The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is remaining tight-lipped over the timing of its recently announced review of consolidation in the advice sector.

On 7 October, the regulator unveiled plans to examine consolidation, emphasising the need for strict approval processes when firms acquire or increase control over regulated entities.

Despite speculation that the review may have been prompted by concerns over rushed deals ahead of potential capital gains tax (CGT) changes, the FCA declined to confirm or deny this.

When asked by Money Marketing if this was the reason, the FCA’s head of advisers, wealth and pensions, Nick Hulme, stated he would not “specifically answer the question”.

In an interview at the Consumer Duty Alliance conference in Birmingham today (11 October), Hulme added: “I think we wanted to really reiterate the point that you need to get FCA approval before a change of control.

“We wanted to make it as clear as we possibly could that this is our expectation and if we find out that it hasn’t been we will act.”

“The ‘why now’ comes out of a number of reasons.

“One is, it’s been a while – seven years – since we last ‘kicked the tyres’ and had a look at this.

“Consolidation comes up a lot, sometimes from the consolidators about what other consolidators are doing, so I think it’s important that we have a look at it.”

Earlier in the day, Hulme told delegates: “I really want to stress that we are agnostic to whether consolidation is a good or bad thing.”

In a letter to advice and investment firm bosses, the FCA said that while industry consolidation can provide benefits, various types of harm can occur where this is not done in a “prudent manner”.

“Where we receive notifications from individuals or firms to acquire or increase control in regulated firms, we will assess and challenge their suitability and the financial soundness of the acquisition,” it said.

It added that buyers must “notify us and get our approval to acquire or increase control in a firm we regulate”.

Where acquisitions complete without prior regulatory approval, “we may use our enforcement powers to object to the transaction or initiate criminal proceedings”.

M&S customers have blasted the retailer for hiking its popular Gastropub dine-in deal by 25%.

The revamped offer now includes creations by celebrity chef Tom Kerridge – but shoppers are still furious that the cost has risen from £12 to £15.

2

The deal for two – which includes a main, side and a starter or desert – is among the priciest of M&S’ dine-in offers.

There’s also a pasta bundle for £7, an Indian meal for £15 and a slow-cooked one for £12.

But the Gastropub offer has hit shoppers radars in recent weeks after it was revamped at the end of September.

One fan complained to the retailer: “So food inflation is flattening or in some instances reversing. So you have put your dine-in meal deal price up 25%? (£12 to £15).”

Another added: “I have no doubts about the quality and having awesome chefs endorsing it adds a nice touch, but I’d prefer you kept the pricing reasonable.

“Gastro dine in from £12 to £15 is a noticeable hike.”

A third said: “I expect prices to rise every now and again but a 25% increase in the Gastropub meal deal in a week is just a little beyond the pale.”

Others complained that the deal previously offered fish and chips together as a main dish, but now the dish is only haddock and the chips must be bought separately as a side.

One said: “Extremely disappointing to see that the Gastropub dine-in deal has not only increased a whopping 25% to £15, but the chips have also been removed from the haddock and chips box.

“Bad deal, I didn’t bother buying.”

M&S – which has highlighted “British Beef Cheeks” and Kerridge’s Treacle Tart as top picks of the range – said the offer was intended to “bring the flavours of your favourite restaurant home”.

Analysis by The Sun has revealed that many of the dishes present in the relaunched offer were included in M&S’ old Gastropub deal, including lamb moussaka, cottage pie, chicken forestiere and lasagne.

Meanwhile triple cooked chips, greens, emperor carrots and dauphinoise potatoes remain as sides, as well as runny scotch eggs and prawn cocktail for starter options and tarte au citron and sticky toffee pudding for dessert.

But the retailer said 95% of the dishes are new or had been improved and all now only use selected M&S Foodhall ingredients or specific ingredients from its Gastropub larder list.

Tom Kerridge has also brought in various new dishes into the deal, including a pork and bacon pâté, British beef cheeks, treacle tart and molten cookie dough.

How to save money on your food shop

Consumer reporter Sam Walker reveals how you can save hundreds of pounds a year:

Odd boxes – plenty of retailers offer slightly misshapen fruit and veg or surplus food at a discounted price.

