FINAL NOTICE

To:
Quick Purchase Limited t/a Rent My House Back

Address:
1 The Spinney
121 Main Road
Danbury
Chelmsford
Essex, CM3 4DL

FRN:
522468

ACTION

1.
For the reasons given in this notice, the Authority hereby imposes on Quick

Purchase a financial penalty of £26,600.

2.
Quick Purchase had referred the matter to the Tribunal, but agreed to settle the

investigation under the Authority’s executive settlement procedures. As the

investigation settled at stage 4 a settlement discount does not apply.

SUMMARY OF REASONS

3.
In the relevant period, Quick Purchase entered into 14 regulated sale and rent back

(“SRB”) transactions with customers. An SRB transaction must be both appropriate

and affordable to be suitable for the customer, but Quick Purchase permitted its

customers to enter into SRB transactions without having reasonable grounds to be

satisfied that the transaction was both affordable and appropriate for those

customers.

4.
Of the 14 SRB transactions, 11 were either inappropriate, unaffordable or both. The

Authority regards these inappropriate and/or unaffordable sales as serious because

they led to significant consumer detriment causing customers potentially to forgo

between 29-38% of the equity in their homes.

5.
Quick Purchase has breached Principle 6, by failing to pay due regard to the

interests of its customers and treat them fairly. Quick Purchase failed to:

a. ensure appropriate customer information was gathered by its non-

approved sales adviser, prior to permitting its customers to enter into an

SRB agreement, to ensure its appropriateness;

b. assess reasonably the appropriateness of SRB transactions it permitted its

customers to enter into, with the result that nine of them were not in fact

appropriate. Specifically, it failed to consider and adequately explore other

options that may have been more appropriate to the customers' needs and

circumstances;

c. assess reasonably the affordability of SRB transactions it permitted its

customers to enter into, in accordance with the requirements of MCOB,

with the result that four of them were not in fact affordable;

d. ensure that valuations of all properties were carried out independently by

a surveyor who owed a duty of care to the customer; and

e. ensure that its record keeping was adequate to demonstrate compliance

with regulatory requirements.

6.
Quick Purchase has also breached MCOB 4.11.3R in that it permitted its customers

to enter into SRB transactions without having reasonable grounds to be satisfied

that the transaction was both affordable and appropriate for those customers and

MCOB 4.11.8R in that it failed to keep records which explained why Quick Purchase

concluded that these transactions were both affordable and appropriate for the

transactions in question. It also breached MCOB 2.6A.12A R in that it failed to

ensure in all cases that valuations for the purposes of the SRB transactions were

carried out by a valuer owing a duty of care to the customer.

7.
The Authority has recognised that Quick Purchase agreed to vary its Part IV (now

Part 4A) permission at an early stage and no longer enters into any new SRB

contracts or agreements.

8.
Quick Purchase took the following actions to address customer detriment and the

Authority’s concerns in relation to the SRB transactions:

a. agreed to pay appropriate redress to those customers whose SRB

transactions were unsuitable;

b. has not increased the rent for its SRB customers throughout the current

five-year terms (notwithstanding annual rent rises being permitted under

each SRB tenancy agreement); and

c. agreed to offer its existing SRB tenants new assured shorthold tenancies

for a three year term at an affordable market rent fixed for those three

years (notwithstanding the fact that there is no requirement that an

assured shorthold tenancy should offer a minimum term or be at a rent

which includes the element of affordability). These tenancies are to

commence on the expiration of the current SRB contracts.

9.
The action set out in this Notice supports the Authority’s operational objective of

securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers.

DEFINITIONS

10.
The definitions below are used in this Final Notice.

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

“assured shorthold tenancy” means a tenancy governed by the Housing Act 1988;

“the Authority” means the body corporate previously known as the Financial

Services Authority and renamed on 1 April 2013 as the Financial Conduct

Authority;

“the customers” means the 14 individuals who commenced and completed their

sale and rent back transaction with Quick Purchase during the relevant period (see

table at Annex A);

“the 14 customer files” means the customer files relating to the customers’ SRB

transactions;

“MCOB” means the Mortgages and Home Finance: Conduct of Business

sourcebook, part of the Authority’s Handbook;

“Part IV Permission” means permission given to Quick Purchase under Part IV of

the Act, which was in force until 31 March 2013, and “Part 4A permission” means

permission given to Quick Purchase under Part 4A of the Act from 1 April 2013;

“the Principles” means the Principles for Businesses, part of the Authority's

Handbook;

“Quick Purchase” means Quick Purchase Limited trading as Rent My House Back;

“the relevant period” means 14 July 2010 to 17 May 2011;

“SRB” means regulated sale and rent back; and

“the Tribunal” means the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).

