This decision notice has been referred to the Upper Tribunal. The Upper

Tribunal has the power to dismiss the reference or remit the matter back to the

FCA with directions.

DECISION NOTICE

Mr Steven Maoudis trading as Montana Debt Management

CIBA Building
146 Hagley Road
Birmingham
West Midlands
B16 9NX


638246



16 September 2016

ACTION

1.
With effect from 1 April 2014, Mr Steven Maoudis trading as Montana Debt
Management was granted interim permission pursuant to article 56 of the
Amendment Order to carry on the regulated activities of:

a) Credit brokerage, under article 36A of the RAO;

b) Debt administration, under article 39G of the RAO;

c) Debt adjusting, under article 39D of the RAO; and

d) Debt-counselling, under article 39E of the RAO.

2. By an application dated 24 March 2015 (as amended on 20 August 2015) Mr Maoudis

applied under section 55A of the Act for Part 4A permission to carry on the regulated
activities of debt adjusting and debt-counselling limited to counselling with no debt
management activity. Pursuant to the amended Application, Mr Maoudis did not apply
for Part 4A permission to carry on the regulated activities of credit brokerage or debt
administration and therefore his interim permission in respect of those activities
ceased to have effect pursuant to article 58(1)(b) of the Amendment Order.

3. The Application was completed by the provision of further information on 4 May

2016.

4. For the reasons given in this Decision Notice and in accordance with section 55X of

the Act, the Authority has decided to refuse the Application.

EFFECT OF THIS DECISION NOTICE

5. As soon as this Decision Notice is given to Mr Maoudis, his interim permission in

respect of the regulated activities of debt adjusting and debt-counselling ceases
immediately to have effect. This occurs automatically by operation of law (pursuant
to article 58(1)(a) of the Amendment Order). From this time, Mr Maoudis is no longer
permitted to carry on these regulated activities (unless otherwise authorised to do so
or exempt for the purposes of section 19 of the Act).

6. Mr Maoudis may apply to the Tribunal to suspend this ceasing of effect: see

paragraph 48 below.

SUMMARY OF REASONS

7. The Authority cannot ensure that, in relation to the regulated activities for which Part

4A permission is sought, Mr Maoudis will satisfy, and continue to satisfy, the
Threshold Conditions.

8. Specifically, the Authority does not consider that Mr Maoudis will satisfy, and

continue to satisfy, the Threshold Conditions in paragraphs 2D (Appropriate
resources) or 2E (Suitability) of Schedule 6 to the Act. This is based on:

a. Mr Maoudis’ lack of knowledge and skills, in particular in relation to the debt

solutions that can be offered to customers. The Authority considers that Mr
Maoudis – who is the sole debt advisor – does not have sufficient knowledge
about certain debt solutions that may be available to his customers, including
DROs, bankruptcy and IVAs;

b. Mr Maoudis adopting an advice process that requires customers to first

research debt solutions themselves, before Mr Maoudis gives debt advice that
is restricted to DMPs and/or negotiation of full and final settlement plans
(depending on the customer’s situation); and

c. the business continuity plan that has been produced by Mr Maoudis. In

particular, this plan does not properly provide for on-going advice to be given
to customers in the event of Mr Maoudis’ absence from the business.

9. Mr Maoudis has informed the Authority that he engages an ‘advisory board’ to assist

him. However, the Authority does not consider that the extent of the engagement of

this ‘advisory board’ is sufficient to address the issues set out in paragraph 8 above
and, in any event, notes that the responsibility for debt advice remains that of Mr
Maoudis.

10. The above matters lead the Authority to conclude that it cannot ensure that, if the

Application were granted, Mr Maoudis would satisfy, and continue to satisfy,
Threshold Conditions 2D (Appropriate resources) and 2E (Suitability).