Advertisement

Lidl sells five kilos of fruit and veg for just £1.50 through its Waste Not scheme while Aldi shoppers can get Too Good to Go bags which contain £10 worth of all kinds of products for £3.30.

Sainsbury’s also sells £2 “Taste Me, Don’t Waste Me” fruit and veg boxes to help shoppers reduced food waste and save cash.

Food waste apps – food waste apps work by helping shops, cafes, restaurants and other businesses shift stock that is due to go out of date and passing it on to members of the public.

Some of the most notable ones include Too Good to Go and Olio.

Advertisement

Too Good to Go’s app is free to sign up to and is used by millions of people across the UK, letting users buy food at a discount.

Olio works similarly, except users can collect both food and other household items for free from neighbours and businesses.

Yellow sticker bargains – yellow sticker bargains, sometimes orange and red in certain supermarkets, are a great way of getting food on the cheap.

But what time to head out to get the best deals varies depending on the retailer. You can see the best times for each supermarket here.

Advertisement

Super cheap bargains – sign up to bargain hunter Facebook groups like Extreme Couponing and Bargains UK where shoppers regularly post hauls they’ve found on the cheap, including food finds.

“Downshift” – you will almost always save money going for a supermarket’s own-brand economy lines rather than premium brands.

The move to lower-tier ranges, also known as “downshifting” and hailed by consumer expert Martin Lewis, could save you hundreds of pounds a year on your food shop.

Some have praised the overhaul, with one fan enthusing on X: “This new Tom Kerridge Gastropub range from @marksandspencer is absolutely banging, btw.”

Expert Amir Mousavi, a food consultant at the Good Food Studio in London, suspects rising costs were behind the hike.

He said: “Supermarket meal deals, traditionally, run as low-margin permanent promotions.

“Retailers often make 5% to 10% less margin on these offers compared to full-priced products, and their white label producers also sacrifice 5% to 10% margin.

2

Advertisement

“With rising costs of goods over the last few years, margins have naturally shrunk for both retailers and suppliers.

“Meal deals are not as commercially viable as they once were, necessitating a price restructure to maintain profitability.”

M&S said: “As part of our exciting recent relaunch of our Gastropub range we’ve improved the quality of our dishes to ensure our customers get restaurant- and pub-quality food at home.

“As part of this we have improved 95% of our dishes and also incorporated what we call the Gastropub larder – where all our dishes use ONLY ingredients from this select list.”

“So, for example, rather than any butter being used, the only butter in these dishes are M&S Salted/Unsalted British Butter, M&S West Country Butter Sweet Cream Butter, or M&S West Country Brue Valley Butter.

“All of these are found in our Foodhalls and ensure that the quality and taste is the same across every dish.

“We have also included the exciting new Tom Kerridge range within the Dine In deal, meaning you can get Michelin star-inspired food in the comfort of your own home and at a just a fraction of the price compared to a restaurant.”

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@news.co.uk.

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

A few weeks ago I had an absolute nightmare of a day when my work email account got hacked.

The hacker sent out a message to around 500 of my email contacts saying: “Good morning, I hope this email finds you well. Please see attached for your records. Alternatively, you can also access by copying the highlighted link and pasting in browser: [with a link that I’m obviously not going to post here]. It would be greatly appreciated if you could review at your earliest opportunity. Many thanks, Lois”.

They even used my email signature, and I found out from a few people who had replied to “me” that the hacker had replied to them assuring them that the email was definitely from me and the link was fine to click.

They also created an Outlook “rule”, which meant that all emails with an @ sign in the address would be immediately deleted. This meant I did not receive any emails from about 11am when the attack happened, until the wonderful IT team retrieved all of my lost emails. It also meant I assumed I’d lost access to my emails.

I felt pretty helpless. All I could do was post on LinkedIn telling people to delete the email and not click the link and hope the majority would see it.

Most people, thankfully, realised it was a scam. Anyone who knows me knows I do not use ‘email language’ like “I hope this finds you well”. And I certainly never request things at another person’s “earliest opportunity”. But I know some people clicked the link and I have no idea what the hacker was after. Money, I presume.

Our company IT team sorted it all out pretty quickly and got me back access to my email account. But there was a big chunk taken out of my working day where I didn’t have access even to my laptop while they investigated and changed my passwords.

