FINAL NOTICE

ACTION

1. By an application dated 29 October 2021 (“the Application”), One Life Funeral

Planning Limited (“One Life”) applied under section 55A of the Act for Part 4A
permission to carry on the regulated activities of:

a. Agreeing to carry on a regulated activity;
b. Entering as provider into a funeral plan contract; and
c. Carrying out a funeral plan contract as a provider.

2. For the reasons listed below, the Authority has refused the Application as it cannot

ensure that One Life will satisfy, and continue to satisfy, the threshold conditions
set out in Schedule 6 of the Act.

SUMMARY OF REASONS

3. By its Warning Notice the Authority gave notice that it proposed to refuse the

Application. One Life made representations to the Authority about that proposed
action. The Warning Notice, representations, new materials submitted, and the
interviews conducted with the new candidates for the Senior Management
Functions (SMFs) have been considered and are the basis for the decision referred
to above.

4. Throughout the Authority’s assessment of the Application, the Authority has been

concerned that One Life has not demonstrated that it is ready, willing and organised
to comply with the requirements of the regulatory system. The firm has not been
able to demonstrate that it can meet the threshold conditions set out at Schedule
6 to the Act.

5. The Authority carried out interviews with individuals at the firm who intend to hold

SMFs. Two of the three individuals failed to demonstrate during the course of the
interviews that they had the required competence and experience to perform these

roles, therefore calling into question whether the firm has adequate non-financial
resources in respect of the SMFs at the firm.

6. The firm has also stated that as part of its customer acquisition model it intends to

make use of a data vendor. This proposed method is not compliant with the rules
set out in FPCOB 6.5.2 R which prohibits the payment of any commission of any
kind to any person engaging in funeral plan distribution or introducing customers
to the firm. The Authority notes that the firm has stated that 60% of its customers
would be acquired through the use of its data vendor. Without the use of the firm’s
data vendor, it is questionable as to whether the firm would be able to acquire the
customers it needs to maintain its business.

7. The Authority has concerns regarding poor sales practices at One Life, following a

review of customer calls, the firm’s sales scripts and the financial promotions placed
on the firm’s website.

8. For the reasons set out in this Final Notice, the Authority cannot ensure that One

Life satisfies, and will continue to satisfy, the threshold conditions set out in
Schedule 6 of the Act: the Appropriate Resources threshold condition and the
Suitability threshold Condition.

DEFINITIONS

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

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

“the Application” means the application dated 29 October 2021 referred to in
paragraph 1 above.

“Appropriate Resources threshold condition” means the threshold condition set out
in paragraph 2D to Schedule 6 of the Act.

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

“One Life” or “the firm” means One Life Funeral Planning Limited.

“Suitability threshold condition” means the threshold condition set out in
paragraph 2E to Schedule 6 of the Act.

“the Executive Decision Maker” means the member of the Authority’s staff acting
under executive procedures as described in Chapter 4 of the Decision Procedure
and Penalties Manual in the Authority’s Handbook.

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

FACTS AND MATTERS

Background to the firm

10. One Life was incorporated on 16 December 2020. The firm offers prepaid funeral

plans in the UK.

11. The Application was received by the Authority on 29 October 2021. As part of the

Application One Life submitted a Business Plan and supporting documentation.

Competency of Senior Managers at One Life

12. The Authority conducted competency interviews with the proposed candidates for

the SMF 16, Compliance Oversight, SMF 3, Executive director and SMF 1, Chief
Executive functions. Based on the feedback received from the Authority, the firm
put forward a new candidate for the SMF 16 function.

13. On 29 June 2022 the Authority conducted competency interviews with each of the

firm’s proposed SMF 3 Sales Director, SMF 3 Chief Technical Officer and SMF 16
Risk and Compliance Director.

14. The Authority assessed the firm’s SMF 3 Chief Technical Officer as an individual

who demonstrated the required skills to hold the role applied for. The Authority
assessed that the firm’s proposed SMF 3 Sales Director and SMF 16 Risk and
Compliance Director were not demonstrating the required skills to hold the roles
applied for. The firm confirmed that the SMF 3 Sales Director and SMF 16 Risk and
Compliance Director held ultimate sign off on the firm's improved sales processes
which the Authority assessed as being non- compliant.

