THIS DECISION NOTICE HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE
UPPER TRIBUNAL IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE
APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR THE FSA TO TAKE

DECISION NOTICE

TAKE NOTICE: The Financial Services Authority of 25 The North Colonnade,
Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HS ("the FSA") has decided to take the following
action:

1.
ACTION

1.1. By an application dated 9 March 2011 ("the Application") Scott Briscoe
Limited (“Scott Briscoe”) applied under section 60 of the Financial Services and
Markets Act 2000 ("the Act") for approval of Mr Sidney Cordle (“Mr Cordle”)
to perform the controlled functions of CF1 Director, CF10 Compliance
oversight, CF11 Money laundering reporting officer, CF30 Customer and as the
individual responsible for insurance mediation.

1.2. On the basis of the facts and matters described below, the FSA is not satisfied
that Mr Cordle is a fit and proper person to perform the controlled functions to
which the Application relates. In particular, the FSA has concerns as to Mr
Cordle’s honesty and integrity arising out of the following matters. Therefore
the FSA has decided to refuse the Application for the reasons set out below.

2.
REASONS FOR THE ACTION

2.1. Whilst Scott Briscoe was registered as an appointed representative of a network
(“Network A”), Mr Cordle became aware of Network A’s concern that an

introducer of business to Scott Briscoe, was advising on mortgage and life
protection without authorisation. In particular, Mr Cordle was aware that:

(a)
Network A had conducted an investigation into these activities;

(b)
Network A had determined that Mr Cordle had been aware that the
introducer had been providing advice without authorisation;

(c)
Network A had issued a letter stating that it was minded to terminate the
registration of Scott Briscoe Limited on 28 January 2011; and

(d)
following an unsuccessful appeal, Network A terminated Scott Briscoe’s
appointed representative arrangement with effect from 26 April 2011.

2.2. Mr Cordle failed to disclose in the FSA’s Long Form A any of the above events
when the Application was made. Further, Mr Cordle has since admitted that he
lied during Network A’s investigation. Mr Cordle now admits that at all times
during Network A’s investigation, he knew that the introducer of business to
Scott Briscoe, had advised on mortgage and life protection without
authorisation.

3. RELEVANT STAUTORY PROVISIONS AND GUIDANCE

3.1. The statutory and regulatory provisions relevant to this Decision Notice are set
out in Annex A.

4. FACTS AND MATTERS RELIED ON

The investigation carried out by Network A

4.1. In 2008, Mr Cordle was the sole Director of Scott Briscoe. Scott Briscoe was at
that time an appointed representative of Network A.

4.2. Between August 2008 and January 2011, Network A conducted an investigation
following an allegation of misconduct against Mr Cordle in relation to the work
practices of one of Scott Briscoe’s introducers.

4.3. It was alleged that Mr Cordle knowingly permitted an introducer to provide
mortgage advice without having the necessary qualifications or authority to do
so.

4.4. Visits to Scott Briscoe’s premises were carried out by Network A on 2 June
2009, 19 October 2010 and 24 November 2010.

4.5. Network A undertook a review of the business list it maintained in respect of
Scott Briscoe, a sample of 10 client files and issued questionnaires to those
clients. It also reviewed entries from Scott Briscoe’s New Business Register.

4.6. On 16 November 2010, Network A informed Mr Cordle of the allegation and
Network A’s investigation.

4.7. Following the investigation, Network A concluded that the introducer had been
providing advice to customers with Mr Cordle’s knowledge and gave notice of
its intent to terminate its business relationship with Scott Briscoe on 28 January
2011.

4.8. On 22 February 2011, Mr Cordle wrote to the introducer concerned terminating
his arrangement with Scott Briscoe. This letter cited Network A’s concern that
the introducer was providing advice to customers and referred to an instance
where the signatures on the verification of identify documents provided by the
introducer were fraudulent.

4.9. An appeal by Mr Cordle followed whereby Network A carried out a series of
scripted telephone calls to clients on cases involving the introducer. The
findings resulted in Mr Cordle’s appeal being unsuccessful and a Notice of
Member Termination was issued to Scott Briscoe on 26 April 2011.