FACTS AND MATTERS

Background and SRB regulatory introduction

11.
Quick Purchase is an authorised SRB provider. It describes itself as a specialist SRB

buying company, enabling homeowners to stay in their house and rent it back. It

became authorised on 14 July 2010 to carry out sale and rent back activities.

12.
Quick Purchase entered into 14 SRB agreements with customers during the

relevant period.

13.
SRB transactions involve individuals selling their home at a discount in return for

the right to remain in their property as a tenant for a set period, typically on an

assured shorthold tenancy. The individuals tend to be facing re-possession or other

serious financial difficulties. The principal reason for most customers to enter into

an SRB scheme is to allow them to remain living in their houses for an agreed

period of time, which they would have been unable to do if they were to sell their

properties in the open market. Examples of other reasons given by customers

wishing to enter into SRB transactions include paying off mortgages and other

debts, reducing monthly outgoings, leaving the property ladder, releasing money to

spend on holidays and family members, and not having to deal with the expenses

and stress (such as the responsibility for repairs) relating to home ownership.

14.
SRB became a regulated activity on 30 June 2010. Before this date a transitional

regime, which contained less onerous requirements on firms, was in place. All firms

were required to apply a single sales standard across all SRB transactions based on

the assessment of affordability and appropriateness for each sale. This means it is

not permissible for a firm to transact an SRB agreement unless it has reasonable

grounds to be satisfied that that an SRB agreement is both affordable and

appropriate for the customer.

15.
Quick Purchase operated in the transitionally regulated, and before this non-

regulated, SRB market before becoming authorised on 14 July 2010.

16.
In March 2011 the Authority undertook a thematic review of the SRB market. The

review identified widespread poor practice among SRB firms. The main conclusion

was that the majority of the SRB sales, from these SRB firms, were either

unaffordable or inappropriate, meaning that consumers had a detrimental outcome

or were likely to in the future. Common failings from this review included those

relating to correctly assessing appropriateness and affordability, disclosure, record

keeping and sales processes.

17.
On 5 and 6 May 2011, the Authority attended the offices of Quick Purchase and

identified areas of concern. Quick Purchase agreed, on 17 May 2011, to vary its

Part IV permission to remove its permission to enter into any new regulated SRB

contracts or agreements. Quick Purchase remained able to assist in the

administration and performance of any existing regulated SRB agreement. Quick

Purchase disputed the initial assessment in some, but not all, of these cases in

respect of both "affordability" and "appropriateness". In some cases Quick Purchase

reduced the rent that these customers were paying.

18.
On 15 November 2011, the Authority required Quick Purchase to instruct a skilled

person to produce a report in relation to its assessment of the "affordability" of the

14 SRB transactions. The skilled person produced its report on 7 February 2013.

The skilled person interviewed some of the customers and obtained further

information on their financial circumstances. For the customers who did not wish to

participate, the skilled person relied upon national statistical data and on

extrapolating results from the participating customers.

19.
The Authority has also undertaken its own review of the customer files in relation

to both affordability and appropriateness and, where possible, interviewed the

customers.

General Concerns

Customer information

20.
Quick Purchase's procedures in gathering information on the customers' personal

and financial circumstances increased the risk that the customers entered into the

transactions without their personal circumstances being assessed adequately for

the purpose of ensuring that the transactions were both affordable and appropriate.

21.
Quick Purchase gathered this information during their initial telephone calls with

the customers and generated a fact find document based on this discussion. The

customers were subsequently asked to sign the fact find document and verify the

information at a face to face meeting with Quick Purchase. In seven cases this

meeting took place after Quick Purchase had assessed affordability and

appropriateness of the SRB transactions for the customers. This gave rise to an

increased risk that Quick Purchase did not have sufficient information about the

customers' personal and financial circumstances in order to assess the affordability

and appropriateness of the transactions.

22.
The skilled person found that Quick Purchase failed to gather sufficient information

on the customers’ financial circumstances to demonstrate affordability. This

included Quick Purchase’s failure to obtain verifiable evidence of the customers’

income, expenses and financial commitments and to ensure that the customers’

circumstances were accurately reflected in the calculation of their net monthly

expenditure.