15. After lengthy correspondence with the Authority, the firm decided to terminate its

relationship with two of its three data vendors. However, One Life still purchases
data from one data vendor. The Authority has repeatedly expressed its views that
such practice is in breach of the provisions of FPCOB 6.5.2R. One Life did not agree
and maintained that the type of relationship that they have with the remaining one
data vendor is not in breach of the Authority’s rules.

16. The Authority considered the data vending agreement in place, One Life’s

explanation on the functioning of this agreement as well as the legal opinion
provided by One Life in support of its views. For the reasons set out in more detail
in Annex B, the Authority disagrees with One Life. The firm’s use of the data vendor
to acquire data of potential clients is in breach of the commission ban as set out in
FPCOB 6.5.2R.

17. On 8 April 2022 the Authority requested that One Life provide the Authority with a

sample of call records for sales conducted during February 2022. The Authority
conducted a review of the sales calls conducted by One Life and has identified
concerns including agents not providing consumers with the full cost of plans prior
to commencing the sales process, pressured sales, not assessing whether
consumers already had a plan in place, non-disclosure of cancellation fees,
overestimating the future cost of funerals, selling plans where the consumer
requires time to consider their options and not identifying vulnerability markers.
These findings impact the firm’s ability to meet the Suitability threshold condition,
in respect of the need to ensure that One Life’s affairs are conducted in an
appropriate manner, having regard in particular to the interests of consumers.

18. The Authority has found instances of One Life sales agents applying pressure to

consumers to take out plans. One of the calls which the Authority has reviewed is

a sales call conducted on 2 February 2022. During the call the consumer stated,
“you can give me quotes about it but like I said I’m not going to arrange anything.”
The agent responded, “there would be nothing stopping you going ahead with
anything would there?” The consumer stated their age and the agent responded
“my argument to that, let’s say you are alive for another 40 years between now
and the next 40 years. How much do you think funerals will go up?” the consumer
states “I haven’t got a clue.” The agent responded “we can both admit they will go
up a lot won’t they. If you could lock the price of your funeral now do you think you
would pay less money than if you got the plan out in 10 years’ time.” The consumer
stated, “you would probably end up paying more”. The agent then stated, “so why
would you not want to put a plan in place at today’s prices.”

19. During a call conducted by the firm on 11 February 2022 the agent informed the

consumer that the current cost of funerals is £6,000 and that the future cost of
funerals will be £10,000. During another call conducted on the same day the
Authority found that a One Life agent stated that the average cost of a funeral was
£4,000 and that this was rising by 6% a year. The agent then stated that in the
next 10-15 years the cost would be £8,000-£10,000. During this call the agent also
failed to provide the consumer with the full overall cost of the plan taken out via
instalments prior to the commencement of the sales process.

20. The Authority has found One Life agents selling plans in circumstances where

consumers require more time to consider their options. The Authority has reviewed
a call conducted by One Life on 2 February 2022.
During the call the agent

explained the burial and cremation options available to the consumer. When asked
about proceeding with the plan during the call the consumer requested that the
agent call them back the following day as they wished to explore all options with
their family as they were unsure. In response the agent stated that the plan could
be taken out during the call and amended later. During this call the agent also
failed to provide the consumer with the full overall cost of the plan taken out via
instalments prior to the commencement of the sales process.

21. The Authority has reviewed a call conducted by One Life on 21 February 2022. A

plan was sold to the consumer and their partner without the partner being present.
The agent asked the consumer what prompted them to start looking for funeral
plans. There was a long delay and the consumer stated they had suffered a stroke.
The agent did not acknowledge this and answered the question himself stating it
was peace of mind for the consumer’s family and that they were was taking
responsibility for the funeral.
The agent did not give the full plan cost. The

consumer selected the cheapest instalment option. The agent requested the
consumer make a deposit payment and the consumer stated they were unable to
pay a deposit.

22. The agent asked the consumer for their account details to set up a direct debit. The

consumer was gone for some time retrieving their bank details before returning to
the line at which point, they stated, “I’ve been thinking, I will talk to my partner
today and then you ring me tomorrow". The agent responded “we are literally there
now in terms of setting it up, I’ve already got the plan number up in front of me
and everything up. Obviously like I said before we are not taking no money out
today or anything like that. We are getting it set up and setting the direct debit up
for the 6th of every month…” The agent then stated that if the consumers’ partner
had any questions regarding the paperwork which would be sent through, they
could call the agent.