11. In light of the above the Authority has decided to refuse the Application.

DEFINITIONS

12. The definitions below are used in this Decision Notice.

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

“Amendment Order” means the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
(Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No 2) Order 2013;

“Application” means the application dated 24 March 2015 made by Mr Maoudis for
Part 4A permission (as amended from time to time), as referred to in paragraph 2
above;

“Authority” means the Financial Conduct Authority;

“COND” mean the section of the Authority’s handbook entitled ‘Threshold
Conditions’;

“CONC” means the ‘Consumer Credit Sourcebook’, part of the Handbook;

“DMP” means debt management plan;

“DRO” means debt relief order;

“Handbook” means the Authority’s Handbook of Rules and Guidance;

“IVA” means individual voluntary arrangement;

“RAO” means the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities)
Order 2001;

“SYSC” means the Senior Management Arrangements, Systems and Controls
sourcebook, part of the Handbook;

“Threshold Conditions” means the conditions set out in Schedule 6 to the Act for
which the Authority is responsible; and

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

RELEVANT REGULATORY PROVISIONS

13. Details of the regulatory provisions relevant to this Decision Notice are set out in

FACTS AND MATTERS

Background

14. Mr Maoudis offers debt management services to customers who are seeking debt

advice.

Overview of Mr Maoudis’ business

15. Mr Maoudis provides debt advice on DMPs and full and final settlement plans. Mr

Maoudis offers both of these debt solutions to customers “in house”. Should a
customer decide to enter into a DMP, Mr Maoudis will negotiate with that customer’s
creditors to establish repayment plans. Mr Maoudis does not administer the
repayment plans. Instead, once repayment plans under a DMP are established, Mr
Maoudis:

a. acts as the point of contact for both the customer and their creditors for a

monthly fee; and


b. informs the customer how much they should pay to each of their creditors

(with the customer then being expected to set up and maintain the payments
to the creditors).

16. Mr Maoudis does not provide advice to customers on other debt solutions such as

IVAs or bankruptcy. Mr Maoudis has informed the Authority that, in the event he
were to consider that an IVA or bankruptcy might be appropriate for a customer, he
would refer the customer to the relevant member of his ‘advisory board’.

17. In order to carry out his business model, Mr Maoudis has to engage in the regulated

activities of debt-counselling (the giving of advice to a consumer about the
liquidation of a debt) and debt adjusting (most notably the activity of negotiating the
terms of the discharge of debt with a customer’s creditors).

The Authority’s conclusions regarding Mr Maoudis

Mr Maoudis’ knowledge of debt solutions

18. The Authority considers that Mr Maoudis (as the sole person at the firm involved in

the carrying on of its regulated activities) lacks the skills and knowledge that it would
expect of someone proving debt advice to customers.


19. Following a meeting with Mr Maoudis on 16 July 2015 and a further conference call

on 3 September 2015, the Authority had concerns about Mr Maoudis’ knowledge and
understanding of debt solutions. This was based on Mr Maoudis stating that he does
not offer advice on bankruptcy or IVAs. Mr Maoudis acknowledged on both of these
occasions that his knowledge and understanding of these debt solutions was limited.

20. By way of a letter on 20 October 2015, the Authority expressed its concerns as to the

deficiencies in Mr Maoudis’ knowledge of debt solutions. In response to the
Authority’s expression of concern, Mr Maoudis informed the Authority that he had
improved his knowledge of IVAs and bankruptcies.


21. To assess this improvement, the Authority posed a number of scenario-based

questions to Mr Maoudis in a telephone interview on 7 April 2016. The Authority
considers that the answers given by Mr Maoudis demonstrated that he continued to
lack the level of skills and knowledge required to ensure that he complied with
regulatory requirements imposed on him. Specifically, Mr Maoudis:

a. failed to identify that a disposable income in excess of £50 per month and

being a homeowner were both reasons why a customer would be ineligible for

a DRO;

b. failed to identify the advantages and disadvantages of bankruptcy or an IVA

as a debt solution model; and

c. failed to identify that a Magistrates’ Court fine would not fall within a DRO.

22. To date, Mr Maoudis has not provided evidence to show that he has gained the level

of skills and knowledge required of a debt advisor. The Authority considers that Mr
Maoudis’ lack of knowledge means that Mr Maoudis is unable to comply with the
Authority’s regulatory requirements, including the requirement that advice has
regard to the best interests of the customer. The Authority’s view is strengthened by
the fact that Mr Maoudis stated before the 7 April 2016 interview that he had
improved his knowledge and understanding of IVAs and bankruptcy.

Mr Maoudis’ advice process

23. When a new customer contacts Mr Maoudis to obtain assistance with their debts, that

customer is first directed to read Mr Maoudis’ website. It is only after a customer has
considered the website that Mr Maoudis will discuss potential debt solutions with
them; the Authority understands from Mr Maoudis that this discussion is limited to
DMPs and full and final settlement plans.