The Application and Mr Cordle’s non-disclosure

4.10. Question 5.09 of the Approved Person’s Form A requires applicants to make
disclosure if they have ever been the subject of an investigation into allegations
of misconduct or malpractice in connection with any business activity. The
guidance notes to the Form A explain that the question covers internal
investigation by an authorised firm in addition to investigations by a regulatory
body at any time. Mr Cordle answered ‘no’ to question 5.09.

4.11. Question 1.13 of the Disclosure of significant events appendix to the application
for Part IV permission, relevant for firms that have previously been trading, asks
if the applicant firm has ever been found guilty of carrying on any unauthorised
regulated activities or been investigated for the possible carrying on of
unauthorised regulated activities. Similarly question 1.14 asks if such
investigations have yet to be determined. Mr Cordle, on behalf of Scott Briscoe
Limited, answered ‘no’ to both questions.

4.12. The Notice of Member Termination issued to Scott Briscoe was revealed to the
FSA through receipt of a regulatory reference. On 13 May 2011, the FSA
invited Mr Cordle to explain the circumstances of the termination, and the
reasons for not disclosing that information.

4.13. Mr Cordle’s response, also of 13 May 2011, stated that he had submitted a draft
application to his compliance consultant who had altered some of the
information that was originally included as part of the application. Mr Cordle
stated that he discussed the full details of the investigation, prior to any
application being submitted, with the compliance consultant whose view was
that Network A would take no action.

4.14. Mr Cordle did not accept that he was the subject of an investigation into
misconduct or malpractice, stating that “The allegation against me was one of
omission not commission (that I knew but took no action).”

4.15. However, Mr Cordle also stated that whilst the compliance consultant had sent
him a copy of the application to be checked and signed before submission, he
“didn’t pay as much attention as I should have to the detailed questions”.

4.16. In a subsequent email of 12 August 2011 Mr Cordle states that he:

“was preparing to run the London Marathon as well as working very hard on
my business and other issues. That is why I paid [a compliance consultant] to
do this application for me and believed they had completed it correctly and I did
not need to examine it before I signed it which I did not.”

4.17. By email of 22 August 2011, Mr Cordle stated that he thought both questions
(5.09 on the Long Form A and 1.13 of the Disclosure of significant events
appendix) referred to an FSA investigation. The Notes to the Form A state
“This question covers internal investigations by an authorised firm in addition
to investigations by a regulatory body at any time.”

4.18. On 26 August 2011, Mr Cordle provided a detailed outline of the dates of
meetings and correspondence with the compliance consultant but stated that, “At
no point did anyone tell me that the form was crucial. I was under the
impression that my record as a financial adviser was what would be under
scrutiny.”

4.19. Mr Cordle further stated that the absence of the disclosure should have been
queried by the compliance consultant when he submitted a draft application for
review.

5.
REPRESENTATIONS, FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

Representations

5.1. Below is a summary of the key representations made by Mr Cordle in this
matter and how they have been dealt with. In making the decision which gave
rise to the obligation to give this notice, the FSA has taken into account all of
Mr Cordle’s representations, whether or not explicitly set out below.

5.2. Mr Cordle asserts that his past financial services experience has not been
adequately taken into account by the FSA in its consideration of the Application
(and in particular his fitness and propriety).

5.3. Mr Cordle accepts that when the Application was made, he failed to disclose (to
the FSA) Network A’s investigation into the allegation of misconduct or
malpractice made against him.

5.4. However, Mr Cordle asserts that he:

1. discussed the full details of Network A’s investigation, prior to the
Application being submitted, with his compliance consultant whose view
was that Network A would take no action;

2. sent a draft of the Application to his compliance consultant and delegated
responsibility to his compliance consultant to complete and submit the
Application on his behalf;

3. signed the completed the Application without paying it much attention, on
the basis that when he completed the draft of the Application he did read the
questions and it was entirely appropriate for him to rely on his compliance
consultant to complete the Application correctly; and

4. received verbal assurances that his compliance consultant accepted
responsibility for the Application.

