FINAL NOTICE

David Williams
t/a Debts Maze Solutions
Champion Business Park A4
Arrowe Brook Road
Upton
Wirral
Merseyside
CH49 0AB

ACTION

1. By way of an application dated 31 December 2014 (“the Application”) David

Williams trading as Debts Maze Solutions (“David Williams”) applied under
section 55A of the Act for Part 4A permission to carry on the regulated activities
of Debt Administration, Debt Collecting and Debt-Counselling.

2. The Application is incomplete.

3. For the reasons listed below, the Authority has refused the Application.

SUMMARY OF REASONS

4. By its Warning Notice dated 16 November 2015 (“the Warning Notice”) the

Authority gave notice that it proposed to refuse the Application and that David
Williams was entitled to make representations to the Authority about that
proposed action.

5. As no representations have been received by the Authority from David Williams

within the time allowed by the Warning Notice, the default procedures in

paragraph 2.3.2 of the Authority’s Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual
apply, permitting the Authority to treat the matters referred to in its Warning
Notice as undisputed and, accordingly, to give a Decision Notice.

6. By its Decision notice dated 21 December 2015 (“the Decision Notice”), the

Authority gave David Williams notice that it had decided to take the action
described above.

7. David Williams had 28 days from the date the Decision Notice was given to refer

the matter to the Upper Tribunal (formerly known as the Financial Services and
Markets Tribunal). No referral was made to the Upper Tribunal within this period
of time or to date.

8. Under section 390(1) of the Act, the Authority, having decided to refuse the

Application and there having been no reference of that decision to the Tribunal,
must give David Williams Final Notice of its refusal.

9. David Williams has failed to provide the information required by the Authority,

and the Authority cannot ensure that David Williams will satisfy, and continue to
satisfy the threshold conditions set out in Schedule 6 of the Act.

10. The initial Application by David Williams was incomplete. The Authority has made

repeated requests to David Williams for further information. David Williams has
failed to provide the outstanding information.

11. By failing to provide the outstanding information, David Williams has failed to

demonstrate to the Authority that they will satisfy and continue to satisfy the
threshold conditions set out in Schedule 6 of the Act.

12. The Authority decided to refuse the Application and to give this Final Notice as

David Williams has failed to provide the information required by the Authority
and, in the absence of the information sought, the Authority cannot ensure that
David Williams will satisfy, and continue to satisfy, the threshold conditions set
out in Schedule 6 of the Act.

DEFINITIONS

13. The definitions below are used in this Final Notice.

“the Act” means the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

“the Authority” means the body corporate previously known as the Financial
Services Authority and renamed on 1 April 2013 as the Financial Conduct
Authority

FACTS AND MATTERS

14. The Application was received by the Authority on 31 December 2014.

15. Further information was requested from David Williams under section 55U(5) of

the Act.

16. Details of all the communications between the Authority and David Williams are

set out below:

a) On 22 January 2015 David Williams was asked to provide the following

information in support of the Application by 5 February 2015:

i.
Regulatory business plan;

ii.
Compliance monitoring procedures;

iii.
Opening balance sheet;

iv.
Forecast Closing balance sheet;

v.
Monthly cash flow forecast;

vi.
Monthly profit and loss account; and

vii.
Latest end of year accounts.

b) On 5 February 2015 David Williams contacted the Authority and requested

the deadline be extended to noon on 6 February 2015.

c)
On 5 February 2015 the Authority agreed to extend the deadline for David
Williams to supply the information requested on 22 January 2015 to noon on
6 February 2015.

d) On 6 February 2015 David Williams provided the following information:

i.
Regulatory business plan;

ii.
A document entitled “1 12 month forecast”; and

iii.
A copy of what was purported to be Mr David Williams SA302 – Tax
calculation summary for 2013-2014.

e)
David Williams failed to provide the following items originally requested by
way of email dated 22 January 2015:

i.
Compliance monitoring procedures; and

ii.
Latest end of year accounts.

f)
The Authority did not consider that the regulatory business plan was
adequate because it appeared to be a template which was not populated
under a number of the headings (by way of example, under the heading
‘Executive Summary’, it stated ‘This should be a brief summary of the key
points in: The regulatory business plan; and Background; As far as possible
this should be in bullet points for ease of reading’).

g) On 6 February 2015 the Authority acknowledged by email receipt of David

Williams’ email of the same date.