24. The Authority considers that this process is deficient in a number of respects and that

there is a real risk of customer detriment – by way of example:

a. CONC 8.3.2R(1)(a) and (b) require Mr Maoudis to ensure that his advice and

actions have regard to the best interests of the customer and are appropriate
to the individual circumstances of the relevant customer. Mr Maoudis limits
his advice to only two potential debt solutions and has not demonstrated that
he has appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that customers receive
advice on other potentially available debt solutions. The Authority therefore
considers that Mr Maoudis is not meeting these requirements.


b. CONC 8.3.2R(2) and (3) require a firm to ensure that customers receive

sufficient information about the available options identified as suitable for the
customers’ needs and that it explains the reasons why the firm considers the
available options suitable and other options unsuitable. In circumstances
where Mr Maoudis refers customers to his website for information about the
range of potentially available debt solutions and then proceeds to advise on
only two of them, the Authority does not consider that Mr Maoudis is meeting
these requirements.

25. The Authority therefore considers that the process by which Mr Maoudis gives debt

advice may lead to a customer being given advice that is not appropriate to their
circumstances, resulting in a real risk of customer detriment.

‘Advisory board’

26. On 23 November 2015 Mr Maoudis explained to the Authority that in order to fill the

gap in his knowledge and provision of debt solutions, he had engaged a number of
professionals to assist him (which he later referred to as an ‘advisory board’). On 21
March 2016, Mr Maoudis provided more detail about these professionals. In particular
Mr Maoudis explained that, should a customer require assistance and expertise about
alternative debt solutions or legal advice, these professionals would be able to assist.

27. The Authority understands from Mr Maoudis that the professionals assisting him are

doing so on an “ad-hoc” basis; there is no formal arrangement between these
professionals and Mr Maoudis. The Authority also understands that there has been
limited referral of matters from Mr Maoudis to these professionals. The referrals that
have taken place have been for legal and accountancy problems rather than for
advice on solutions other than DMPs and full and final settlement plans.

28. In any event, the day-to-day provision of advice to customers remains the

responsibility of Mr Maoudis and (even assuming the adequacy of the ‘advisory
board’) referrals can only be made where Mr Maoudis identifies that an alternative
debt solution (e.g. an IVA or bankruptcy) may be appropriate. This requires Mr
Maoudis to have a certain level of knowledge of the relevant debt solutions. Based on
the Authority’s interviews with Mr Maoudis, the Authority considers that Mr Maoudis
lacks the requisite level of knowledge.

29. The Authority therefore considers that the use of this ‘advisory board’ will not

address its concerns in relation to Mr Maoudis’ knowledge or his advice process.

Concerns as to Mr Maoudis’ business continuity plan

30. SYSC 3.1.1R requires Mr Maoudis to take reasonable care to establish and maintain

such systems and controls as are appropriate to his business. SYSC 3.1.2G(1) states
that the nature and extent of the systems and controls which a firm will need to
maintain under SYSC 3.1.1R will depend on a variety of factors including the nature,
scale and complexity of its business.

31. As Mr Maoudis is the sole debt adviser, the Authority considers that Mr Maoudis must

take reasonable care to establish a system by which his business can continue to
provide advice to customers in his absence. This is because the nature of Mr Maoudis’
business is such that he may be required to provide debt advice to customers
following a change in their circumstances.

32. Mr Maoudis submitted a business continuity plan to the Authority on 4 May 2016.

Upon review of this business continuity plan, the Authority considers that it is not
adequate to ensure continuity of advice to Mr Maoudis’ customers in the event of his
absence from the business. In particular:

a. the plan is predominantly limited to not taking on new customers;

b. the plan does not address how existing customers will receive continued

advice, for example in the event of a change in their circumstances which
necessitates a review of their financial position; and

c. the plan does not address how Mr Maoudis will deal with customers who have

been taken on as DMP customers, but for whom negotiations with creditors
are ongoing.


33. The Authority therefore considers that Mr Maoudis is not meeting the requirements of

SYSC 3.1.1R.

