FINAL NOTICE

To:

Elaine MacCormack trading as EPM Financial Services

Of:



EPM Financial Services
36 Great Ellshams
Banstead

Surrey


SM7 2BA


FSA Reference Number:
468735


Dated:

6 April 2011



TAKE NOTICE: The Financial Services Authority (the “FSA”) of 25 The North
Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS gives Elaine MacCormack trading as
EPM Financial Services (“Elaine MacCormack”), final notice about a decision to cancel
the permission granted to her to carry on regulated activities

1.
ACTION

1.1.
The FSA gave Elaine MacCormack a Decision Notice on 3 March 2011 (the
“Decision Notice”) which notified her that, for the reasons given below and pursuant
to section 45 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the “Act”), the FSA had
decided to cancel the permission granted to her pursuant to Part IV of the Act (“Elaine
MacCormack’s Part IV permission”).

1.2.
Elaine MacCormack was informed of her statutory right to make a reference to the
Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the “Tribunal”), but she has not
referred the Decision Notice to the Tribunal within 28 days of the date on which the
Decision Notice was given to her. Accordingly, the FSA has today cancelled Elaine
MacCormack’s Part IV permission.













//cont…


2.
REASONS FOR ACTION

Elaine MacCormack trading as EPM Financial Services
06 April 2011
Final Notice

Page 2

2.1.
On the basis of the facts and matters and conclusions described in its Warning Notice
dated 25 January 2011 (the "Warning Notice") (a copy of the relevant extract of the
Warning Notice is attached to and forms part of this Notice), and in the Decision
Notice, it appears to the FSA that Elaine MacCormack is failing to satisfy the
threshold conditions set out in Schedule 6 of the Act (the "Threshold Conditions").

2.2
This is because, in the opinion of the FSA, Elaine MacCormack’s resources are not
adequate in relation to the regulated activities she has had permission to carry on.
Specifically, she is unable to meet her liabilities as they have fallen due.

2.3
These failings are significant and material in relation to the regulated activities for
which Elaine MacCormack has had permission, and she therefore fails to satisfy
Threshold Condition 4 (Adequate resources).

3.
DECISION MAKER

3.1.
The decision that gave rise to the obligation to give this Final Notice was taken by the
Regulatory Decisions Committee.

4.
IMPORTANT

4.1.
This Final Notice is sent to Elaine MacCormack in accordance with section 390(1) of
the Act.

Publicity

4.2.
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 FSA
must publish such information about the matter to which this Final Notice relates as
the FSA considers appropriate. The information may be published in such manner as
the FSA considers appropriate. However, the FSA may not publish information if
such publication would, in the opinion of the FSA, be unfair to Elaine MacCormack
or prejudicial to the interests of consumers.

4.3.
The FSA intends to publish such information about the matter to which this Final

Notice relates as it considers appropriate.

FSA contact

4.4.
For more information concerning this matter generally, Elaine MacCormack should
contact Wilma Amarteifio (direct line: 020 7066 7452 / fax: 020 7066 7453) of the
Enforcement and Financial Crime Division at the FSA.



…………………………………………………
John Kirby
FSA Enforcement and Financial Crime Division

Attachment: Extract from Warning Notice dated 25 January 2011

EXTRACT FROM THE WARNING NOTICE DATED 25 JANUARY 2011 ISSUED
BY THE FSA TO ELAINE MACCORMACK TRADING AS EPM FINANCIAL
SERVICES


“2.
REASONS FOR ACTION

Facts and matters relied on

2.18
You were granted authorisation and individual approval by the FSA as a sole trader
trading as EPM Financial Services on 6 November 2007, to carry on regulated home
finance and designated investment business.

2.19
The FSA has identified that County Court Judgments (CCJs) have been made against
you (or your firm) which have not been satisfied.

2.20
On 15 June 2010, the FSA wrote to you stating that there were seven unsatisfied CCJs
against you (or your firm), totalling £530,009. On 22 June 2010, you informed the
FSA that you had satisfied one judgment and made payments in respect of another
debt, reducing the total debt by £5,369. You stated that you would be able to meet all
your liabilities upon completion of the sale of your property, which was being
marketed.

2.21
On 28 July 2010, the FSA accepted your application for a variation of Part IV
permission to remove all regulated activities with immediate effect, on the basis that
the variation would remain in place until you were able to meet your liabilities as they
fell due. The FSA confirmed to you that if you were unable to demonstrate that you
were able to meet your liabilities within three months of the effective date of the
variation, then you should either submit an application to cancel your permission or
the FSA would use its own power to do so.

2.22
On 24 September and 8 November 2010, the FSA wrote to you requesting an update
on your financial position and the sale of your property. The FSA did not receive a
response.

2.23
On 23 November 2010, the FSA received evidence suggesting that a further six CCJs
totalling £6,584 had been made against you and your firm, which remained
unsatisfied. The FSA wrote to you on 13 December 2010, requesting that you confirm
whether these CCJs were made against you and your firm, and whether they had been
satisfied. The FSA did not receive a response. It therefore appears to the FSA that
twelve CCJs against you and your firm are unsatisfied at a total of approximately
£531,224. The FSA has not been provided with any evidence that your liabilities will
be met in the near future or at all.

Conclusions

2.24
The facts and matters described above lead the FSA, having regard to its regulatory
objectives which include the maintenance of market confidence and the protection of
consumers, to the following conclusions:

(1)
by failing to meet its liabilities as they have fallen due, you are in breach of
MIPRU 4.2.1R and IPRU(INV) 2.2.1R(1), which require you to be able to
meet your liabilities as they fall due; and

(2)
by breaching MIPRU 4.2.1R and IPRU(INV) 2.2.1R(1), you are in breach of
Principle 4, that failing is material in relation to the regulated activities for
which you have permission and you are therefore failing to satisfy Threshold
Condition 4: Adequate Resources.”

END OF EXTRACT