I’m still not sure how this happened. I’m generally pretty good at sniffing out a scam, so I don’t think it was due to anything I clicked on.

I have noticed a marked increase in phishing emails coming into my inbox recently, and they often trick even my email spam filter.

They are easy to avoid if you’re cynical and paying attention, but I fear for older people or anyone in vulnerable circumstances, who are much more likely to fall for these kinds of scams.

And things are getting worse. An article by the International Monetary Fund back in April noted that cyber-attacks have more than doubled since the Covid-19 pandemic.

This is largely because hackers are constantly evolving. A report by security software company Egress – published in 2021 – pointed out that cybercriminals are constantly devising new ways to bypass traditional anti-phishing technologies.

In fact, it said, 98% of all phishing cases rely on social engineering, where victims are manipulated into supplying confidential information to a supposedly legitimate sender.

Financial advice firms may be wondering what all of this has to do with them.

Fraser Jack, founder of Australian firm The Cyber Collective, used to run a financial planning practice before he became a consultant. He says that, back then, he thought cybercrime was a “vague concept” that was not relevant to him or his business. But a 2019 report by Boston Consulting Group found that financial services organisations are 300 times more likely to be the victim of a cyber-attack than other types of companies.

And, in September last year, international law firm RPC revealed that UK financial services firms had reported a more than a threefold increase in the number of cyber-security breaches to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) in 2023 compared to the previous year.

It said that during the year to June 2023, 640 cyber security breaches were reported to the ICO, up from the 187 from the year to June 2022. The pensions sector saw the biggest rise, from six in 2021/22 to 246 in 2022/23.

The IMF article said attacks on financial firms account for nearly one-fifth of the total. Banks are the most exposed but advice firms, which hold a huge amount of client data, are certainly not immune.

“In the wild west of cybercrime, someone trying to steal your client data is less of a case of ‘if’ and more of a case of ‘when’,” Fraser Jack wrote, in an article on The Cyber Collective’s website.

It makes sense. I know if I were a cybercriminal I’d target financial advice businesses, with all their minted clients. If you have no morals, why wouldn’t you go for them?

We know it goes on. Back in February last year, Aviva-owned Succession Wealth, which has around 200 advisers and 20,000 clients, suffered a cyber-attack, off the back of which it said it had launched an investigation and “notified the appropriate authorities”. It also introduced “further security measures”.

At the time the company would not elaborate on the nature of the attack, or give details about the security measures it had brought in.

This was a high-profile attack that was widely reported on in the media. But it is by no means the only attack of this nature on a financial advice firm.

Compliance consultancy B-Compliant said in December last year that an advice firm had contacted it to report that it had been targeted by a phishing email purporting to be from the Financial Conduct Authority. The recipient had noticed a spelling mistake and reached out to see if it was genuine. It was not.

This, B-Compliant warned, goes to show that hackers aren’t just targeting big firms. Everyone within the sector is fair game and SMEs in particular can be seen as low-hanging fruit, as they are thought to have less infrastructure and controls in place.

Cybersecurity is a key priority for the Bank of England and the financial regulators.

Late last year, the BoE insisted that all financial firms should be testing their resilience to cyber-attacks through CBEST – a targeted assessment that allows regulators and firms to better understand weaknesses and vulnerabilities and take “remedial actions”.

“True and meaningful cyber resilience cannot be delivered or achieved without a whole-organisational, continuous effort,” it said.

“We strongly encourage firms/FMIs to build and reinforce resilience through a strong foundation of cyber hygiene practices.”

As technology becomes more advanced and the world becomes more connected, cybercriminals are becoming more sophisticated. Financial advice firms of all sizes must be ready.

HUNDREDS of mobile phone users have been hit by shock charges after an EE billing blunder.

Some customers have been billed as much as £400 on top of their usual bill for calls that should have been included in their contracts.

1

Most mobile phone contracts come with an unlimited allowance for UK calls and texts, which is the industry standard.

However, some EE customers were wrongly charged after the company began moving their accounts to a new billing system.

The issues first started in September, and hundreds of affected customers have complained on EE‘s community forum.