IMPACT ON THE THRESHOLD CONDITIONS

34. The Authority considers that it cannot ensure that, if the Application were granted,

Mr Maoudis would satisfy, and continue to satisfy, the Threshold Conditions:
specifically, the Threshold Conditions in paragraphs 2D (Appropriate resources) and
2E (Suitability) of Schedule 6 to the Act.

Appropriate resources

35. The Authority notes that a firm’s resources must be appropriate in relation to the

regulated activities it seeks to carry on. COND 2.4.2.G(2) states that ‘appropriate
resources’ includes financial and ‘non-financial resources’ such as human resources,
effective means by which to manage risks and any systems, controls, plans or
policies that the firm maintains. In this context, the Authority will interpret the term
‘appropriate’ as meaning sufficient in terms of quantity, quality and availability.
Consideration will be given to whether these resources are sufficient to enable the
firm to comply with the requirements imposed or likely to be imposed on the firm by
the Authority in the course of exercising its functions.

36. The Authority is not satisfied that Mr Maoudis’ non-financial resources will be

appropriate in relation to the regulated activities he seeks to carry on. The
Authority’s view arises out of the following:

a) Mr Maoudis lacks the skills and knowledge that the Authority would expect of

someone proving debt advice to customers. In particular, Mr Maoudis lacks
knowledge of insolvency-based debt solutions. In light of this, the Authority
considers that Mr Maoudis does not have the appropriate non-financial resources
(namely human resources) to conduct regulated activities in a manner compliant
with regulatory requirements;

b) Mr Maoudis’ advice process is limited to providing advice on DMPs and full and

final settlement plans and Mr Maoudis has not demonstrated how he can meet
the requirements of CONC 8.3.2R(1)(a) and (b) and CONC 8.3.2R(2) and (3). The
Authority would expect a firm with adequate non-financial resources to ensure
that procedures were in place to address these obligations; and

c) Mr Maoudis’ business continuity plan is not appropriate to a firm offering debt

management solutions as it does not establish a reliable system of ensuring
continuity of advice. Mr Maoudis has therefore not demonstrated that he complies
with SYSC 3.1.1R. The Authority would expect a firm that has adequate non-
financial resources to have proper business continuity measures in place.

37. The Authority is therefore not satisfied that the non-financial resources of Mr Maoudis

are appropriate to carry on the regulated activities for which he seeks permission.

38. The suitability Threshold Condition requires, amongst other things, that a firm must

be fit and proper having regard to all the circumstances, including the need to ensure
that its affairs are conducted in an appropriate manner, having regard in particular to
the interests of consumers and the integrity of the UK financial system.

39. Mr Maoudis has not satisfied the Authority he is a fit and proper person, having

regard to all the circumstances, to carry out the regulated activities for which he has
applied for permission. The Authority’s view is based on the following:

a) Mr Maoudis’ inadequate knowledge of debt solutions. The Authority is not

satisfied that Mr Maoudis has the requisite skills or experience to ensure that his
affairs are conducted in an appropriate manner, having regard in particular to the
interests of consumers;

b) the deficiencies in Mr Maoudis’ advice process. The Authority considers that, as a

result, there is a risk that customers will receive debt advice which is not
appropriate to their circumstances; and

c) the inadequacy of Mr Maoudis’ business continuity plan.

40. In the circumstances, the Authority cannot ensure that, were the Application to be

granted, Mr Maoudis would satisfy, and continue to satisfy, the suitability Threshold
Condition.

REPRESENTATIONS

41. Annex B contains a brief summary of the key representations made by Mr Maoudis

and how they have been dealt with. In making the decision which gave rise to the
obligation to give this Decision Notice, the Authority has taken into account all of the
representations made by Mr Maoudis, whether or not set out in Annex B.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

42. This Decision Notice is given under section 55X(4)(f) and in accordance with section

388 of the Act.

43. The following paragraphs are important.

Decision maker

44. The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Decision Notice was made

by the Regulatory Decisions Committee.

The Tribunal

45. Mr Maoudis has the right to refer the matter to which this Decision Notice relates to

the Tribunal. Under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper
Tribunal) Rules 2008, he has 28 days from the date on which this Decision Notice is
given to him to refer the matter to the Tribunal. A reference to the Tribunal is made
by way of a signed reference notice (Form FTC3) filed with a copy of this Decision
Notice. The Tribunal’s contact details are: The Upper Tribunal, Tax and Chancery
Chamber, Fifth Floor, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL (tel: 020 7612
9730; email: fs@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk). Further information on the Tribunal, including
guidance and the relevant forms to complete, can be found on the HM Courts and
Tribunal Service website:

46. A copy of the reference notice (Form FTC3) must also be sent to the Authority at the

same time as filing a reference with the Tribunal. A copy of the reference notice
should be sent to Sharika Nightingale at the Financial Conduct Authority, 25 The
North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS.