23. Another call reviewed by the Authority occurred on 22 February 2022. The

consumer was an elderly individual who had poor hearing and whose first language
was not English. The call was conducted while the customer was traveling, and she
was having difficulty hearing. During the call the agent presented the consumer
with the “Gold plan” and informed the consumer at speed of what the plan covered.
The agent stated that the application would only take a couple of minutes and asked
the customer for their next of kin details and asked if they could take a first
payment. The agent asked for the consumer’s account number and sort code and
the consumer declined.

24. The consumer stated that they would like to go home, review everything and speak

with their son before making a first payment. The agent asked what time the
consumer would be home and the agent called back. During this call the agent
asked if the consumer had spoken to their son and was informed that their son had
advised them not to go ahead with the plan until he had seen the paperwork. The
agent moved forward with setting up the plan in any event by offering to delay the
first payment. This plan was subsequently cancelled.

25. On 20 June 2022, the firm responded to the Warning Notice issued by the Authority.

As part of the firm’s written representations, One Life stated that it had improved
its sales processes such that the practices that led to the pressuring of customers
as described above had been abolished and sales scripts and training have been
put in place to ensure that customers are treated fairly.

26. On 27 June 2022, the Authority sent a request to the firm to provide further

information. This included a request for the provision of further documentation
about the firm’s sales processes, further calls conducted by the firm using the new
sales process, and a mock-up of the firm’s website it anticipated to use from 29
July 2022.

27. The firm provided a number of sales calls completed primarily during the month of

June 2022 for the Authority to review. The Authority reviewed a sales call
conducted on 23 June 2022. The consumer stated that they would be starting a
new job a week later. The consumer chose to take out the celebration bronze plan
with the longest instalment term of 20 years. The consumer was not asked if they
already had provisions for a funeral in place. During the call the sale agent stated,
“when you are back working, and your situation improves, and your circumstances
improve and want to overpay that’s up to you”. The consumer stated, “obviously
you are not going to ask for the first payment today as I am skint”. The plan was
subsequently cancelled by the consumer.

28. Another call reviewed by the Authority took place 31 May 2022. The consumer was

driving at the time of the call. The sales agent did not ask if the consumer had
provisions for a funeral in place already. During the call the consumer mentioned
that they wished to read the paperwork before making a final decision. Despite
this, the agent went on to sell the consumer the plan. The plan was subsequently
cancelled by the consumer.

29. The Authority has also considered the further documentation provided by One Life,

and in particular documents relating to the sales process. The Authority is
concerned that that One Life is in breach of the provisions set out in FPCOB 8.2.5R
because it appears that no information is gathered to allow the firm to consider
whether any person has already made provision for the covered individual’s funeral.

The Authority is also concerned that One Life’s approach is in breach of Principle 6,
because it appears that the information gathered about the potential client’s
vulnerability is collected too late during the sales call in a way that does not allow
for any adjustments to be made during the call. As a result, the Authority is not
satisfied that vulnerable customers are being treated fairly.

30. As part of the information request sent to the firm on 27 June 2022, One Life was

requested to provide its demands and needs documentation. The Authority was not
provided with this. As such the Authority have been unable to assess its content
for the Authority to be satisfied that it is compliant with the rules set out within
FPCOB 8. As the firm have not provided demands and needs documentation the
Authority has assessed the extent to which the firm’s sales scripts enable a sales
agent to conduct a demands and needs test with its consumers. The Authority
considers that the firm is non-compliant with FPCOB 8.2.5R.

31. Having reviewed the firm’s proposed website, the Authority is concerned that it

does not comply with the obligation for any promotion to fair, clear and not
misleading as set out in FPCOB 4.2.1R. The firm’s webpage has a page which
states “arrange a funeral now/organise a funeral today”. This page also mentions
that “if sadly someone has passed away, we can support you to arrange an
unattended funeral today”. This is misleading as it could be interpreted by
consumers that the firm is offering at-need funerals which is not something One
Life offer.

32. A further example of the firm’s website failing to meet FPCOB 4.2.1R is that it refers

to “funerals from £995* and funeral plans from £1,495**”. This is a price
comparison of an at-need direct cremation purchased today versus a prepaid direct
cremation plan. The asterisk which explains this is not clear enough or sufficiently
prominent. There is no information which explains the firm’s reference to, or value
of, at-need prices.