One affected customer said: “I’ve been charged £220 in calls even though I live in [the] UK and only call UK numbers.

“I’m meant to have unlimited calls and texts and data.”

Another said: “I had the same problem and was billed for £240+ for calls that should have been inside my allowance.”

A third said: “I have just found out that the same thing has happened to me.

“Almost had a heart attack when I was charged £268 over 2 weeks.” said a third customer.

The overcharging amounts range from approximately £90 to £400.

Some affected customers have reported that, despite lodging multiple complaints, they have struggled to secure refunds and were initially informed that they would still have to pay the erroneous charges, according to ISPreview, which first reported the issues.

EE told The Sun that you do not need to take any action as it is proactively contacting those affected and automatically issuing refunds.

However, some customers have reported online that they have yet to receive their refunds.

EE told The Sun that a “small number” of customers have been affected by the issue and it apologised for any inconvenience caused.

The network is not actively compensating customers whose bills have been affected.

However, some customers have successfully requested compensation by contacting EE directly.

One customer shared on the EE forum: “They have offered me £30 off my next bill in addition to a refund for £79 worth of extra charges.”

If you have faced substantial extra charges that have impacted your ability to pay your bills or other expenses, we strongly encourage you to contact EE and request compensation.

If EE is unwilling to offer redress and you remain unsatisfied, it’s worth submitting a formal complaint.

You can do this by calling 150 from your EE mobile or 07953 966 150 from any other phone.

If you’d prefer to write, you can send your complaint to resolutions-store@ee.co.uk or post a letter to the following address:

EE Mobile & Broadband
EE Customer Services
6 Camberwell Way
Sunderland
Tyne and Wear
SR3 3XN
United Kingdom

When sending your complaint, be sure to include as much evidence proving that you’ve been financially affected by EE’s billing blunder.

TELECOMS COMPLAINTS PROCESS

If you’re unhappy with the service you’ve received, you’ll first need to contact your provider’s customer services department and explain the problem.

If this doesn’t resolve the issue, you can make a formal complaint to the company.

Details of how to do this will be on the back of your bill and on the company’s website.

Depending on your complaint type, you’ll be able to contact our team by web chat, telephone or by post.

You’ll need to let the company know what has happened and what you want it to do to put things right.

If a formal complaint gets you nowhere, after eight weeks you can ask for a “deadlock letter” and take your dispute to the appropriate Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme.

TAKE YOUR COMPLAINT TO AN ADR

ADR schemes are free to use and will act as an independent middleman between yourself and the service provider when an initial complaint cannot be resolved.

There are two ADR schemes in the UK – Communications Ombudsman and CISAS. 

Your provider is required to be a member of one of these and you can find out which one your provider is covered by on the Ofcom website.

Before you can submit your complaint to it, you must have logged a formal complaint with your provider and worked with the firm to resolve it.

You must also have received a so-called deadlock letter, where the provider refers your complaint to the appropriate ADR.

You can also complain if you haven’t had a satisfactory solution to your problem within eight weeks.

To make a complaint fill in the ADR scheme claims form on its website – or write a letter if you’d prefer.

The ADR scheme then bases its decision on the evidence you and the company submit.

If you choose to accept its decision, your supplier will then have 28 days to comply.

But if an individual chooses not to accept the ADR’s final decision, they lose the right to the resolution offer.

Customers still have the right to take their complaints further through the courts.

But remember this can be a costly and lengthy exercise, so it’s worth thinking carefully before taking this step.

The U.S. housing market has experienced unprecedented changes since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just 2.5% of homes changed hands in the first eight months of 2024 — the lowest turnover rate in at least 30 years, according to a recent analysis by Redfin. This stagnation is part of the challenge faced by potential homebuyers and sellers alike, as they grapple with a combination of record-high home prices and elevated mortgage rates.

From January 2020 through August 2022, the price of the typical U.S. home increased by 40%, according to the Zillow Home Value Index, pushing the median sales price of an existing home to $416,700 in August 2024, according to the National Association of Realtors.

While the overall housing market has slowed, some areas have experienced a more pronounced downturn than others. Jarred Kessler, CEO of residential sale-leaseback solutions provider EasyKnock, predicts that these regional disparities will become even more pronounced in the coming years.