47. Once any referral is determined by the Tribunal and subject to that determination, or

if the matter has not been referred to the Tribunal, the Authority will issue a final
notice about the implementation of that decision.

48. As part of a reference, Mr Maoudis may ask the Tribunal to grant an order under rule

5(5) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 suspending the ceasing
of his interim permission pending the Tribunal’s substantive decision on the matter.

Access to evidence

49. Section 394 of the Act does not apply to this Decision Notice.

Confidentiality and publicity

50. This Decision Notice may contain confidential information and should not be disclosed

to a third party (except for the purpose of obtaining advice on its contents). Section
391 of the Act provides that a person to whom this Decision Notice is given or copied
may not publish the Decision Notice or any details concerning it unless the Authority
has published the Decision Notice or those details.

51. However, the Authority must publish such information about the matter to which a

decision notice or final notice relates as it considers appropriate. Mr Maoudis should
be aware, therefore, that the facts and matters contained in this Decision Notice may
be made public.

Contacts

52. For more information concerning this matter generally, contact Sharika Nightingale,

Manager, Credit Authorisations Department, at the Authority (direct line: 020 7066
0244 / email: sharika.nightingale@fca.org.uk).

Simon Pearce, Company Secretary, Corporate Services, on behalf of

Tim Parkes
Chair, Regulatory Decisions Committee

ANNEX A

REGULATORY PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO THIS 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.

Threshold Conditions

3. The Threshold Conditions that relate to the Application are set out in Part 2 of

Schedule 6 to the Act. In brief, the Threshold Conditions are as follows:

(1)
Paragraph 2B of Schedule 6: Location of offices

(2)
Paragraph 2C of Schedule 6: Effective supervision

(3)
Paragraph 2D of Schedule 6: Appropriate resources

(4)
Paragraph 2E of Schedule 6: Suitability

(5)
Paragraph 2F of Schedule 6: Business model

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

Authority has regard to guidance published in the Authority’s Handbook, including
COND. Provisions relevant to the consideration of the Application include those set
out below.

General guidance

5. 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.

6. Under COND 1.3.3AG, 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.

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

continue to satisfy, the Threshold Conditions, the Authority will have regard to all
relevant matters, whether arising in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

Threshold Condition 2D: Appropriate Resources

8. 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.

9. 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 Threshold
Condition 2D.

10. COND 2.4.1A UK(4) states that the matters which are relevant in determining

whether a firm has appropriate non-financial resources include:

(a) the skills and experience of those who manage the firm’s affairs; and

(b) whether the firm’s non-financial resources are sufficient to enable the firm to

comply with requirements imposed or likely to be imposed on the firm by the
Authority in the course of the exercise of its functions.

Threshold Condition 2E: Suitability

11. COND 2.5.1A UK provides that a firm must be a fit and proper person having regard

to all the circumstances, including -

(b) the nature (including the complexity) of any regulated activity that the firm

carries on or seeks to carry on;

(c) the need to ensure that the firm’s affairs are conducted in an appropriate

manner, having regard in particular to the interests of consumers and the
integrity of the UK financial system;

(d) whether the firm has complied and is complying with requirements imposed

by the Authority in the exercise of its functions, or requests made by the
Authority, relating to the provision of information to the Authority and, where
the firm has so complied or is so complying, the manner of that compliance;

(e) whether those who manage the firm’s affairs have adequate skills and

experience and act with probity; and


(f) whether the firm’s business is being, or is to be, managed in such a way as to

ensure that its affairs will be conducted in a sound and prudent manner.

12. 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.

13. COND 2.5.4G(2) 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:

(a)
conducts, or will conduct, its business with integrity and in compliance with
proper standards;

(b)
has, or will have, a competent and prudent management; and

(c)
can demonstrate that it conducts, or will conduct, its affairs with the
exercise of due skill, care and diligence.