23.
The fact finding process to assess the appropriateness of the transactions lacked

sufficient rigour. The fact find document was completed by a sales adviser not

involved in the assessment of the suitability of the transactions. It did not contain

adequate information on the customer's needs, objectives and circumstances to

enable Quick Purchase to determine and demonstrate the appropriateness of the

SRB transaction. Quick Purchase’s procedure on gathering customer information

was of a "tick box" nature and inadequate. It should have been a genuine

assessment of the customers' personal circumstances to assist with Quick

Purchase’s determination of the appropriateness of the SRB transaction.

Valuations

24.
Under MCOB 2.6A.12A R, a firm must ensure that any valuation for the purposes of

an SRB agreement is carried out by a valuer who owes a duty of care to the

customer in valuing the property. This provision ensures that the customer has an

effective remedy against the valuer if subsequently required. Although Quick

Purchase included in its customer files a joint instruction letter in the form set out

in MCOB 2 Annex 1G with a view to establishing that the valuer owed a duty of

care to the customer, most of these letters were undated and were not

countersigned by the customers. In five cases the valuer instructed to value each

property, for the purpose of identifying each property's market value, was only

acting for Quick Purchase and was not subject to a joint instruction by Quick

Purchase and the customer.

25.
Quick Purchase’s failure to comply with this valuation requirement has meant that

5 of the 14 customers may not have been owed a duty of care by the valuer. The

Authority considers this to be serious as Quick Purchase did not treat its customers

fairly in this regard.

Record keeping

26.
MCOB 4.11.8R states that a firm must make and retain a record of the customer

information that has been provided to it, and which explains why the firm

concluded that the customer could afford, and why it was appropriate for him, to

enter into the proposed SRB agreement.

27.
The skilled person found that in all cases Quick Purchase had failed to demonstrate

the affordability of the transactions for the customers.

28.
The record keeping in these fact finds contained insufficient information to

demonstrate that Quick Purchase had considered and rejected other options (for

example, selling on the open market, re-mortgaging, equity release) that may have

been suitable for the customers. Quick Purchase did not demonstrate that it had

explored these options sufficiently and provided inadequate explanations as to why

it was satisfied that it was appropriate for the customers to enter into the proposed

SRB agreement, rather than availing themselves of other options. For example, in

one case (Customer A), obvious alternatives for a customer with her needs,

objectives and circumstances were to sell the property or to apply for a mortgage

rescue scheme (a government scheme offered to mortgagors in serious difficulties

who are unable to make their mortgage repayments and in danger of becoming

homeless if the house is repossessed). Quick Purchase’s comments recorded in the

fact find, consisting of “not an option as she did not want to move out as she has

lived there for some time,” and “client had looked at this but felt that this was not

an option for her” were insufficient to explain why Quick Purchase considered it was

appropriate for this customer to enter into the proposed SRB agreement, rather

than avail herself of the other options.

SRB transactions

29.
At all material times Quick Purchase actively employed the services of external

advisers in an effort to meet its regulatory obligations. These steps do not however

remove Quick Purchase’s direct responsibility, as the authorised entity, for the

regulatory failings which occurred. The paragraphs below set out the Authority’s

findings in relation to 3 of the 11 cases where the SRB transactions were not

affordable
and/or
appropriate
to
the
customers’
needs,
objectives
and

circumstances.

Mrs A

30.
Mrs A was a 70 year old widow with no private income. She was in financial

difficulties with her mortgage and debt repayments and had incurred arrears

amounting to around £6,000. An order for possession was obtained by the lenders,

the order being suspended on condition of payment of the arrears. Mrs A, whose

home was valued at £187,500, gave up £56,250 of equity in the SRB transaction.

After repaying her outstanding mortgage she paid the balance of her sale proceeds

(£59,400) as advance rent for the full five year term to Quick Purchase. No

allowance for accelerated receipt was provided by Quick Purchase to Mrs A for this

payment.

31.
Quick Purchase recorded a maximum affordable monthly rent in the fact find of

£344.47 for Mrs A. The tenancy agreement stipulated the SRB rent as £900 per

month for this transaction. Quick Purchase’s own assessment indicated that the

SRB rent was not affordable.

32.
Quick Purchase assessed this transaction as affordable for Mrs A by making

arrangements for her to pay the rent for the full five year term upfront from her

sale proceeds. This amounted to £59,400. This was despite MCOB 4.11.4E(3) which

states that, in assessing affordability, a firm must not rely to a material extent on

the capital of, or income from, any lump sum the customer receives that represents

the net sale proceeds of the property.