“What I actually do have pretty strong conviction of a more pronounced discrepancy between markets that are strong and doing well versus those that are not,” he says.

Regional Disparities Intensify

Kessler’s view aligns with recent data showing that metropolitan statistical areas in the South and the West have experienced the most significant growth in prices since the pandemic started. California appears to be bearing the brunt of the slowdown, with 7 of the 10 metro areas experiencing the lowest turnover levels located in the Golden State. Los Angeles, in particular, has seen the lowest turnover rate of any metro area analyzed by Redfin, with just 15 of every 1,000 homes changing hands — a 32% drop from the same period in 2019.

Jeremiah Vancans, a Los Angeles-based Realtor with Compass, attributes this trend to a combination of factors. “In a place like Los Angeles, wages aren’t keeping up with housing prices,” Vancans explained to CNN. “There is not that much new construction inventory hitting the market, and when it does, it’s not at entry-level prices.”

On the other end of the spectrum, Sunbelt cities and areas within commuting distance of New York City have offered homebuyers a larger pool of options. Phoenix, for instance, saw more homes change hands than any other metro area in Redfin’s analysis.

The regional disparities observed during the pandemic and post-pandemic eras aren’t entirely new. A study of home price data since 2000 reveals that the recent run-up in prices is an acceleration of trends that started in the recovery from the late-2000s housing bust.

For most of the 2010s, home price growth was faster in the West and South than in the Northeast and Midwest. The pandemic accelerated this trend, with the South experiencing the fastest rate of home price growth in the country. Consequently, the South is now closer to the Northeast in terms of home prices than it is to the Midwest, making the Midwest easily the most affordable part of the country.

The Interest Rate Factor

The Federal Reserve’s recent decision to cut interest rates after a prolonged period of increases has injected a new dynamic into the housing market. Mortgage rates have begun to fall in anticipation of further rate cuts, with the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate dropping to 6.08% in the week ending Sept. 26, according to Freddie Mac.

While this represents a significant decrease from the recent peak of 7.79% hit last fall, it remains higher than the average mortgage rates seen in the nearly 14 years between 2008 and 2022. This elevated rate environment has contributed to what experts call the “lock-in effect.”

“There has been very little incentive for people to sell homes,” explained Redfin’s economic research lead, Chen Zhao. “That very low inventory on the market was one of the primary drivers of there being so little turnover.”

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, nearly 60% of the 50.8 million active mortgages have interest rates below 4%. This disparity between current and historical rates has made many homeowners reluctant to sell, further constraining inventory and driving up prices.

The Supply Challenge

A shortage of new home construction has exacerbated the issues facing the U.S. housing market. Experts estimate that the country needs to build more than 2 million homes to meet growing demand. This supply-demand imbalance has pushed home prices to record highs in many regions.

Kessler believes that addressing this supply issue will require cooperation between the public and private sectors. “I think the more folks in the government and the private sector partner up, I think the better things can become,” he states. “And I think that’s one of the things that could change the landscape of the housing market.”

However, the EasyKnock CEO also cautions against using the housing market as a political tool. “The biggest problem is the middle class is being used as pawns in these elections,” Kessler argues. “And I think at the end of the day, it’s too much talk. If you want to help these people, you should encourage incentives to help them.”

Alternative Solutions

In response to the challenges facing the housing market, companies like EasyKnock have developed alternative solutions to help homeowners convert the home equity they’ve accumulated. The company’s sale-leaseback model allows homeowners to sell their property to EasyKnock while continuing to live in the home as renters, with the option to repurchase the property in the future.

Kessler sees this approach as particularly beneficial for middle-class homeowners who may be struggling with high levels of personal debt. “I think if people have built up equity and they’re running a lot of personal debt they need a new solution,” he explains.

The sale-leaseback model offers several advantages for homeowners, including the ability to convert their home equity without moving, avoid real estate broker fees, and potentially benefit from future appreciation in home value. EasyKnock has also committed to capping annual rent increases at the greater of 2.5% or the consumer price index, providing some stability for those who choose this option.

