy update highlighting FCA's full range of tools beyond enforcement. Key emphases include:
Prioritizing supervision for quick fixes, such as multi-firm reviews, good/poor practice guidance, and skilled person reviews (s.166) under FSMA.
Integration of Consumer Duty (Principle 12) as a core principle for assessing and remedying poor outcomes, e.g., unclear policy renewals or inadequate support.
Examples from insurance (e.g., stolen vehicle claims yielding £200m redress; home emergency cover improvements reducing complaints by 61%).
Suggested Considerations
Embed proactive monitoring: Regularly review customer outcomes under Consumer Duty, acting on foreseeable harm (e.g., communication barriers, vulnerable customer support).
Respond swiftly to FCA contact: Engage with supervision teams on identified issues; prepare for tools like skilled person reviews or voluntary restrictions.
Improve practices market-wide: Use FCA guidance (e.g., good/poor examples) to self-assess; ensure clear information, fair value, and accessible support.
Evidence compliance: Map business to Consumer Duty, monitor biases, and demonstrate senior manager oversight via SM&CR.
Facilitate redress: Identify and pay compensation promptly when issues arise, as seen in FCA interventions (£200m vehicle claims; £350k home insurance).
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Medium – This reinforces existing obligations under Consumer Duty and Principles, but underscores risk of supervisory escalation if firms ignore early warnings. It matters because FCA prioritizes speed (supervision over enforcement), enabling quick harm fixes but exposing non-responsive firms to s.166 reviews (costly, used 20+ times in insurance since 2022) or restrictions, impacting reputation and finances. Firms with consumer-facing products must audit processes now to align with "good outcomes" expectations.
CP22/25 is a consultation paper on post-implementation amendments to UK Solvency II reporting and disclosure requirements, published by the PRA on 4 December 2025. The consultation addresses feedback and queries from insurance firms following the substantial reduction in reporting templates implemented at the end of 2024, clarifying expectations for compliance with the revised Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook across multiple technical areas including accident/underwriting year reporting, annuity reporting by currency, and internal model governance disclosures.
What Changed
The consultation introduces clarifications and amendments to Solvency II reporting requirements in several critical areas:
Reporting Framework Modifications
Accident or underwriting year reporting: The PRA sets expectations for how firms should apply options within the Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook regarding temporal classification of claims.
Annuity reporting by currency: Specific guidance on reporting annuities stemming from non-life obligations disaggregated by currency.
RBNS claims development: Clarification on reporting of reported but not settled (RBNS) claims and their development patterns.
Internal Model Requirements
Firms using partial or full internal models for Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) calculation must describe governance information including responsible roles, specific committees, their tasks,...
Suggested Considerations
*Immediate Actions (January-February 2026):
*Review consultation paper: Obtain and analyze CP22/25 in full to understand proposed amendments
*Assess applicability: Determine which reporting requirements apply to your firm (internal model status, portfolio types, reporting obligations)
*Identify gaps: Compare current reporting processes against PRA expectations outlined in the supervisory statement (SS4015)
*Engage supervisory contacts: Discuss any planned changes to reporting methodology (e.g., accident vs. underwriting year classification) with PRA supervisory contacts prior to implementation
Key Dates
4 December 2025
- PRA published CP22/25 consultation paper
31 December 2025
- Baseline date for commencement of new annual quantitative reporting template requirements (AoC.01) for firms with financial year-end on or after this date
31 December 2025
- Baseline date for commencement of quarterly QMC.01 reporting for internal model firms with financial year-end on or after this date
55 business days after quarterDEADLINE
end; - Deadline for quarterly QMC.01 submission (internal model firms)
100 business days after financial yearDEADLINE
end; - Deadline for annual AoC.01 submission (internal model firms and groups)
PS25/25 is the PRA's policy statement providing feedback on CP10/25 and issuing updated Supervisory Statement SS5/25, which replaces SS3/19 to enhance banks' and insurers' management of climate-related financial risks through strengthened governance, risk management, scenario analysis, data quality, and disclosures. It matters because it sets a higher regulatory bar for embedding climate risks proportionately into core processes like ICAAP, ILAAP, ORSA, and financial reporting, promoting resilience and strategic decision-making amid evolving climate threats.