h) On 27 March 2015 David Williams was asked by email to provide the

following information in support of the Application by 10 April 2015:

i.
A business plan covering the points as requested in the application
form;

ii.
Confirmation of the regulated activities David Williams is applying for
with an explanation of how each fits with his business plan and why the
permissions included in the Application do not match those for which it
hold interim permission;

iii.
Details of the skills and experience of David Williams regarding the
regulated activities applied for in the Application;

iv.
Marketing and financial promotion plan;

v.
Confirmation of whether David Williams would visit customers
residences;

vi.
Vulnerable customers policy;

vii.
Terms of business booklet;

viii.
Structure of the commission and/or charges David Williams would
receive from third parties;

ix.
Confirmation of David Williams’s business structure and details of any of
its employees;

x.
Confirmation of whether David Williams has a locum and their details. If
David Williams does not have a locum, an explanation of why not;

xi.
Compliance monitoring document or, if David Williams does not have
one, an explanation for how it ensures compliance with all relevant
legislation; and

xii.
Latest management accounts.

i)
On 10 April 2015 David Williams emailed the Authority stating that the email
requesting information had been sent to their ‘spam folder’ and had just been
seen. It stated that David Williams would start getting the required
information to the Authority as well as asking if the Authority had a view
concerning compliance consultants.

j)
On 10 April 2015 the Authority sent David Williams an email requesting
provision of the information originally requested on 27 March 2015 by 20
April 2015. The Authority confirmed the use of a compliance consultant was
not a requirement for the application process and it was for David Williams to
determine whether to engage their services or not.

k)
On 22 April 2015 the Authority wrote to David Williams requesting a response
to the email sent 27 March 2015.

l)
On 23 April 2015 David Williams responded by email stating that he was
engaging a compliance consultant and that he would provide an update on its
progress by ‘Friday’ (24 April 2015).

m) On 27 April 2015 the Authority wrote to David Williams requesting an update

as no correspondence had been received by the Authority on 24 April 2015
(as stated in his email of 23 April 2015).

n) On 28 April 2015 David Williams responded by email saying that it had

engaged a different company offering compliance support, which had caused
the delay, and that it was organising the required information.

o) On 29 April 2015 the Authority wrote to David Williams requesting that the

information originally requested on 27 March 2015 be provided by 8 May
2015.

p) On 12 May 2015 the Authority called David Williams on the number provided

in the Application and left a voicemail asking for the information originally
requested on 27 March 2015 to be provided by 15 May 2015. This was
confirmed in writing later the same day.

q) On 18 May 2015 David Williams advised the Authority by way of email that

he would send further information ‘shortly’ and stated:

i.
He believed that he required ‘debt collecting’ as he has ‘negotiated
settlements for clients and thought this could be seen as collecting the
debt’;

ii.
In relation to why he considers he would not be carrying out ‘debt
management’, ’Debt Counselling without debt management, on line
application would not let me apply’;

iii.
In relation to home visits, it ‘could be better to conduct a fact find in a
place where the potential client feels most comfortable’;

iv.
In relation to vulnerable consumers, ‘[p]erson perceived as vulnerable
would be suggested to that the (sic) can and should have a family
member or friend present during the meeting and available for any
phone calls’;

v.
In relation to employees, ‘Barbara Williams is my wife how (sic) assists
with administration, she draws no wage. The on line application only
seemed to be sole trader or limited company’; and

vi.
In relation to whether he had a locum, ‘Locum pending’.

r)
Mr Williams also answered some questions with ‘As above’, but it is unclear
which paragraph or response above he was referring to.

s)
In the same email David Williams also requested clarification from the
Authority regarding the following matters:

i.
Whether a CV was required to demonstrate the skills and experience of
David Williams’s controller;

ii.
What David Williams needed to provide concerning marketing and
financial promotions; and

iii.
If the names of the firms and amounts paid in commission to David
Williams needed to be provided to the Authority.

t)
Mr Williams also stated in this email that he was ‘considering if I am to
continue if it would be better to expand my business as clearly authorisation

would be easier for a larger business to show they are compliant with the
regulations’.

u) On 19 May 2015 the Authority responded by way of email to clarify the points

raised by David Williams in his email of 18 May 2015. David Williams was
asked to provide the following information by 26 May 2015:

i.
Confirmation of the regulated activities David Williams wants to be
included in the Application;

ii.
Business plan covering the points as requested in the application form;
and

iii.
Confirmation of David Williams’ business model and structure with
details of any proposed changes and their implementation dates.

