Welcome to the UKGI weekly regulation update service for Aviva ABC brokers

Context

The FCA has published Handbook Notice 136 which confirmed the Handbook updates relating to (amongst other things) complaints reporting, insurance simplification and non-financial misconduct.

Key points to note and next actions

• In addition to the above, the Notice also confirms further ‘data decommissioning’ in that Sections E and G of the RMAR (known as RMA-E – Professional indemnity insurance and RMA-G – Training and competence) will only need to be submitted annually instead of six-monthly.

Context

The FCA has announced that, on 21^st 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, and specialised in travel insurance.  If you need to contact the liquidator, please contact Bridgestones using the details below:

• Email: mail@bridgestones.co.uk
• In writing: MPI Brokers (In Liquidation) c/o Bridgestones Limited, 2 Cromwell Court, Oldham, OL1 1ET
• Telephone: 0161 785 3700

Key points

As part of the liquidation process, Robins Row Limited acquired the right to offer policy renewals to MPI Brokers’ customers. For more information on renewing existing policies, contact Robins Row Limited on:

• 01256 398 500 for corporate insurance
• 01243 841 710 for all travel insurance

All customers should remain alert to the possibility of fraud. If you have customers who were also customers of MPI Brokers, and if they are cold-called by someone claiming to be from MPI Brokers or Bridgestones, your customer should end the call and call Bridgestones on 0161 785 3700.

MPI Brokers is still authorised by the FCA and remains subject to supervisory oversight and the FCA’s rules. The liquidators are answerable to the Court and must comply with all applicable insolvency laws. The FCA does not regulate insolvency processes. The individuals appointed are authorised to act as licensed insolvency practitioners by the Insolvency Practitioners Association.

Context

In a 60-page document, the FCA has published responses to unanswered questions from its 2025 annual public meeting, held on 9th October.  A transcript of the meeting has already been published by the FCA.

Key points to note and next actions

The topics covered in the questions and answers are broad and varied, and include AI, Consumer Credit, Consumer Duty, FOS, insurance, regulatory burden, and regulatory failure.

Context

The FCA has updated its ‘Transforming Data collection’ web page to include some details of data collections that it is transforming.

Key points to note and next actions

The FCA is delivering several initiatives to help meet outcomes:

• My FCA – one regulatory reporting portal to improve and simplify firm experience. This includes a single sign in and improving navigation to tasks.
• Data Decommissioning – ensuring the FCA collects the data it needs to achieve its regulatory objectives. It has removed the need for firms to provide nil returns, reduced the frequency of returns and decommissioned data collections, reducing firm burden.
• Enhanced Data Collections Platform – a new technical capability within RegData that allows firms to submit ad hoc requests to the FCA more easily.
• Next Generation Reporting – which will trial and implement innovative, technology-led solutions to streamline regulatory data collection, reduce firm burden, and strengthen supervisory capabilities.
• Data Standards Approach – working with industry to adopt common data standards across the financial services sector.

Context

The FCA has published its November 2025 Board meeting minutes.  There is one item of potential interest to firm, in relation to ‘re-balancing risk’.

Key points to note and next actions

• Under a heading “Strategic discussion: Risk Rebalancing”, the minutes note that the Board received an update on the FCA’s approach to risk rebalancing, noting the importance of reassessing the UK’s collective attitude to risk in the current and future regulatory environment. The Board emphasised that regulation should support informed risk-taking. Members recognised the distinction between rebalancing and shifting risks and highlighted the need for a cultural shift away from viewing risk solely as negative.
• The Board endorsed proposals for the development of an analytical framework to guide policy and rulemaking, ensuring alignment with risk appetite and providing clear parameters for executive decision-making.
• The Board noted that a new Risk Appetite Framework for risks of harm and internal risks had been shared with the Board Risk Committee and that Business planning would include structured reviews of risk acceptance and prioritisation choices. When developing future rules, the application of the framework in determining risk appetite would be explained. Communication plans would highlight examples of risk rebalancing in the Annual Report.

Context

FOS has published a news article reminding firms that a new interest rate applies to the compensation it directs financial businesses to make for cases referred to its service on and after 1 January 2026.

