FINAL NOTICE

1.
ACTION

1.1.
For the reasons set out below, the Authority hereby refuses an application by
Mark Gregory Thorogood to revoke the Prohibition Order imposed on him on 7
December 2010.

2.
REASONS FOR THE ACTION

2.1.
On 7 December 2010 the Authority determined that Mr Thorogood was not a fit
and proper person to perform any function in relation to any regulated activity
carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or any exempt professional
firm, by reason of a lack of integrity and competence. It therefore made the
Prohibition Order.


2.2.
On 10 August 2014 Mr Thorogood applied to revoke the Prohibition Order.

2.3.
The Authority refuses Mr Thorogood’s application, having considered all the
relevant circumstances of the case, including the following:

(1)
The behaviour by Mr Thorogood which gave rise to the Prohibition Order
was serious;

(2)
Mr Thorogood has not accepted that his behaviour was wrong, nor
provided any evidence which suggests he has remedied the lack of fitness
and propriety that led to the prohibition being imposed; and

(3)
The Authority considers that Mr Thorogood has not demonstrated that he
would not continue to pose a risk to consumers or to confidence in, or the
integrity of, the financial system, were the Prohibition Order to be revoked.
The Authority is not satisfied that Mr Thorogood is now a fit and proper
person to perform the functions to which the Prohibition Order relates.

3.
DEFINITIONS

3.1.
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;

“EG” means the Enforcement Guide;

“the Prohibition Order” means the order imposed by the Authority on Mr
Thorogood on 7 December 2010 prohibiting him from performing any function in
relation to any regulated activity carried on by any authorised person, exempt
person or any exempt professional firm;

“Property Park” means Property Park Mortgages;

“the Tribunal” means the Upper Tribunal (Financial Services); and

“the Warning Notice” means the warning notice issued by the Authority dated 7
October 2015.


4.
FACTS AND MATTERS

4.1.
Between October 2004 and May 2008, Mr Thorogood traded as Property Park, a
small independent mortgage advisory firm.


4.2.
Whilst acting in his capacity as a sole trader, Mr Thorogood:

(1)
knowingly submitted fraudulent mortgage applications in his own name
and on behalf of another;

(2)
failed to ensure that Property Park retained adequate records in order to
demonstrate that the recommendation given to a customer was suitable;
and

(3)
failed to implement or take reasonable steps to implement adequate
systems and controls to ensure: that mortgage advice given to Property
Park customers was suitable; that the supervision of his staff was
adequate; and that Property Park was not used as a vehicle for financial
crime.

4.3.
By a Decision Notice dated 25 March 2010, the Authority gave notice that it had
decided to make a prohibition order, pursuant to section 56 of the Act, to prevent
Mr Thorogood from carrying out any function in relation to any regulated activity
carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm.
Mr Thorogood was given the opportunity to make representations to the

3

Authority, prior to the making of the Decision Notice, about the proposed action,
and made written representations.


4.4.
On 23 April 2010 Mr Thorogood exercised his right to refer the matter to the
Tribunal. However, on 25 November 2010 the Tribunal informed all parties that
the reference was no longer extant.


4.5.
On 7 December 2010 the Authority made the Prohibition Order against Mr
Thorogood and issued a Final Notice to Mr Thorogood notifying him of the
Prohibition Order.

4.6.
On 10 August 2014 Mr Thorogood applied to revoke the Prohibition Order.

4.7.
The grounds cited by Mr Thorogood in support of his application are as follows:

(a)
His business has been seriously affected by the prohibition and he is
struggling to find other paid employment. Mr Thorogood entered
into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement on 28 April 2014 and
requires an income to maintain payments into his Individual
Voluntary Arrangement;

(b)
His health, confidence and family life have been negatively affected
by the public nature of the prohibition, and the media attention
given to it;

(c)
He immediately closed his office and ceased to trade in May 2008
following the Authority’s visit to his office;

(d)
As the 101st mortgage adviser to be prohibited, he has been subject
to unfair media attention;

(e)
The North Wales police force has decided not to pursue a case
alleging mortgage fraud against him. It has found no wrongdoing
and he believes all his personal mortgages are legitimate. His only
shortfall in the past was the administration of the financial services
part of his business, which he left to his staff, although he was
responsible for his staff’s actions and has learned from his
mistakes. Further, the banks providing the products he sold as a
mortgage adviser created a toxic environment which facilitated the
situation in which he found himself;

(f)
He does not wish to seek further employment in the financial
services sector;

(g)
As he was self-employed and already fully qualified when
prohibited, and has no intention to seek employment within the
financial services industry, he does not need to resolve any training
issues; and

(h)
A sufficient period of time has passed since he stopped trading and
since the notice was issued.