33. The Authority also note that the price of a direct cremation from £995 is listed

throughout the firm’s website. However, the firm then quotes the price of £1,495
which includes a temporary voucher reduction of £200 valid until September 2022.
The true cost of the plan is £1,695. This could mislead the consumer as the £995
lower cost option is not available.

IMPACT ON THE THRESHOLD CONDITIONS

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

34. In light of the facts and matters set out above and for the reasons set out below,

the Authority cannot ensure that, if the Application were granted, One Life
would

satisfy, and continue to satisfy, the Appropriate Resources and Suitability threshold
conditions.

35. Paragraph 2D of Schedule 6 to the Act sets out that:

(1) The resources of A must be appropriate in relation to the regulated activities
that A carries on or seeks to carry on.
(2) The matters which are relevant in determining whether A has appropriate
non-financial resources include—
(a) the skills and experience of those who manage A's affairs;

36. The Authority is not satisfied that One Life’s non-financial resources will be

appropriate in relation to the regulated activities it seeks to carry on. In particular:

a. The Authority conducted competency interviews with the proposed SMF

holders in March 2022. The Authority assessed that three of the firm’s
proposed candidates did not have the required competence and capability
to hold the roles applied for.

b. The Authority conducted further competency interviews with proposed SMFs

of the firm in June 2022 and as a result the Authority has found that a
further two of these individuals interviewed do not have the required
competence and capability to hold the roles applied for. Accordingly, One
Life does not have adequate non-financial resources in respect of the skills
and experience of those who manage the firm’s affairs.

37. Paragraph 2E of Schedule 6 to the Act sets out that:

1) A must be a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances,

including-
a. A’s connection with any person;
b. The nature (including the complexity) of any regulated activity that A carries

on or seeks to carry on;

c. The need to ensure that A’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 A has complied and is complying with requirements imposed by the

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

e. Whether those who manage A’s affairs have adequate skills and experience

and act with probity;

f. Whether s’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

38. Associated guidance in COND 2.5.4 G for this threshold condition reads, in so far

as it is relevant:

2) Examples of the kind of general consideration to which the FCA may have regard

when assessing whether a firm will satisfy, and continue to satisfy, the
threshold conditions set out in Paragraphs 2E and 3D of Schedule 6 to the Act
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.

39. The firm was informed by the Authority that its cancellation rates were considered

high. The firm has since provided evidence to show that these rates have now
declined. Whilst the Authority acknowledges that the firm has responded to the
concerns raised, the Authority is concerned that the issue was not proactively
identified by the firm. When asked to provide evidence of when the high
cancellation rates first came to the attention of the firm, the firm was unable to
articulate this or provide evidence of how it became aware of this issue or provide
a specific date outlining when the firm was first alerted to this. As such, the
Authority is concerned that the firm does not have the appropriate systems and
controls in place to effectively identify and monitor the quality of its sales output.

40. The firm has provided information in respect to its sales processes. The Authority

is concerned that the firm does not have adequate systems and controls in place
in respect of the firm’s sales processes and that these sales processes do not
comply with the Authority’s rules.

41. The Authority has further concerns in that the Authority has reviewed the firm’s

proposed financial promotions for its website and have assessed these as non-
compliant with FPCOB 4.2.1R, which requires customer communications to be clear,
fair and not misleading.

42. In light of the matters set out above the Authority is not satisfied that:

I.
One Life’s business will be managed in such a way as to ensure that its
affairs will be conducted in a sound and prudent manner and that One Life
is ready, willing and organised to comply with the requirements and
standards under the regulatory system.

II.
The Authority is not satisfied that One Life satisfies and will continue satisfy
the Suitability threshold condition.

43. On the basis of the facts and matters described above, the Authority cannot ensure

that One Life will satisfy, and continue to satisfy, the threshold conditions in relation
to all of the regulated activities for which One Life would have permission if the
Application was granted. The Authority accordingly has decided to refuse the
Application.

REPRESENTATIONS

44. Annex B contains a brief summary of the key representations made by One Life

and how they have been dealt with. In making the decision which gave rise to the
obligation to give this Notice, the Authority has taken into account all of the
representations made by One Life.

IMPORTANT NOTICES

45. The Final Notice is given under section 390 of the Act.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

46. 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.

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

Final Notice relates as it considers appropriate.