What Changed
The main changes in SS5/25 from SS3/19 and CP10/25 responses include:
Proportionate application clarification: New 'Overarching aims' section in Chapter 3 explains how firms should tailor expectations to their climate risk exposure, business size, and complexity via a...
Governance strengthening: Boards and senior management must actively oversee climate risks, embedding them in strategy and ensuring accountability.
Risk management enhancements: Integrate climate risks into existing frameworks/risk registers (supplementary sub-registers allowed); 'accept, manage, avoid' is suggestive, not mandatory; aligns with...
Climate scenario analysis (CSA) advancements: Firms must use CSA strategically for decisions; flexibility on number/type of scenarios, reverse stress/sensitivity analysis, and longer horizons...
Suggested Considerations
Conduct gap analysis against SS5/25 within 6 months and remediate (e.g., update governance, risk frameworks, CSA processes).
Integrate climate risks into board oversight, strategy, risk registers, ICAAP/ILAAP (banks), ORSA/stress testing (insurers), and financial reporting.
Perform CSA exercises commensurate with exposures, using suitable scenarios to inform decisions; enhance data quality and disclosures.
Ensure senior accountability and alignment with standards like SS1/21.
Key Dates
3 December 2025
- PS25/25 and SS5/25 published; SS5/25 effective immediately, replacing SS3/19
Within 6 months (by ~June 2026)
- Firms assess gaps against new expectations and develop remediation plans (industry guidance)
Ongoing
- Forward-looking, strategic implementation proportionate to risks; PRA may request progress evidence
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – Effective immediately (3 Dec 2025), requiring significant uplift to existing approaches; non-compliance risks supervisory scrutiny, as PRA expects ambitious, ongoing progress and may request evidence. Matters for capital/liquidity planning, resilience, and strategic viability amid maturing climate risk landscape.
SS5/25 is the PRA's updated supervisory statement, published on 3 December 2025, replacing SS3/19 and setting enhanced expectations for banks and insurers to manage climate-related risks through governance, risk management, scenario analysis, data quality, and disclosures. It matters because it represents a step change from awareness-raising to embedding robust, proportionate practices that integrate climate risks into core prudential processes like ICAAP, ILAAP, ORSA, and capital planning, aligning with the PRA's objectives for firm safety and soundness amid evolving physical and transition risks.
What Changed
- Replaces SS3/19 entirely: Introduces a more mature, consolidated framework reflecting international standards (e.g., BCBS), with detailed transmission channels for climate risks across credit,...
Governance enhancements: Emphasizes board accountability, integration into business strategy, climate risk appetite statements, and linkage to Senior Managers & Certification Regime (SM&CR) without...
Risk management integration: Requires embedding climate risks into existing frameworks with quantitative metrics/limits where material; detailed mapping of risks (e.g., physical/transition via...
Scenario analysis: Firms must conduct climate scenario exercises capturing plausible pathways, impacts on capital/liquidity/solvency, with transparent assumptions and management challenge;...
Data expectations: Critical assessment of data sources/quality (e.g., geographic/sectoral for banks, hazard/vulnerability for insurers); use proxies with documented limitations.
Suggested Considerations
Conduct materiality assessment of climate risks to scope proportionality (leverage TCFD/CSRD work).
Integrate into risk frameworks: Update risk registers, ICAAP/ILAAP/ORSA/SCR with quantitative metrics, scenarios, and controls; adjust underwriting/pricing/collateral.
Perform climate scenario analysis: Model impacts on capital/liquidity/solvency using plausible pathways.