v)
On 27 May 2015 David Williams stated by way of email (within the
information attached) that some information would follow, but provided the
following information:

i.
A ‘Brief career history’;

ii.
In relation to why David Williams requires debt administration, they
stated ‘Debt administration, mainly in the making of payments (e.g.
Settlements) electronically’;

iii.
In relation to financial promotions, David Williams stated ‘There is no
advertising being done. Any in the future will be submitted for approval
prior to use.’; and

iv.
In relation to home visits, David Williams added to their previous
response, stating ‘Any potential client who is local can come into the
office where there is a private room with tea and coffee available so
that initial meetings can be in surroundings were (sic) the potential
client can feel at ease’.

w) On 1 June 2015 David Williams was asked by way of email to provide the

following information in support of the Application by 15 June 2015:

i.
Confirmation of the permissions David Williams intended to apply for
and an explanation for why those permissions had been applied for;

ii.
A business plan covering the points as requested on the application
form;

iii.
Details of commission received by David Williams for referrals and
identify the third parties who would make those payments;

iv.
Terms of business booklet;

v.
David Williams’s compliance document;

vi.
Details of David Williams’ actual or potential locum;

vii.
Latest management accounts; and

viii.
Confirmation of whether David Williams will be changing its business
model and structure (as mentioned in their email dated 18 May 2015)
and, if any changes were to be made, to provide details of the proposed
changes and timescales for the implementation of those changes.

x)
On 19 June 2015, David Williams stated by way of email that some
information would follow, but provided the following information:

i.
In relation to the commission received, he stated ‘In terms of IVA cases
these can be different for each case as the payment is based on a
proportion of the IP fees involved’; and

ii.
‘Treating Customers Fairly’ documentation.

y)
On 25 June 2015, David Williams was asked by way of email to provide the
following information (“the Information”) by 9 July 2015:

i.
Confirmation of the permissions David Williams was applying for in the
Application and an explanation of why those had been applied for;

ii.
A business plan covering the points as requested on the application
form;

iii.
Third parties David Williams proposes to refer clients to and the amount
of commission they would receive for each referral;

iv.
Up to date terms of business booklet that clients of David Williams
would receive;

v.
Compliance document;

vi.
Details of David Williams actual or proposed locum;

vii.
Latest management accounts; and

viii.
Confirmation of whether David Williams would be changing its business
model and structure (as mentioned in their email dated 18 May 2015)
and, if any changes were to be made, details of the proposed changes
and timescales of implementation of those changes.

z)
On 10 July 2015 the Authority wrote to David Williams informing him that a
failure to provide the Information would result in the Application being
determined based upon the information received to date and that this might
result in a recommendation to the FCA’s Regulatory Transactions Committee
(“RTC”) that it issue David Williams with a Warning Notice proposing to
refuse the Application. No response was received to this letter by the stated
deadline of 24 July 2015.

aa) On 24 July 2015 David Williams emailed the Authority stating that the

Information was too large to send by email and he would provide the
Information by post. The Authority does not consider this to be a substantive
response.

bb) On 28 July 2015 the Authority wrote to David Williams noting that the

Information was outstanding and requested confirmation of whether the
Information had been sent by recorded delivery and if so, that he provide the
reference number.

cc) On 4 August 2015 the Authority called David Williams to ask for the

Information. David Williams confirmed that he had been assisting his mother
as her nursing home had been shut down, and that this had been taking up a
lot of his time. David Williams said that a ‘couple more days’ was needed to
provide the Information.

dd) On the same date, the Authority wrote to David Williams, noting the lack of a

substantive response to its previous letters of 25 June 2015 and 10 July 2015
and reiterated that a failure to provide the Information would result in the
Application being determined based upon the information received to date.
The letter again noted that a failure to provide the Information might result in
a recommendation to the FCA’s RTC that it issue David Williams with a
Warning Notice proposing to refuse the Application. No response was received
to this letter by the stated deadline of 18 August 2015 (i.e. within 15 days).

ee) On 20 August 2015 the Authority wrote to David Williams, noting the lack of

a substantive response to its previous letters of 25 June 2015, 10 July 2015
and 4 August 2015 reiterating that a failure to provide the Information would
result in the Application being determined based upon the information
received to date. The letter again noted that this might result in a
recommendation to the FCA’s RTC that it issue David Williams with a Warning
Notice proposing to refuse the Application. No response was received to this
letter by the stated deadline of 4 September 2015.

ff) On 6 September 2015 David Williams emailed the Authority in response to its

letter of 20 August 2015 stating the following, “I am considering the options
outlined, what is the route I would need to take to restart the application?”.

gg) On 7 September 2015 the Authority wrote to David Williams stating that the

Application could not be ‘restarted’, and outlined the options available;
namely, withdrawing the Application, or proceeding with the Application, of
which the Authority would recommend refusal to the RTC, on the basis that
the Information requested on 25 June 2015 had not been provided. No
response was received to this email by the stated deadline of 10 September
2015.