33.
Mrs A paid £59,400 to Quick Purchase as an advance payment of rent for the full

five year term. Notwithstanding MCOB 4.11.4E(3), Quick Purchase should have at

least provided Mrs A with a discount to take into account the benefit to it of

accelerated receipt. As a result, Mrs A was left with no surplus cash after the sale of

her property to Quick Purchase.

34.
The skilled person re-assessed the customer’s income and expenditure after the

customer contact exercise and calculated her net income as being in deficit. Given

Mrs A’s financial difficulties at that time, and the SRB rent being significantly higher

than her original mortgage and debt repayments each month (which were around

£500), the skilled person assessed this case to be unaffordable at any level of rent.

Appropriateness

35.
Quick Purchase recorded in the fact find that selling on the open market and

vacating the property was not a viable option for Mrs A as she did not want to

move out. The fact find referred to other options including equity release and

mortgage rescue schemes, which were dismissed.

36.
Mrs A’s needs and objectives were to be able to repay her debts and avoid re-

possession proceedings. She was retired with a pension income of approximately

£1,000 per month, all of which was expended on basic living expenses and

mortgage repayments. Quick Purchase should have looked into mortgage rescue

schemes as an option for Mrs A. Given her circumstances, she could potentially

have qualified for such schemes that would have enabled her to obtain almost 90%

of the value of her house (as opposed to the 70% she obtained through Quick

Purchase) and at the same time rent her home at a discounted rate. The reason

shown for not exploring this scheme as an option in the fact find, i.e. “client had

looked at this but felt that this was not an option for her”, was inadequate.

37.
Mrs A’s needs and objectives may also have been better met by selling her house

on the open market. Mrs A was widowed with no dependants; her circumstances

suggested that it was likely that she would be able to move to less expensive

accommodation. Quick Purchase failed to demonstrate that it had sufficiently

explored this option with Mrs A.

38.
There was insufficient analysis by Quick Purchase in assessing whether Mrs A’s

needs, objectives and circumstances were appropriately met by this transaction.

Quick Purchase executed the transaction without adequate regard as to whether

this was in her best interests and without fully exploring other options.

39.
Quick Purchase did not have reasonable grounds to be satisfied that the proposed

SRB agreement was appropriate to the needs, objectives and circumstances of Mrs

A. The benefits of the transaction were clearly outweighed by the adverse effects.

The transaction was both unaffordable and not appropriate.

Ms B

40.
Ms B was 35 years old, a widow, had one dependent child and two children who

had left home. She had no arrears on her mortgage. Her aim was to obtain a cash

sum to purchase a caravan and to leave the property market. Ms B gave up

£25,000 of equity in her home in the SRB transaction. The SRB offer was sufficient

to pay her debts and to leave her with a surplus of £18,000 - £20,000. Her monthly

rent was £350 for the first year, with the potential to increase to £480 in year five.

41.
Quick Purchase assessed Ms B’s net monthly income and total average monthly

expenditure and considered that the transaction was affordable for her. After re-

assessing Ms B’s income and expenditure the skilled person agreed that the

transaction was affordable.

Appropriateness

42.
Quick Purchase recorded in the fact find that selling in the open market and

vacating possession was not considered as Ms B had lived in the property for a

number of years and did not want to sell. But the main reason given on the fact

find for entering into the transaction was that Ms B wanted to leave the “property

ladder”. If this was the primary reason for entering into an SRB transaction, selling

on the open market and moving into rented accommodation should have been

actively discussed between Quick Purchase and Ms B.

43.
Ms B’s other objective was to release money to buy a caravan. Quick Purchase

failed to demonstrate active discussion on the merits of this proposed course of

action for Ms B.

44.
Ms B was not facing any financial difficulty and her financial circumstances were

manageable. There were three obvious alternative options which should have been

actively considered, discussed and evidenced: doing nothing, taking a further loan

(secured or unsecured) for her prospective purchase of the caravan, or selling the

property and moving into rented accommodation. Ms B had two main objectives

(obtaining money for a caravan and coming out of the property market), either or

both of which could have been achieved without the loss of £25,000 equity in the

property.

45.
There was insufficient analysis by Quick Purchase in assessing whether Ms B’s

needs, objectives and circumstances were appropriately met by this transaction.