Enhance data: Source/assess granular data (e.g., location/sector/hazards), document proxies/limitations.
Key Dates
April 2025
Consultation paper CP10/25 issued (feedback incorporated in final policy)
Within 6 months of 3 December 2025 (by ~3 June 2026)
Firms assess gaps against new expectations and develop implementation plans
3 December 2025
Publication of PS25/25 and SS5/25; replaces SS3/19 effective immediately
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – Effective immediately with a 6-month window (~June 2026) for gap closure, this demands significant operational uplift (e.g., data, scenarios, integration) amid PRA's shift to enforcement; non-compliance risks supervisory action, given climate risks' materiality to prudential stability and alignment with global standards.
This is the first exercise conducted under the new Solvency UK regulatory regime implemented in 2024. The PRA published sector-level results on 17 November 2025 followed by individual firm disclosure for the core scenario on 24 November 2025.
The PRA's Discussion Paper 2/25 (published November 14, 2025) invites UK life insurers to provide feedback on potential regulatory reforms that would enable them to access **alternative forms of capital through risk transfer to capital markets**, outside traditional equity and debt issuance. This initiative aims to address capital constraints in the UK life insurance sector while maintaining policyholder protection and supporting long-term economic growth.
What Changed
The PRA is considering policy reforms centered on six core principles:
Capital Quality & Quantity: Alternative life capital structures must not lower the quality or quantity of capital required to support insurance risks.
Risk Transfer Focus: Structures should enable patient capital investment aligned with long-term liability profiles, allowing investors to forgo immediate returns for substantial future gains.
Capital Relief Priority: Alternative life capital should predominantly deliver capital relief proportionate to actual risk transfer—not balance sheet financing or illiquidity...
Suggested Considerations
*For UK life insurers:
*Assess capital needs: Evaluate whether alternative capital structures could address your firm's capital constraints, risk management objectives, or product innovation goals.
*Prepare consultation response: Submit detailed feedback to the PRA by 6 February 2026 addressing the 15 consultation questions, particularly:
Q12: Key risks from increased capital flexibility and mitigation approaches
Q13: Views on balancing ease of authorisation against ongoing supervision intensity
Key Dates
14 November 2025
– Discussion paper published
2026
– PRA planned policy design and cost-benefit analysis (alongside HM Treasury work)
PS17/25 establishes the **Matching Adjustment Investment Accelerator (MAIA) framework**, enabling PRA-regulated insurers to regularize and expand their use of matching adjustment (MA) in calculating capital requirements for certain long-duration insurance liabilities. This framework is significant because it provides a structured pathway for firms to optimize capital efficiency while maintaining prudential safeguards through exposure limits, eligibility assessments, and breach remediation mechanisms.
What Changed
The MAIA framework introduces the following regulatory requirements:
Permission and Eligibility Framework
Firms must obtain explicit MAIA permission from the PRA to use the accelerator
Permission grants authority to regularize previously non-compliant MA assets and apply MA to new eligible assets within defined parameters
Exposure Limits
Firms receive fixed monetary exposure limits calibrated using the Best Estimate of Liabilities (BEL) of the MA portfolio, net of reinsurance, at the time of permission grant
Limits remain fixed until the next formal variation of MAIA permission
Asset Eligibility and Assessment
Suggested Considerations
*Immediate (Q4 2025 - Q1 2026):
*Assess eligibility for MAIA permission by reviewing current MA portfolio and prospective assets
The PRA has published LIAC02/25, a consultation on proposed low impact amendments to rules and policy.
AI Analysis
The PRA's LIAC02/25 consultation, published on 16 October 2025, proposes low-impact amendments to its Rulebook and policy materials, including technical fixes, conditional disapplications, and miscellaneous corrections to enhance accuracy and align with prior policies. These changes matter for PRA-regulated firms as they ensure regulatory consistency with minimal operational burden, with most taking effect in late 2025 or early 2026 following the consultation period.