17. No response has been received by the Authority indicating that any of the

correspondence sent could not be delivered.

18. From 19 June 2015 the Authority has not received a substantive response to any

of the communications set out above. The information provided by David
Williams in the Application has been insufficient to enable the Authority to
determine the Application.

19. On 1 December David Williams confirmed by way of letter receipt of the Warning

Notice, and stated that he would provide a response to the Warning Notice “in
writing and not oral”.

20. Following this, the Authority did not receive any representations from Mr Williams

by the deadline specified in the Warning Notice.

21. The Authority emailed David Williams on 10 December 2015 to confirm receipt of

his letter of 1 December 2015 and asked if he intended to make written
representations in response to the Warning Notice. David Williams was reminded
that the deadline to make written representations in response to the Warning
Notice was 9 December 2015. No response was received to this email. The
Decision Notice was issued on 21 December 2015.

IMPACT ON THRESHOLD CONDITIONS

22. The regulatory provisions relevant to this Final Notice are referred to in Annex A.

23. By virtue of David Williams’ failure to provide the Information and, from 19 June

2015, to substantively reply to the Authority’s correspondence, the Authority
cannot ensure that David Williams’ satisfies, and will continue to satisfy, the
following threshold conditions:

2C (Effective Supervision)

i.
David Williams’s failure to provide the Authority with the Information calls
into question whether the Authority would be able to obtain (on an
ongoing basis) sufficient information about the firm’s activities such that
the Authority would be able to effectively supervise them.

2D (Appropriate Resources)

ii.
In failing to respond to the Authority’s requests and correspondence in the
manner set out above, David Williams has been unable to satisfy the
Authority that they have the appropriate human resources.

2E (Suitability)

iii.
The failure by David Williams to supply the Information means that the
firm is not being open and co-operative with the Authority or
demonstrating that they are ready, willing and organised to comply in
their dealings with the Authority.

24. On the basis of the facts and matters described above, the Authority has

concluded that David Williams will not satisfy, and continue to satisfy, the
threshold conditions in relation to all of the regulated activities for which David
Williams would have permission if the Application were granted.

IMPORTANT NOTICES

25. This Final Notice is given under section 390 (1) of the Act.

26. Sections 391(4), 391(6) and 391(7) of the Act apply to the publication of

information about the matter to which this Final Notice relates. Under those
provisions, the Authority must publish such information about the matter to which
this Final Notice relates as the Authority considers appropriate. The information
may be published in such manner as the Authority considers appropriate.
However, the Authority may not publish information if such publication would, in
the opinion of the Authority, be unfair to you or prejudicial to the interests of
consumers or detrimental to the stability of the UK financial system.

27. The Authority intends to publish such information about the matter to which this

Final Notice relates as it considers appropriate.

Authority contacts

28. For more information concerning this matter generally, contact Andrew Hayward-

Wills, Manager, Credit Authorisations Division at the Authority (direct line: 020
7066 5374 / email: Andrew.Hayward-Wills@fca.org.uk).

Patricia Knox
on behalf of the Regulatory Transactions Committee

ANNEX A – REGULATORY PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO THIS FINAL NOTICE

1. Section 55A(1) of the Act provides for an application for permission to carry on

one or more regulated activities to be made to the appropriate regulator. Section
55A(2) defines the “appropriate regulator” for different applications.

2. Section 55B(3) of the Act provides that, in giving or varying permission, imposing

or varying a requirement, or giving consent, under any provision of Part 4A of the
Act, each regulator must ensure that the person concerned will satisfy, and
continue to satisfy, in relation to all of the regulated activities for which the
person has or will have permission, the threshold conditions for which that
regulator is responsible.

3. The threshold conditions that apply for the purposes of this application are set out

in Part 1B schedule 6 of the Act. In brief, the threshold conditions relate to:

(1)
Threshold condition 2B: Location of offices

(2)
Threshold condition 2C: Effective supervision

(3)
Threshold condition 2D: Appropriate resources

(4)
Threshold condition 2E: Suitability

(5)
Threshold condition 2F: Business model

Relevant provisions of the Authority’s Handbook

4. In exercising its powers in relation to the granting of a Part 4A permission, the

Authority must have regard to guidance published in the Authority Handbook,
including the part titled Threshold Conditions (“COND”). The main considerations
in relation to the action specified are set out below.

Principles for Businesses

5. PRIN 2.1.1R, Principle 11 states that a firm must deal with its regulators in an

open and co-operative way, and must disclose to the appropriate regulator
appropriately anything relating to the firm of which that regulator would
reasonably expect notice.