Quick Purchase executed the transaction without adequate regard to whether this

was in her best interests.

46.
Although Ms B’s transaction was affordable, it was not appropriate to the needs,

objectives and circumstances of Ms B, and Quick Purchase did not have reasonable

grounds to be satisfied that it was.

47.
Mr C was 70 years old and a widower with no financial dependants. Mr C’s property

was mortgage free and he was not in financial difficulties. His aim was to obtain

£14,000 to give to his daughter for her to invest in her business. Mr C gave up

£22,750 of equity in his home in the SRB transaction. His monthly rent was set at

£350 for the first year, with the potential to increase to £420 in year five.

48.
Quick Purchase assessed Mr C’s net monthly income and total average monthly

expenditure and recorded a maximum affordable monthly rent in the fact find for

Mr C of £1,248.90. This assessment indicated that the SRB rent was affordable for

him. After re-assessing Mr C’s income and expenditure the skilled person agreed

that the transaction was affordable.

Appropriateness

49.
Quick Purchase failed to explore sufficiently the alternative options for Mr C to

assist his daughter financially. The obvious options were whether Mr C could have

obtained a loan (something he had previously done) to raise the £14,000 or acted

as guarantor to a loan taken out by his daughter. Instead, the fact find recorded

that an unsecured loan was discounted as the customer was looking to release

money and keep his outgoings down. This suggests that Quick Purchase did little

more than mention this option in passing. An SRB transaction should not be

considered as a method of raising convenient and immediate finance.

50.
There was insufficient analysis by Quick Purchase in assessing whether Mr C’s

needs, objectives and circumstances were appropriately met by this transaction.

Quick Purchase executed the transaction without adequate regard to whether this

was in Mr C’s best interests and without fully exploring other options.

51.
Although Mr C's transaction was affordable, it was not appropriate to the needs,

objectives and circumstances of Mr C, and Quick Purchase did not have reasonable

grounds to be satisfied that it was.

FAILINGS

52.
The regulatory provisions relevant to this Final Notice are set out in Annex B.

Principle 6 - Customers’ interests

53.
By reason of the facts and matters referred to above, Quick Purchase has failed to

comply with Principle 6, by failing to pay due regard to the interests of its

customers and treat them fairly. In particular, Quick Purchase failed to:

a. ensure appropriate customer information was gathered by its non-

approved sales adviser, prior to permitting its customers to enter into an

SRB agreement, to ensure its appropriateness;

b. assess reasonably the appropriateness of SRB transactions it permitted its

customers to enter into, with the result that nine of them were not in fact

appropriate. Specifically, it failed to consider and adequately explore other

options that may have been more appropriate to the customers' needs and

circumstances;

c. assess reasonably the affordability of SRB transactions it permitted its

customers to enter into, in accordance with the requirements of MCOB,

with the result that four of them were not in fact affordable;

d. ensure that valuations of all of the properties were carried out

independently by a surveyor who owed a duty of care to the customer;

and

e. ensure that its record keeping was adequate to demonstrate compliance

with regulatory requirements.

54.
Quick Purchase has also breached MCOB 4.11.3R in that it permitted its customers

to enter into SRB transactions without having reasonable grounds to be satisfied

that the transaction was both affordable and appropriate for those customers, and

MCOB 4.11.8R in that it failed to keep records which explained why Quick Purchase

concluded that these transactions were both affordable and appropriate for the

transactions in question. It also breached MCOB 2.6A.12A R in that it failed to

ensure in all cases that valuations for the purposes of the SRB transactions were

carried out by a valuer owing a duty of care to the customer.

SANCTION

55.
The Authority is imposing a financial penalty on Quick Purchase for breaching

Principle 6 and MCOB 4.11.3R, 4.11.8R and 2.6A.12AR.

56.
The principal purpose of a financial penalty is to promote high standards of

regulatory conduct by deterring firms who have committed breaches from

committing further breaches, helping to deter other firms from committing similar

breaches and demonstrating generally the benefits of compliant behaviour.

57.
In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, the Authority is required

to consider all the relevant circumstances of a case. The Authority considers that a

financial penalty is the appropriate sanction in this case, given the serious nature of

the breaches and the need to send out a strong message of deterrence to others.

Calculation of financial penalty under DEPP

58.
The Authority’s policy for imposing a financial penalty is set out in Chapter 6 of

DEPP. In respect of conduct occurring on or after 6 March 2010, the Authority

applies a five-step framework to determine the appropriate level of financial

penalty. DEPP 6.5A sets out the details of the five-step framework that applies in

respect of financial penalties imposed on firms.