What Changed
The main proposals include:
Conditional disapplication of PRA General Provisions to implement deference arrangements under the UK-Swiss Berne Financial Services Agreement.
Amendment to Transitional Measure on Technical Provisions (TMTP) Part, Rule 5.2, introducing a new formula for 'Wr' effective 31 December 2025, using existing 'Wq' values without retrospective...
Amendment to Insurance Special Purpose Vehicle (ISPV) Part, Solvency Requirements Rule 2.2A(3), clarifying the 'no co-mingling' requirement, effective 23 December 2025, alongside updates to SS2/25.
Miscellaneous amendments to the PRA Rulebook, such as glossary updates, fundamental rules, general provisions, interpretation, notifications, and policyholder protection parts.
Amendments made...
Suggested Considerations
Submit consultation responses by 13 November 2025 via the PRA's Low Impact Amendments Process page, focusing on proposed disapplications, TMTP formula, ISPV rules, and miscellaneous changes.
Review and update internal policies for TMTP calculations to adopt the new 'Wr' formula from 31 December 2025 year-end, without restating priors.
Confirm compliance with ISPV 'no co-mingling' clarifications and SS2/25 updates by 23 December 2025.
Verify Rulebook references (e.g., Securitisation, parent undertakings) and adjust systems for effective dates like 19 January 2026.
For friendly societies/credit unions: Note zero minimum fees already reflected in 2025/26 invoices; no further action needed.
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Low – These are explicitly "low impact" technical, typographical, and alignment amendments with no material capital, reporting, or operational shifts expected; many stem from prior consultations (e.g., CP8/25, CP12/23, PS10/25) and avoid retrospective changes. Firms should act promptly on response deadlines and upcoming effectives (e.g., December 2025) to prevent minor non-compliance, but resource allocation can be minimal given the non-substantive nature.
PS15/25 introduces **new liquidity risk reporting requirements for major UK insurance firms**, closing data gaps identified during the March 2020 "dash for cash" and September 2022 LDI crisis. The policy mandates four new reporting templates for firms with significant derivatives or securities lending exposure, with implementation deferred to **30 September 2026** to allow adequate preparation time.
What Changed
The PRA's final policy establishes the following regulatory framework:
New Reporting Templates
Four new liquidity reporting templates have been introduced to capture previously unavailable data:
Annual committed facilities template
Monthly cash-flow mismatch template (short form)
Monthly cash-flow mismatch template for ring-fenced funds, matching adjustment portfolios, and remaining parts
Additional supervisory reporting requirements
Scope and Thresholds
Firms are subject to liquidity reporting if they meet both of the following conditions:
Suggested Considerations
*Immediate Actions (by Q2 2026):
*Threshold Assessment: Determine whether your firm meets the £10 billion derivatives or £1 billion securities lending thresholds
*RFF Mapping: If applicable, identify ring-fenced funds with £500 million+ gross notional derivatives exposure
*System Readiness: Begin implementing technical infrastructure for monthly and daily reporting submissions
*Data Governance: Establish processes to capture and validate liquidity data in the required templates
Key Dates
30 September 2025
- PRA published PS15/25 (policy statement)
31 December 2025DEADLINE
- Original implementation deadline (now superseded)
30 September 2026
- **Final implementation date for all liquidity reporting requirements**
First reporting reference date after 30 September 2026DEADLINE
- Firms meeting threshold conditions must commence reporting
Three consecutive annual reporting reference dates
- Threshold for ceasing reporting once firms fall below thresholds
SS15/16 establishes the PRA's expectations for UK insurance firms using approved internal models to calculate their Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR), requiring them to maintain the ability to calculate SCR using the standard formula and submit standard formula SCR calculations for regulatory monitoring purposes. This guidance is critical because it ensures capital requirements remain reflective of actual firm risks and protects policyholder security by preventing model drift—where internal models diverge from underlying risk realities over time.