4.8.
The Authority, having considered all the relevant circumstances, refuses Mr
Thorogood’s application for the following reasons:

(1)
The matters giving rise to the Prohibition Order (summarised at paragraph
4.2 above) were serious, including deliberate and dishonest actions (some
of them for personal gain) and prejudice to the interests of customers;

(2)
Mr Thorogood has not accepted the Authority’s finding that he engaged in
deliberate and dishonest behaviour. He continues to deny that he
submitted fraudulent mortgage applications on his own behalf and refers in
his correspondence with the Authority to “alleged” dishonesty and lack of
integrity. The Authority considers that Mr Thorogood’s failure properly to
acknowledge his failings gives rise to continuing concerns about his
integrity;

(3)
So far as the Authority’s finding of a lack of competence and capability are
concerned, while Mr Thorogood accepts responsibility for his failure to
supervise his staff, and indicates that he has learned from his mistakes in
this regard, he has not taken any substantive steps to remedy his lack of
competence and capability. For example, he has denied any need for
training on the basis that he was already fully qualified, and said that it
would not serve any purpose;

(4)
Given Mr Thorogood’s failure to accept a substantial part of the Authority’s
findings against him, or to address the lack of fitness and propriety which
gave rise to the issue of the Prohibition Order, the passage of time does
not provide good reason to lift the Prohibition Order;

(5)
Any media attention given to Mr Thorogood in relation to the Prohibition
Order, and the damage which he considers results from it, is not relevant
to whether he continues to lack fitness and propriety;

(6)
The fact that Mr Thorogood closed his office in May 2008 is not new
evidence which was unknown to the Authority at the time the Prohibition
Order was made, and the Authority does not consider it provides any basis
for considering that he does not lack fitness and propriety; and

(7)
The Authority considers that Mr Thorogood has not demonstrated that he
would not continue to pose a risk to consumers or to confidence in, or the
integrity of, the financial system, were the Prohibition Order to be revoked.
The Authority is not satisfied that Mr Thorogood is now a fit and proper
person to perform the functions to which the Prohibition Order relates.

4.9.
Through the Warning Notice, the Authority gave notice that it proposed to take
the action described above and Mr Thorogood was given the opportunity to make
representations to the Authority about that proposed action.


4.10. No representations having been received by the Authority from Mr Thorogood

within the time allowed by the Warning Notice, the default procedures in DEPP
2.3.2G of the Authority’s Decision Procedure and Penalties manual permit the
allegations/matters described in the Warning Notice, and repeated in this Notice,
to be regarded as undisputed.


4.11. The Authority therefore decided to not revoke the Prohibition Order imposed on

Mr Thorogood on 7 December 2010.

5.
RELEVANT REGULATORY PROVISIONS

5.1.
The statutory and regulatory provisions relevant to this Notice are referred to in
the Annex.

6.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Decision maker

6.1.
This Final Notice is given to Mr Thorogood under, and in accordance with, section
390 of the Act.

6.2.
The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Notice was made by the
Acting Chairman of the Regulatory Decisions Committee.

6.3.
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.

6.4.
The Authority intends to publish such information about the matter to which this
Final Notice relates as it considers appropriate.

Authority contacts

6.5.
For more information concerning this matter generally, contact Rachel Bardiger of
the Enforcement and Market Oversight Division of the Authority (direct line: 020
7066 1928).

Financial Conduct Authority, Enforcement and Market Oversight Division

ANNEX

RELEVANT REGULATORY PROVISIONS

1. The Authority’s regulatory objectives are set out in section 1B (3) of the Act and

include consumer protection and integrity of the UK financial system.


2. Section 56(7) of the Act states that the Authority may, on the application of the

individual named in a prohibition order, vary or revoke it.


3. Section 58 of the Act sets out the procedure for granting or refusing an

application for variation or revocation of a prohibition order.


4. In considering whether to grant or refuse an application for the variation or

revocation of a prohibition order, the Authority must have regard to relevant
provisions in the Authority’s Handbook of rules and guidance. The main provisions
that the Authority considers relevant to this case are set out below.

Enforcement Guide


5. The Authority’s approach to exercising its power to grant or refuse an application

for the variation or revocation of a prohibition order is set out in Chapter 9 of EG.


6. EG 9.19 provides that, when considering whether to grant or refuse an

application to revoke or vary a prohibition order, the Authority will consider all
the relevant circumstances of a case. These may include, but are not limited to,
the following:

(1)
the seriousness of the misconduct or other unfitness that resulted in the
order;

(2)
the amount of time since the original order was made;

(3)
any steps taken subsequently by the individual to remedy the misconduct
or other unfitness;

(4)
any evidence which, had it been known to the Authority at the time, would
have been relevant to the Authority’s decision to make the prohibition
order;

(5)
all available information relating to the individual’s honesty, integrity or
competence since the order was made, including any repetition of the
misconduct which resulted in the prohibition order being made;

(6)
where the Authority’s finding of unfitness arose from incompetence rather
than from dishonesty or lack of integrity, evidence that this unfitness has
been or will be remedied; for example, this may be achieved by the
satisfactory completion of relevant training and obtaining relevant
qualifications, or by supervision of the individual by his employer;

(7)
the financial soundness of the individual concerned; and

7

(8)
whether the individual will continue to pose the level of risk to consumers
or confidence in the financial system which resulted in the original
prohibition if it is lifted.

7. EG 9.22 provides that the Authority will not generally grant an application to vary

or revoke a prohibition order unless it is satisfied that: the proposed variation will
not result in a reoccurrence of the risk to consumers or confidence in the financial
system that resulted in the order being made; and the individual is fit to perform
functions in relation to regulated activities generally, or to those specific
regulated activities in relation to which the individual has been prohibited.