Authority contacts

48. For more information concerning this matter generally, contact Darren Bruce,

Manager, Authorisations department at the Authority (direct line: 020 7066 4128
/ email: Darren.bruce@fca.org.uk).

ANNEX A – REGULATORY PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO THIS FINAL NOTICE

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

or more regulated activities to be made to the appropriate regulator.
Section

55A(2) defines the “appropriate regulator” for different applications.

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

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

3. The threshold conditions that relate to the current application are set out in Part 2

of Schedule 6 to the Act. In brief, the threshold conditions relate to:

(1)
Threshold condition 2B: Location of offices

(2)
Threshold condition 2C: Effective supervision

(3)
Threshold condition 2D: Appropriate resources

(4)
Threshold condition 2E: Suitability

(5)
Threshold condition 2F: Business model

Relevant provisions of the Authority’s Handbook

Threshold Conditions - COND

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
the part entitled ‘Threshold Conditions’ (“COND”). Provisions relevant to the
consideration of the current 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 FCA threshold conditions, the FCA will have regard to all
relevant matters, whether arising in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

8. COND 1.3.3CG provides that, when assessing the FCA threshold conditions, the

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

9. Threshold condition 2D: Appropriate Resources

10. COND 2.4.2G(2) states that the FCA 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.

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

SYSC. The FCA 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.

12. COND2.4.2G(4) states that detailed financial resources requirements are in the

relevant section of the Prudential Standards part of the FCA Handbook, including
specific provisions for particular types of regulated activity. The FCA will consider
whether firms (other than firms carrying on, or seeking to carry on, PRA-regulated
activities) are ready, willing and organised to comply with these requirements when
assessing if they have appropriate financial resources for the purposes of threshold
condition 2D.

13. COND 2.4.4G states that, when assessing whether a firm has appropriate

resources, the Authority will have regard to matters including:

Threshold condition 2E: Suitability

14. COND 2.5.2G(2) states that the FCA will also take into consideration anything that

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

15. COND 2.5.3G(1) states that the emphasis of threshold condition 2E is on the

suitability of the firm itself. The suitability of each person who performs a controlled
function will be assessed by the FCA and/or the PRA, as appropriate, under the
approved persons regime (see SUP 10 (Approved persons) and FIT). In certain
circumstances, however, the FCA may consider that the firm is not suitable because
of doubts over the individual or collective suitability of persons connected with the
firm.

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

the FCA 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.

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

which the FCA may have regard when assessing whether a firm will satisfy, and
continue to satisfy, this threshold condition.

Funeral Plan: Conduct of Business Sourcebook -FPCOB

The section of the Authority’s Handbook entitled ‘requirement not to offer
commissions’, FPCOB 6.5.2.R sets out the rules in relation to funeral plan providers in
that a funeral plan provider is unable to offer or pay any commission or renumeration
to another firm in connection to the firm’s engaging in funeral plan distribution.
Provisions of [FPCOB 6.5.2.R] relevant to the consideration of the current application
include those set out below. A firm must not offer or pay (and must ensure that none
of its associates offers or pays) any commissions, renumeration or benefit of any kind
to:

1) Another firm in connection with that firm’s business of engaging in funeral plan

distribution;

2) Another person in connection with:

a. that persons business of engaging in funeral plan distribution:

i. for which it does not require authorisation; or

ii. which it carries on in breach of the general prohibition;

b. business of that person which would involve engaging in funeral plan

distribution in but for an exclusion in the Regulated Activities Order;

c. That person’s business of introducing customers to another person in

relation to funeral plan contracts;

3) A person in (1) or (2) in relation to any related services; or
4) any third party for the benefit of a person, and in the circumstances described, in

(1) to (3), except as provided in this section.

Demands and needs

FPCOB 8 of the Authority’s Handbook entitled “demand and needs” sets out that a firm
must identity the demands and needs of its customers.

FPCOB 8.2.5 R states:

In determining whether a funeral plan contact is consistent with the customer’s
demands and needs, a firm must consider, amongst other things:

(1) whether any person has already made provision for the covered individual’s
funeral;

Fair, clear and not misleading rule
FPCOB 4.2.1R states A firm must ensure that a communication or a financial promotion
is fair, clear and not misleading.

Principles for Business- PRIN

This section of the Authority's handbook outlines the fundamental obligations of firms
when they apply under the regulatory system. PRIN 2.1 provides a full list of The Principles.