5.5. Mr Cordle submits that the FSA should take the circumstances set out above
into account when considering whether he is a fit and proper person in light of
his non-disclosure in the Application.

5.6. Mr Cordle also submits that since 13 May 2011 (when his non-disclosure came
to light), he has corresponded directly with the FSA in relation to the
Application and conducted industry training in order to increase his knowledge
in matters with which he was not previously familiar.

5.7. Finally, during his oral representations meeting, Mr Cordle admitted that he lied
during Network A’s investigation into the allegation of misconduct or
malpractice made against him. In particular, Mr Cordle admitted he knew that
the introducer of business to Scott Briscoe, had advised on mortgage and life
protection without authorisation but nevertheless he lied to Network A’s
investigator.

5.8. The FSA considers that it has had adequate regard to Mr Cordle’s past financial
services experience in its consideration of the Application but notes that Mr
Cordle’s non-disclosure of Network A’s investigation which led to the
termination of Scott Briscoe from the network is both highly relevant to and
indicative of, his readiness and willingness to comply with regulatory
requirements and therefore his fitness and propriety.

5.9. The FSA notes Mr Cordle’s explanation for his non-disclosure in the
Application. However, the FSA finds that the accurate completion of the
Application was Mr Cordle’s sole responsibility and cannot be delegated. The
FSA considers that despite the assistance sought from his compliance consultant
in relation to the Application, the onus was on Mr Cordle to ensure that the
Application was accurate and complete. In taking all the circumstances into
account, the FSA further considers that Mr Cordle’s non-disclosure is
particularly serious given nature of the matters which are the subject of the non
disclosure, namely the Network A investigation and the termination of Scott
Briscoe as an appointed representative of Network A.

5.10. The FSA finds that Mr Cordle’s failure to disclose Network A’s investigation
into his knowledge that the introducer was advising clients without being
authorised to do so is aggravated by the fact that Mr Cordle:

1. knew that the introducer of business to Scott Briscoe was advising on
mortgage and life protection without authorisation but nevertheless he lied
to Network A’s investigator; and

2. has been an appointed representative for a significant period of time and
therefore ought to have been aware of the standard of conduct expected of
him by the FSA.

5.11. In light of the matters set out above, the FSA has concluded that it cannot be
satisfied that Mr Cordle is a fit and proper person to perform the controlled
functions to which the application relates as he lacks honesty and integrity.

5.12. In particular, the FSA is not satisfied as to Mr Cordle’s honesty and integrity
given:

1. the serious nature of the matters which are the subject of the non disclosure,
namely the Network A investigation and the termination of Scott Briscoe as
an appointed representative of Network A; and

2. his admission that he knew that the introducer of business to Scott Briscoe,
was advising on mortgage and life protection without authorisation but
nevertheless he lied to Network A’s investigator.

5.13. For completeness, the FSA considers that Mr Cordle’s admission (made in the
course of his oral representations) that he lied during Network A’s investigation
into the allegation of misconduct or malpractice made against him and the fact
that he has recently conducted industry training in order to increase his
knowledge in matters with which he was not previously familiar are both
positive steps towards his rehabilitation.

5.14. The FSA notes that the events leading to the investigation occurred in or before
2008 and therefore consideration has been given to the weight that should be
given to the passage of time. However, given that Mr Cordle will not be acting
under the supervision of third parties and will be responsible for and be able to
exercise influence over the adequacy of Scott Briscoe’s systems and controls,
the FSA does not consider that the passage of time currently outweighs its
concerns.

6.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Decision Maker

6.1. The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Decision Notice was
made by the Regulatory Decisions Committee.

6.2. This Decision Notice is given to Mr Cordle and Scott Briscoe under section
62(3) of the Act and in accordance with section 388 of the Act. The following
statutory rights are important.