14. 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:

(1A)
the firm has made arrangements to put in place an adequate system of
internal control to comply with the requirements and standards for which
the Authority is responsible under the regulatory system.

15. CONC 8.3.2R states that a firm must ensure that:

(1) all advice given and action taken by the firm or its agent or its appointed

(a) has regard to the best interests of the customer;

(b) is appropriate to the individual circumstances of the customer; and

(c) is based on a sufficiently full assessment of the financial circumstances

of the customer;


(2) customers receive sufficient information about the available options identified

as suitable for the customers' needs; and

(3) it explains the reasons why the firm considers the available options suitable

and other options unsuitable.

Senior Management Arrangements, Systems and Controls

16. SYSC 3.1.1R states that a firm must take reasonable care to establish and maintain

such systems and controls as are appropriate to its business.

17. SYSC 3.1.2G(1) states that the nature and extent of the systems and controls which

a firm will need to maintain under SYSC 3.1.1R will depend on a variety of factors
including:

(a) the nature, scale and complexity of its business.

ANNEX B

REPRESENTATIONS

1. Mr Maoudis’ representations (in italics), and the Authority’s conclusions in respect of

them, are set out below.

2. It has always been Mr Maoudis’ intention to do the best he can for his customers and

Mr Maoudis considers that he has done an exceptional job. Mr Maoudis has received
testimonials from his customers and has never received any complaints from them.
Mr Maoudis’ customers are “less stressed out” as a result of his advice.

3. The Authority acknowledges that Mr Maoudis is passionate about his business and

makes no criticism of his dedication or his willingness to help customers in financial
distress. However, in the respects set out in paragraphs 18 to 22 of this Decision
Notice, the Authority considers that Mr Maoudis has demonstrated a lack of
knowledge in relation to the debt solutions that may be available to his customers.
The Authority also considers that Mr Maoudis’ advice process may lead to a customer
being given advice that is not appropriate to their circumstances, resulting in a real
risk of customer detriment.

4. Mr Maoudis does not administer customers’ repayment plans; customers pay their

creditors directly. Unlike other debt management firms, Mr Maoudis does not take
advantage of his customers.

5. The points Mr Maoudis has raised about the nature of his business model and the

conduct of other debt management firms are not relevant to the matters set out in
this Decision Notice.

6. Mr Maoudis’ compliance manual ensures that he complies with the requirements set

out in CONC and addresses all of the Authority’s concerns about Mr Maoudis.

7. The Authority recognises that Mr Maoudis has made efforts to comply with regulatory

requirements by putting together the compliance manual. However, the Authority
does not consider that the document addresses the concerns set out in this Decision
Notice and Mr Maoudis has provided no explanation as to how he considers the
concerns have been addressed.

8. Mr Maoudis has made arrangements to delegate advice on IVAs and bankruptcy to

members of the ‘advisory board’. While Mr Maoudis is not an expert in these areas,
he has sufficient knowledge to refer customers to the ‘advisory board’ when
appropriate. This addresses the Authority’s concerns about Mr Maoudis’ knowledge
and understanding of debt solutions.

9. The Authority does not consider that its concerns about Mr Maoudis’ knowledge of

debt solutions are addressed by the ‘advisory board’ for the reasons set out in
paragraphs 26 to 29 of this Decision Notice. In order to refer a customer to a
member of the ‘advisory board’, Mr Maoudis must be able to identify that a certain
debt solution (other than a DMP or a full and final settlement plan) might be
appropriate for the customer. The Authority is not satisfied that Mr Maoudis has the
requisite knowledge of debt solutions to correctly identify solutions which are
appropriate to his customers’ circumstances. This is supported by the responses Mr
Maoudis provided to questions posed by the Authority during an interview on 7 April
2016. These questions were focussed on the entry conditions for various insolvency-
based debt solutions. Mr Maoudis has had opportunities to improve his knowledge of
relevant debt solutions but has provided no evidence that he has done so. Indeed, Mr

Maoudis has acknowledged that the purpose of the ‘advisory board’ is to fill the gaps
in his own knowledge.

10. Mr Maoudis has not received any feedback from the Authority on his new website,

which complies with the requirements of CONC.

11. The Authority acknowledges that Mr Maoudis has invested in improving his website.

However, the contents of Mr Maoudis’ website do not address the Authority’s
concerns as set out in this Decision Notice.