PRIN 6 is in reference to consumers’ interests. PRIN 6 states a firm must pay due regard
to the interests of consumers and treat them fairly.

ANNEX B – REPRESENTATIONS

1. A summary of One Life’s representations (in italics), and the Authority’s conclusions

in respect of them are set out below.

2. One Life has taken on board the Authority’s comments formulated in the Warning

Notice of some of its senior managers and as a result has withdrawn the candidacy of
its former SMF 16 and two of its SMF function candidates and put forward a new
individual for the SMF 16 Compliance oversight function.

3. Having conducted competency interviews with the SMF 16 candidate and two SMF 3

candidates, the Authority is not satisfied that the individuals proposed for the SMF 16
Compliance oversight and SMF 3 Executive director as sales director have
demonstrated that they are fit and proper to discharge the responsibilities they are
assigned. In particular, both individuals have contributed to creation and
implementation of the new sales scripts and training programs that form the core of
the improved sales processes of the firm. However, these sales processes do not
comply with the relevant Handbook provisions. Hence, the involvement of the SMF
candidates in the development and sign-off of these processes call in question their
competence and whether they have sufficient understanding of the Authority’s rules
to discharge their functions in a way to ensure the firm’s compliance of the same.

Sales processes

4. One Life has accepted the concerns expressed by the Authority in the Warning Notice

about the sales calls. This led to an overhauling of the sales process in that new sales
scripts were put in place; the staff received and are still receiving extensive training
and the calls are more closely monitored and feedback is regularly given to sales staff.
This has resulted in a sales process that is now compliant in all respects with FPCOB
and the Authority’s rules more in general.

5. The Authority has reviewed the new materials and a sample of the sales calls provided

by the firm. The Authority is not satisfied that the new sales scripts and, as a
consequence, the amended sales process is adequate to ensure the firm’s compliance
with the Authority’s rules and namely that the customers are treated fairly. In breach
of FPCOB 8.2.5R, no information is gathered in relation to whether any person has
already made provision for the covered individual’s funeral. In addition, the Authority
is concerned that the way information is gathered and assessed about any potential
vulnerability of the customer is inadequate. There are too few questions and they are
asked at a late stage of the sales call, not making it possible to make adjustments
during the call with view of the specific vulnerability or to properly assess the potential
vulnerability.

Data vendor agreement

6. Following feedback from the Authority, One Life terminated all its relationships with

lead generators. There only remains one agreement with a data vendor. One Life
purchases data from this data vendor for individuals who have expressed an interest
in funeral planning as part of a multi-product telephone questionnaire. The data is
gathered by the data vendor to sell on as a commodity to whoever wishes to purchase
from them. The data vendor does not provide any advice or recommendation to the

individuals, but simply notes their preferences and designates their data accordingly.
This means that One Life’s agreement with the data vendor falls outside of the scope
of FPCOB 6.5.2R as the data vendor cannot be said to be engaging either in funeral
plan distribution or in intermediation. This is because both distribution and
intermediation would require some engagement – advice or arrangement - with the
customer on the part of the data vendor. The data vendor’s activities do not include
any sort of advice or arranging and therefore One Life’s agreement with them is not
in breach of the commission ban set out in FPCOB 6.5.2R.

7. The Authority does not agree with the interpretation of FPCOB 6.5.2R presented by

One Life. The provision on the commission ban is formulated in a broad manner in
order to capture a variety of different activities. In particular, FPCOB 6.5.2R(2)(c),
which stipulates the commission ban in relation to introducers, is intended to cover
activities that fall short of making arrangements – which would fall into the distribution
category – such as the scenario envisaged in the agreement between One Life and
the data vendor. It is worth noting that an introduction is not contingent on the
ultimate sale of the product, it is sufficient that the customer’s details are passed on,
such as it is done by the data vendor to One Life. This is further supported by the
Authority’s Consultation Paper. Paragraph 2.28 states that: “Intermediaries who are
involved in distributing funeral plans to customers […] may also include firms whose
role is more limited (such as lead generators). Further, paragraph 2.29 clarifies that:
“Firms should be aware of the Treasury’s view that the activities of lead generators
are likely to meet the definition of […] ‘making arrangements’. Therefore, it is the
Authority’s view that the agreement that One Life has in place with the data vendor is
in breach of the commission ban as set out in FPCOB 6.5.2R.