Threshold Conditions in general

6. COND 1.3.2G(2) states that, in relation to threshold conditions 2D to 2F, the

Authority will consider whether a firm is ready, willing and organised to comply
on a continuing basis with the requirements and standards under the regulatory
system which will apply to the firm if it is granted Part 4A permission.

7. COND 1.3.3AG provides that, in determining the weight to be given to any

relevant matter, the Authority will consider its significance in relation to the
regulated activities for which the firm has, or will have, permission in the context
of its ability to supervise the firm adequately, having regard to the Authority’s
statutory objectives. In this context, a series of matters may be significant when

taken together, even though each of them in isolation might not give serious
cause for concern.

8. COND 1.3.3BG provides that, in determining whether the firm will satisfy, and

continue to satisfy, the Authority’s threshold conditions, the Authority will have
regard to all relevant matters, whether arising in the United Kingdom or
elsewhere.

9. COND 1.3.3CG provides that, when assessing the Authority’s threshold

conditions, the Authority may have regard to any person appearing to be, or
likely to be, in a relevant relationship with the firm, in accordance with section
55R of the Act (Persons connected with an applicant). For example, a firm's
controllers, its directors or partners, other persons with close links to the firm
(see COND 2.3), and other persons that exert influence on the firm which might
pose a risk to the firm's satisfaction of the Authority’s threshold conditions, would
be in a relevant relationship with the firm.

Threshold condition 2C (Effective supervision)

10. COND 2.3.3G provides that, in assessing the threshold conditions set out in

paragraph 2C of Schedule 6 to the Act, factors which the Authority will take into
consideration include, among other things, whether:

(1) it is likely that the Authority will receive adequate information from the firm,

and those persons with whom the firm has close links, to enable it to
determine whether the firm is complying with the requirements and standards
under the regulatory system for which the Authority is responsible and to
identify and assess the impact on its statutory objectives; this will include
consideration of whether the firm is ready, willing and organised to comply
with Principle 11 (Relations with regulators and the rules in SUP on the
provision of information to the Authority.

Threshold condition 2D (Adequate Resources)

11. COND 2.4.1BG states that the relevant appropriate resources for threshold

condition 2D are set out in paragraph 2D of Schedule 6 to the Act.

12. COND 2.4.2G(2) states that the Authority will interpret the term 'appropriate' as

meaning sufficient in terms of quantity, quality and availability, and 'resources' as
including all financial resources (though only in the case of firms not carrying on,
or seeking to carry on, a PRA-regulated activity), non-financial resources and
means of managing its resources; for example, capital, provisions against
liabilities, holdings of or access to cash and other liquid assets, human resources
and effective means by which to manage risks.

13. COND 2.4.2G(2A) provides that, ‘non-financial resources’ of the firm include

human resources it has available.

14. COND 2.4.2G(3) states that high level systems and control requirements are in

SYSC. The Authority will consider whether the firm is ready, willing and organised
to comply with these and other applicable systems and controls requirements
when assessing if it has appropriate non-financial resources for the purpose of the
threshold conditions set out in threshold condition 2D.

Threshold condition 2E (Suitability)

15. COND 2.5.2G(2) states that the Authority will also take into consideration

anything that could influence a firm's continuing ability to satisfy threshold
condition 2E. Examples include the firm's position within a UK or international
group, information provided by overseas regulators about the firm, and the firm's
plans to seek to vary its Part 4A permission to carry on additional regulated
activities once it has been granted that permission.

16. COND 2.5.4G(2)(c) states that examples of the kind of general considerations to

which the Authority may have regard when assessing whether a firm will satisfy,
and continue to satisfy, threshold condition 2E include, but are not limited to,
whether the firm can demonstrate that it conducts, or will conduct, its business
with integrity and in compliance with proper standards.

17. COND 2.5.6G provides that examples of the kind of particular considerations to

which the Authority may have regard when assessing whether a firm will satisfy,
and continue to satisfy, this threshold condition include, but are not limited to,
whether:

(1) the firm has been open and co-operative in all its dealings with the Authority

and any other regulatory body (see Principle 11 (Relations with regulators))
and is ready, willing and organised to comply with the requirements and
standards under the regulatory system (such as the detailed requirements of
SYSC and, in relation to a firm not carrying on, or seeking to carry on, a PRA-
regulated activity only, the Prudential Standards part of the Authority’s
Handbook) in addition to other legal, regulatory and professional obligations;
the relevant requirements and standards will depend on the circumstances of
each case, including the regulated activities which the firm has permission, or
is seeking permission, to carry on.