Step 1 – disgorgement

59.
Pursuant to DEPP 6.5A.1G, at Step 1 the Authority seeks to deprive a firm of the

financial benefit derived directly from the breach, where it is practicable to quantify

this. Where a firm agrees to carry out a redress programme, or where the Authority

decides to impose a redress programme, to compensate those who have suffered

loss as a result of the breach, the Authority will take this into consideration.

60.
Quick Purchase will carry out a redress programme and therefore the Authority has

not included a figure for disgorgement.

61.
Step 1 is therefore £0.

Step 2 – the seriousness of the breach

62.
The Authority will determine a figure that reflects the seriousness of the breach. In

many cases the amount of revenue generated by a firm from a particular product

line or business area is indicative of the harm or potential harm that its breach may

cause, and in such cases the Authority will determine a figure that will be based on

a percentage of the firm's revenue from the relevant products or business areas.

The Authority also believes that the amount of revenue generated by a firm from a

particular product or business area is relevant in terms of the size of the financial

penalty necessary to act as a credible deterrent. However, in cases where revenue

is not an appropriate indicator of the harm or potential harm that a firm’s breach

may cause, the Authority will use an appropriate alternative metric.

63.
The Authority considers that the use of an alternative metric is appropriate in this

case. That alternative metric is Quick Purchase’s gain from the unsuitable SRB

transactions, specifically, the total amount of discount on the purchase prices paid

by Quick Purchase on those transactions which were found to be inappropriate and

the excess rent charged on those transactions found to be unaffordable. The total

amount thereby gained amounts to £354,950.

64.
In deciding on the percentage of this sum that forms the basis of the Step 2 figure,

the Authority considers the seriousness of the breach and chooses a percentage

between 0% and 20%. This range is divided into five fixed levels which represent,

on a sliding scale, the seriousness of the breach; the more serious the breach, the

higher the level.

65.
For penalties imposed on firms there are the following five levels:

Level 1 – 0%;

Level 2 – 5%;

Level 3 – 10%;

Level 4 – 15%; and

Level 5 – 20%

66.
In assessing the seriousness level, the Authority takes into account various factors

that reflect the impact and nature of the breach, and whether it was committed

deliberately or recklessly.

67.
The factors relating to the impact of a breach committed by a firm include the level

of benefit gained or loss avoided, or intended to be gained or avoided, by the firm

from the breach, either directly or indirectly; the loss or risk of loss caused to

individual consumers; whether the breach had an effect on particularly vulnerable

people, whether intentionally or otherwise, and the inconvenience or distress

caused to consumers.

68.
The factors relating to the nature of a breach by a firm include the nature of the

rules, requirements or provisions breached, the frequency of the breach and

whether the firm failed to conduct its business with integrity.

69.
Quick Purchase‘s failures are a Level 3 breach for the purposes of Step 2 because:

a.
The potential level of benefit gained by Quick Purchase, for each SRB

transaction, was substantial;

b.
The potential discount on realising the equity at point of sale for each

customer was between 29-38% of the value of their home, which was

significant in the context of each customer’s financial circumstances;

c.
Quick Purchase’s breaches had an effect on particularly vulnerable customers;

and

d.
11 of the 14 SRB transactions, a high frequency of breach, were held to be

unaffordable and/or inappropriate.

70.
The Authority has not concluded that Quick Purchase carried out its business

without integrity.

71.
A Level 3 breach equates to 10% of metric described above. The penalty figure for

this breach after Step 2 is therefore £35,495.

Step 3 - mitigating and aggravating factors

72.
Pursuant to DEPP 6.5A.3G, at Step 3 the Authority may increase or decrease the

amount of the financial penalty arrived at after Step 2 (but not including any

amount to be disgorged in accordance with Step 1) to take into account factors

which aggravate or mitigate the breach. The Authority has not identified any such

aggravating in this case.

73.
The Authority has however taken into account the following factors which it

considers, taken together, mitigate Quick Purchase’s breach. Quick Purchase:

a. has agreed to pay appropriate redress to those customers whose SRB

transactions were unsuitable;

b. has not increased the rent for its SRB customers throughout the current

five year terms (notwithstanding annual rent rises being permitted under

each SRB tenancy agreement); and

c. has agreed to offer all its existing SRB tenants new assured shorthold

tenancies for a three year term at an affordable market rent fixed for those

three years (notwithstanding the fact that there is no requirement that an

assured shorthold tenancy should offer a minimum term or be at a rent

which includes the element of affordability). These tenancies are to

commence on the expiration of the current SRB contracts.