Key points to note and next actions

• Following a consultation last summer, FOS announced that the default interest rate – applied to some awards we direct financial service firms to make – is being revised to track the Bank of England’s base (average) rate plus one percentage point.  That change has now come into effect and applies to new cases referred to FOS on and after 1^st January 2026, and it aims to strike a balance between simplicity, fairness and proportionality.
• The interest is calculated as a weighted average over a period, typically from when the money was due (that is, when the loss to the consumer occurred) until the date the redress payment is made. Awards will still reflect any actual losses the consumer has suffered.
• FOS has provided a calculator to help businesses understand how much interest, using the new rate, may be due.
• There are different types of interest that businesses can be directed to pay. One of these compensates consumers for being “deprived” of money. That is, not having it available to use – such as where an insurance claim has been wrongly turned down. This is in addition to the compensation for the actual money lost.
• FOS can also direct a business to pay 8% simple interest if it doesn’t pay compensation on time. This rate remains in place.

Context

The ICO has welcomed the introduction of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill in the House of Commons.  It has also published its response to the Bill.

Key points to note and next actions

• The ICO is the designated competent authority with responsibility for regulating relevant digital service providers (RDSPs) defined as cloud computing services, online marketplaces and search engines under the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 (NIS).
• On 12 November 2025, the Secretary of State for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to Parliament. It is an important milestone in the evolution of the UK’s cyber security regulation.  The Bill is the result of public consultation and a call for views.
• The changes in the Bill and the updates to the NIS regulations reflect the fact that cyber threat landscape is constantly evolving.  The following provisions included in the Bill to support the change in approach:
  • Expanded information gateways to ensure NIS regulators can share and receive information with and from UK public authorities and government departments to facilitate the exercise of NIS functions, subject to safeguards.
  • The introduction of powers to enforce a failure to register and keep registration details up to date.
• The ICO is encourage the government to further increase the value of the proposed legislation by proactively supporting the information sharing between relevant UK regulators and assisting in building robust coordination mechanisms between regulators to facilitate the effective identification of risk. This could include:
  • government taking an active role in risk identification;
  • mechanisms to support the exchange of relevant information with government departments not part of the NIS regulations; and
  • technology to support the management and sharing of information between NIS regulators.
• Overall, the Bill represents a positive and balanced package of reforms, but the ICO believes that there are some points that would benefit from additional clarity, in particular:
  • The factors and thresholds for determining what a “significant impact” is for incident reporting.
  • Security and resilience requirements.
  • Clarification of the criteria for assessing “critical suppliers” and further detail on their duties.
  • The application of the new enforcement and penalty measures and determination of turnover.
  • Further enhancement of the ICO’s information gathering powers, including the collection of information that will support risk assessment and prioritisation activities for proactive regulatory oversight.

Context

The ASA has published three rulings in relation to Freedom Debt Ltd, Dean Harrison and “Person(s) unknown” (cited as “1st Central Insurance Claimline”).  All of the identified paid-for Google search ads and websites were designed in a way that made them appear as though they were the insurer.  The website urls and advertising implied that the three firms / individuals were insurers / insurance firms such as 1st Central Insurance, e-sure, Hastings, Churchill, and Admiral.

Key points to note and next actions

• These Rulings form part of a wider piece of work on misleading intent and imitation in ads for accident claims management companies.
• The ads were identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by the ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the ASA’s rules and CAP Code requirements.  The ASA, therefore, is clearly embracing AI technology in its work to identify misleading, unclear or unfair advertising.
• There is significant crossover between the ASA advertising requirements and FCA financial promotion requirements.  Both feature the same underpinning ‘clear, fair and not misleading’ requirement.
•  Firms operating in the financial services sector, particularly those where there are elements of their businesses which are not regulated by the FCA, must remember that the ASA’s requirements do not just cover regulated, financial services business.

Context

Companies House has published updated draft guidance on people with significant control (PSCs).  The guidance awaits approval by both Houses of Parliament. The existing guidance remains in force until approved.

Key points to note and next actions

• If, after 40 days, neither House has resolved that the guidance should not be approved then it will be issued and published.
• The guidance relates to the meaning of ‘significant influence or control’ over Companies in the context of the Register of People with Significant Control.
• The guidance clarifies the terminology in relation to significant influence or control, and provides examples of rights to exercise significant influence or control over a Company.