The Upper Tribunal

7.
Mr Cordle has the right to refer the matter to which this Decision Notice relates
to the Upper Tribunal. The Tax and Chancery Chamber is the part of the Upper
Tribunal, which, among other things, hears references arising from decisions of
the FSA. Under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper
Tribunal) Rules 2008, Mr Cordle has 28 days from the date on which this
Decision Notice is given to Mr Cordle to refer the matter to the Upper Tribunal.

8.
A reference to the Upper Tribunal is made by way of a reference notice (Form
FTC3) signed by Mr Cordle (or on Mr Cordle’s behalf) and filed with a copy of
this Decision Notice. The Upper Tribunal’s contact details are The Upper
Tribunal, Tax and Chancery Chamber, 45 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3DN
(tel: 020 7612 9700; email: financeandtaxappeals@tribunals.gsi.gov.uk).

9.
Further details are contained in “Making a Reference to the UPPER
TRIBUNAL (Tax and Chancery Chamber)” which is available from the Upper
Tribunal website:

10.
A copy of Form FTC3 must also be sent to Francesca Harte at the FSA, 25 The
North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS at the same time as filing a
reference with the Upper Tribunal.

Access to evidence

10.1. Section 394 of the Act (access to FSA material) does not apply to this Decision
Notice.

Confidentiality and publicity

10.2. Mr Cordle and Scott Briscoe should note that 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 neither the FSA, nor a person to whom a Decision Notice is given
or copied may publish the notice or any details concerning it unless the FSA has
published the notice or those details. The FSA must publish such information
about the matter to which matter to which a Decision Notice or Final Notice
relates as it considers appropriate. Mr Cordle and Scott Briscoe should be
aware, therefore, that the facts and matters contained in this notice may be made
public.

FSA contacts

10.3. For more information concerning this matter generally, you should contact
Francesca Harte, Manager, Permissions at the FSA (direct line 020 7066 1482 /
email: francesca.harte@fsa.gov.uk).

Tim Herrington
Chairman of the Regulatory Decisions Committee


ANNEX A

Relevant statutory provisions

1.1.
The FSA may grant an application for approval under section 60 of the Act
only if it is satisfied that the person in respect of whom the application is
made is a fit and proper person to perform the controlled function to which
the application relates (section 61(1) of the Act).

1.2.
Section 62(3) of the Act requires the FSA, if it decides to refuse the
application, to issue a Decision Notice.

Relevant guidance

1.3.
The section of the FSA’s Handbook entitled “Fit and Proper test for
Approved Persons” ("FIT") sets out the criteria that the FSA will consider
when assessing the fitness and propriety of a person to perform a particular
controlled function.

1.4.
FIT 1.3.1G(1) states that the FSA will have regard to a number of factors
when assessing the fitness and propriety of a person to perform a particular
controlled function. The most important considerations include the person’s
honesty, integrity and reputation.

1.5.
FIT 1.3.2G states that, in assessing fitness, the FSA will take account of the
activities of the firm for which the controlled function is or is to be
performed, the permission held by that firm and the markets within which it
operates.

1.6.
FIT 1.3.4G states that, if a matter comes to the FSA’s attention which
suggests that the person might not be fit and proper, the FSA will take into
account how relevant and how important that matter is.

1.7.
FIT 2.1.1G provides that, in determining a person's honesty, integrity and
reputation, the FSA will have regard to all relevant matters including, but not
limited to, those set out in FIT 2.1.3 G which may have arisen either in the
United Kingdom or elsewhere.

1.8.
FIT 2.1.3G states that the matters referred to in FIT 2.1.1 G to which the FSA
will have regard include, but are not limited to:

1.9.
FIT 2.1.3G(4): whether the person is or has been the subject of any
proceedings of a disciplinary or criminal nature, or has been notified of any
potential proceedings or of any investigation which might lead to those
proceedings.

1.10.
FIT2.1.3G(13): whether, in the past, the person has been candid and truthful
in all his dealings with any regulatory body and whether the person
demonstrates a readiness and willingness to comply with the requirements

and standards of the regulatory system and with other legal, regulatory and
professional requirements and standards.