74.
Having taken into account these mitigating factors, the Authority considers the

Step 2 figure of £35,495 should be decreased by 25%.

75.
Step 3 is therefore £26,621.

Step 4 – adjustment for deterrence

76.
Pursuant to DEPP 6.5A.4G, if the Authority considers the figure arrived at after Step

3 is insufficient to deter the firm who committed the breach, or others, from

committing further or similar breaches, then the Authority may increase the

penalty. The Authority does not consider this sum to be insufficient for deterrence

for Quick Purchase or for other Firms.

Step 5 – settlement discount

77.
Pursuant to DEPP 6.5A.5G, if the Authority and the firm on whom a penalty is to be

imposed agree the amount of the financial penalty and other terms, DEPP 6.7

provides that the amount of the financial penalty which might otherwise have been

payable will be reduced to reflect the stage at which the Authority and the firm

reached agreement.

78.
No settlement discount applies. The penalty figure after Step 5 is therefore

£26,621.

79.
The Authority has therefore imposed a total financial penalty of £26,600 on Quick

Purchase for its breaches.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Decision maker

80.
The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Notice was made by the

Settlement Decision Makers.

81.
This Final Notice is given under, and in accordance with, section 390 of the Act.

Manner of and time for payment

82.
The financial penalty must be paid in full by Quick Purchase to the Authority by no

later than 6 November 2015, 14 days from the date of the Final Notice.

If the financial penalty is not paid

83.
If all or any of the financial penalty is outstanding on 7 November 2015, the

Authority may recover the outstanding amount as a debt owed by Quick Purchase

and due to the Authority.

84.
Sections 391(4), 391(6) and 391(7) of the Act apply to the publication of

information about the matter to which this notice relates. Under those provisions,

the Authority must publish such information about the matter to which this 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.

85.
The Authority intends to publish such information about the matter to which this

Final Notice relates as it considers appropriate.

Authority Contacts

86.
For more information concerning this matter generally, contact Paul Howick (direct

line: 020 7066 7954 or email paul.howick@fca.org.uk) at the Enforcement and

Market Oversight Division of the Authority.

Financial Conduct Authority, Enforcement and Market Oversight Division

Valuation
and
(Purchase
Price)


A
£187,500
(£131,250)

£56,250
Not appropriate
Unaffordable
No

B
£70,000
(£45,000)

£25,000
Not appropriate
Affordable
No

C
£65,000
(£42,250)

£22,750
Not appropriate
Affordable
No

D
£175,000
(£110,000)


£65,000
Appropriate
Unaffordable
No

E
£125,000
(£88,000)

£37,000
Appropriate
Affordable
Yes

F
£110,000
(£75,000)

£35,000
Not appropriate
Affordable
No

G
£175,000
(£122,000)

£53,000
Not appropriate
Affordable
No

H
£70,000
(£46,000)

£24,000
Appropriate
Affordable
Yes

I
£103,000
(£66,950)


£36,050
Not appropriate
Affordable
No

J
£105,000
(£65,000)

£40,000
Not appropriate
Affordable
No

K
£110,000
(£72,000)

£38,000
Not appropriate
Unaffordable
No

L
£125,000
(£87,500)

£37,500
Not appropriate
Affordable
No

M
£125,000
(£83,000)


£42,000
Appropriate
Affordable
Yes

N
£80,000
(£56,652.48)


£23,347.52 Appropriate
Unaffordable
No

ANNEX B

STATUTORY PROVISIONS, REGULATORY GUIDANCE AND POLICY

Statutory provisions

1.
Section 1A(1) of the Act states that the body corporate previously known as the

Financial Services Authority is re-named as the Financial Conduct Authority.

2.
The FCA’s operational objectives established in section 1B of the Act include

protecting and enhancing the integrity of the UK financial system and the

protection of consumers. The consumer protection objective is: securing an

appropriate degree of protection for consumers.

3.
Section 206 of the Act provides that if the FCA considers that an authorised person

has contravened a relevant requirement imposed on the person, it may impose on

him a penalty, in respect of the contravention, of such amount as it considers

appropriate. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, requirements

imposed by the FCA’s Handbook.