What Changed
The supervisory statement introduces several core regulatory expectations:
Internal Model Maintenance Requirement: Firms with approved internal models must maintain the capability to calculate SCR using the standard formula, even if they primarily use internal models for...
Standard Formula SCR Reporting: Firms using approved internal models to calculate solo SCR are expected to report standard formula SCR results privately to the PRA on an annual basis.
Model Drift Monitoring Framework: The PRA uses model drift ratios calculated at model approval and re-based following material changes in risk profile or major model changes to monitor whether...
Submission Format and Timing: Standard formula SCR information must be submitted through XBRL-enabled Excel files or full XBRL format, four weeks following firms' annual quantitative reporting...
Suggested Considerations
*Maintain Dual Calculation Capability: Preserve the technical ability to calculate SCR using the standard formula, regardless of internal model approval status.
*Establish Annual Reporting Process: Implement procedures to calculate and submit standard formula SCR results annually through XBRL-enabled Excel or full XBRL format via BEEDS portal.
*Integrate into Risk Management: Incorporate standard formula SCR calculations into own risk and solvency assessment (ORSA), risk management, and model validation cycles.
*Obtain Senior Management Approval: Ensure standard formula submissions are reviewed and approved by appropriately authorized senior management before submission.
*Maintain Supporting Documentation: Retain quantitative and qualitative documentation supporting standard formula calculations to demonstrate appropriateness for model drift monitoring purposes.
Key Dates
25 October 2016
- Original SS15/16 publication
31 December 2018
- Document updated (referenced in original guidance)
September 2025
- Most recent update to SS15/16 published, clarifying expectations for firms with material non-life technical provisions
30 September 2026DEADLINE
- Implementation deadline for liquidity reporting rules (related Solvency II development)
Four weeks after annual quantitative reporting submissionDEADLINE
CP20/25 is a PRA consultation paper published on 16 September 2025 that proposes targeted updates to the regulatory framework governing third-country insurance branches operating in the UK. The consultation addresses inconsistencies introduced during the Solvency II review, clarifies supervisory expectations, and increases the subsidiarisation threshold—matters that directly affect the operational and compliance costs of non-UK insurers seeking to maintain branch operations rather than establish subsidiaries in the UK market.
What Changed
The consultation proposes four primary regulatory modifications:
Subsidiarisation Threshold Increase
The PRA proposes raising the FSCS liability threshold above which third-country branches must establish a UK subsidiary from £500 million to £600 million. The PRA attributes this increase to inflation rather than organic growth, aiming to prevent branches from artificially approaching the current threshold and incurring unnecessary subsidiarisation costs.
ORSA Reporting Clarification
Current guidance will be updated to clarify that third-country branches must submit an Own Risk and Self...
Suggested Considerations
*Threshold Assessment: Larger third-country branches must reassess whether their liabilities, forecast for the coming three years, mean they need to become subsidiaries given the proposed increased subsidiarisation threshold.
*Reporting Requirement Review: Branches should review updated guidance on ORSA submissions to ensure they provide the undertaking-level ORSA (rather than branch-specific ORSA) with required high-level summaries of solvency position, capital buffer rationale, and stress testing results.
*Quantitative Metrics Compliance: Given new quantitative metrics replacing previous PRA firm categorisation, branches should review what requirements will apply to them to ensure they do not inadvertently misreport.
*Three-Year Notification Obligation: Branches should establish processes to notify the PRA where it is projected that they may exceed the subsidiarisation threshold within the next three years.
*Asset Holding Verification: Confirm that branch assets are held in respect of branch provisions and that assets backing direct insurance liabilities are available, as required by the new rule.
Key Dates
16 September 2025
- CP20/25 published by the PRA
16 December 2025DEADLINE
- Consultation response deadline
H1 2026
- Statement of Policy (SoP) expected to be published; subsidiarisation threshold update anticipated upon SoP publication
31 December 2026
- Planned implementation date for rulebook changes