Getting to a Healthy Housing Market

The future of the U.S. housing market remains uncertain, with experts predicting a long road to recovery. “Getting to a healthy housing market is very hard from this point,” said Redfin’s Zhao. “I think the answer is either some variation of, you need a huge amount of supply right to come on, whether that’s new construction, or we somehow unlock existing homeowners.”

Zhao estimates that it may take five to 10 years before the housing market begins to resemble its past state. In the meantime, regional disparities are likely to persist, with some markets recovering more quickly than others.

For his part, Kessler remains cautiously optimistic about the potential for innovation in the housing sector. “There should be a demand for innovation and support of innovation and choice,” he says. “I think that’s one of the things that could change the landscape of the housing market.”

The protection sector has recently lost some leading providers. First it was Canada Life calling time on its individual protection business, followed by Aegon selling to Royal London, and then Aviva merging with AIG Life.

The exits raised eyebrows, with many worrying about the impact on competition and innovation.

The Aviva-AIG Life deal caused the most alarm as AIG had been viewed by many as an innovator and challenger.

It had fostered a culture of innovation and brought many groundbreaking products and services to the market, people claimed, and they feared that AIG’s trailblazing spirit and pool of talent wouldn’t survive the merger process.

The worry in the sector was that AIG’s trailblazing spirit and pool of talent wouldn’t survive the merger process

It’s too early to say how this merger will play out. But some of the concerns raised have come to pass. Dozens of AIG staff, including senior managers, have been made redundant just months after Aviva completed the deal.

The £460m AIG acquisition also attracted the attention of the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) earlier this year. The CMA launched an investigation into the merger after concerns were raised about “a substantial lessening of competition”. However, it ruled out an in-depth probe following consultation with stakeholders.

The deal was given the green light, paving the way for Aviva to increase its market share with the addition of 1.3 million individual protection and 1.4 million group protection customers to its existing portfolio.

‘Asleep at the wheel’

Protection Guru founder Ian McKenna thinks the CMA was “asleep at the wheel” when it allowed the Aviva-AIG merger.

“They didn’t do their homework properly and they’ve landed the FCA with a problem. Ironically, the CMA is supposed to protect competition and quite literally they’ve damaged it. They’ve now created a scenario where something of the order of 50% of the market is made up of two insurers. That’s not good for providing a competitive environment.”

‘I think — and this could be part of the FCA review — that in some areas the market is stuck,’ says Kevin Carr

The UK protection market is lucrative but cut-throat as insurers battle for a shrinking market share amid an ongoing squeeze on incomes. This has affected their bottom line, making some businesses unviable.

However, experts say the departure of insurers has been happening since the 1990s. Notable names include AXA, Bupa, Old Mutual and Scottish Provident.

“Insurers large and small have always come and gone from the protection market,” says Kevin Carr, protection consultant and MD at Carr Consulting.

“If you look back over 10, 20, 30 years, a dozen or more have left and another dozen have joined. Beagle Street is coming next year and I’m told at least one more.

The exits raised eyebrows, with many worrying about the impact on competition and innovation

“The more important issue is not so much the number of insurers — remember that L&G and Aviva combined is half the market — but the specialisms: Aegon for large cases and business protection; Canada Life for certain lifestyles; AIG for added benefits.

“I also think — and this could be part of the FCA review — that in some areas the market is stuck. There are issues that need fixing but there is no first-mover advantage in fixing them, and you can’t all move at the same time because that is anti-competitive. So, some issues aren’t getting fixed.”

In August, the FCA announced a ground-breaking review of the protection sector. It said it would explore protection products, the competitive constraints on insurers and intermediaries, and potential conflicts of interest in the structure of commission.

The review is the latest in the regulator’s drive to ensure financial services firms deliver fair value and good outcomes for customers.

The UK protection market is lucrative but cut-throat

“Consumers should be able to buy products that meet their needs and provide fair value,” says FCA executive director of consumers and competition Sheldon Mills.

“We have seen indications that this may not be the case across the pure protection market, and we will act if we find the market is not working well.”

The FCA review will start later this year. It is a daunting task ­— but the protection market needs fixing to ensure more innovative products, better customer service and stronger competition.

Momodou Musa Touray is senior reporter

This article featured in the October 2024 edition of Money Marketing. 

If you would like to subscribe to the monthly magazine, please click here.