Handbook provisions

4.
In exercising its power to impose a financial penalty, the FCA must have regard to

relevant provisions in the FCA Handbook of rules and guidance. The main

provisions relevant to the action specified above are set out below.

Principles for Businesses

5.
The Principles are a general statement of the fundamental obligations of firms

under the regulatory system and are set out in the FCA Handbook. They derive

their authority from the FCA’s rule-making powers as set out in the Act and reflect

the FCA’s operational objectives. The Principle relevant to this case is as follows:

Principle 6 (Customers’ interests)

6.
Principle 6 provides that a firm must pay due regard to the interests of its

customers and treat them fairly.

MCOB

7.
MCOB 4.11 sets out the advising and selling standards for SRB transactions.

8.
MCOB 4.11.3R provides that a firm must not permit a potential SRB seller to

become contractually committed to enter into an SRB agreement unless it has

reasonable grounds to be satisfied both that the customer can afford the payments

he will be liable to make under the agreement and that the proposed SRB

agreement is appropriate to the needs, objectives and circumstances of the

customer.

9.
MCOB 4.11.4E refers to information which firms are required to consider when

assessing whether or not a transaction is affordable.

10.
MCOB 4.11.4E(1)(b) provides that firms should obtain adequate information from

the customer to establish his income and expenditure calculated on a monthly

basis, and any other resources that he has available, and verify the same using

evidence provided by the customer.

11.
MCOB 4.11.4E(1)(d) provides that in assessing affordability firms should take into

account the customer's entitlement to means-tested benefits and housing benefits.

12.
MCOB 4.11.4E(3) provides that in assessing affordability firms must not rely to a

material extent on the capital of, or income from, any lump sum the customer

receives which represents the net sale proceeds of the property.

13.
MCOB 4.11.5E(1) provides that in assessing whether a particular SRB agreement is

appropriate to the needs, objectives and circumstances of a potential SRB

agreement seller, a firm should have due regard to the following:

a)
whether the benefits to the customer in entering into the proposed SRB

agreement outweigh any adverse effects it may have for him, including on his

entitlement to means-tested benefits and housing benefits; and

b)
the feasibility of the customer raising funds by alternative methods other than

by a sale of his property.

14.
MCOB 4.11.8R (1) provides that a firm must make and retain a record of the

customer information that has been provided to it, including that relating to:

a)
the customer's income, expenditure and other resources that it has obtained

from him for the purpose of assessing affordability, together with the stress

testing of the rental payments;

b)
the customer's needs, objectives and individual circumstances that it has

obtained from him for the purpose of assessing appropriateness; and

c)
the customer's entitlement to means-tested benefits and housing benefits,

including any evidence provided by the customer, that it has obtained from

him for the affordability and appropriateness assessment.

and which explains why the firm concluded that the customer could afford, and why

it was appropriate for him, to enter into the proposed regulated sale and rent back

agreement.

15.
MCOB 4.11.10G confirms that an SRB agreement provider is expected to carry out

its own assessments of affordability and appropriateness in relation to an SRB

agreement unless it is reasonable for it to rely on another firm having done so.

16.
MCOB 2.6A.12A R provides that a firm must ensure that any valuation for the

purposes of an SRB agreement is carried out by a valuer who owes a duty of care

to the customer in valuing the property.

17.
MCOB 5.9.1R(1) states that a firm must, as soon as a customer expresses an

interest in becoming an SRB agreement seller, ensure that the disclosures and

warnings set out in MCOB 5.9.1R(1A) are made to the customer, both orally and

confirmed in writing, and he is given an adequate opportunity to consider them.

18.
MCOB 5.9.1R(1A) provides that the disclosures and warnings referred to in MCOB

5.9.1R(1) include, amongst others, that the SRB agreement seller should in his

own best interests independently seek whatever information he can on the market

value of his property, as explained in the FSA consumer factsheet provided to the

customer, before proceeding with the proposed transaction and how and from

where information on its value may be available.

DEPP guidance since 6 March 2010

19.
The FCA has had regard to the guidance on the imposition and amount of penalties

set out in Chapter 6 of the current version of DEPP. All references to DEPP in this

subsection of the Notice refer to the current DEPP guidance.

20.
DEPP 6.4.1G provides that the FCA will consider all the relevant circumstances of

the case when deciding whether to impose a financial penalty.

21.
DEPP 6.5A sets out the five steps for calculating financial penalties for firms.