留学生Dissertation代写范文参考-与银行客户沟通的重要性。本文是一篇留学生毕业论文写作范文，主要内容是批判性地讨论为什么以公平、清晰和不误导的方式与客户沟通很重要，以及沟通不准确的陷阱。
金融行为管理局（FCA）公平对待客户（TCF）、清晰沟通和不提供误导性信息的原则在金融组织中发挥了重要作用，尤其是自2008年金融危机以来。例如，金融危机对整个金融体系构成了挑战。它们是这场危机在过去三十年中形成的根源。Dissertation范文中举例，例如，次级抵押贷款的证券化风险高，作为安全投资出售给投资者，导致了金融不稳定。缺乏国际“…共同标准和法规…”也是一个因素。FCA规则旨在防止金融危机再次发生，为消费者提供更公平的交易，防止未经授权的交易，并提高投资的安全性。FCA规则通过《2000年金融服务和市场法》和《2009年支付服务条例》（PSRs）、《1974年消费者信贷法》（CCA）和《FCA手册》支持消费者。FCA规则包括客户在联系金融机构时可以期望的最低服务标准。Dissertation范文再次假设，例如，金融机构应该公开、诚实地开展业务。这意味着组织应该清楚地了解利息、收益或费用。所有文件、商业报价和广告必须包含有关金融产品或报价的完整、透明和准确的信息。 FCA规则的第二个原则是，金融机构应以专业的方式运作，并承担相应的责任和努力。FCA的下一个原则是所有金融机构必须公平、尊重地对待客户。这意味着金融公司应建立有效的风险管理系统，对任何金融交易负责并建立健全的控制。FCA的另一项原则是，参与投资的金融公司应根据MIFID实施和制定财务政策。FCA原则（市场行为）延伸至国际市场。下面就一起来参考这篇留学生Dissertation写作范文。
Critically discuss why it is important to communicate in a fair, clear and non-misleading way with clients and the pitfalls of inaccurate communications.
Introduction. 引言
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) principles to treat customers fairly (TCF), communicate clearly and not provide misleading information play a significant role in financial organisations especially since the financial crisis in 2008.[1] For instance, the financial crisis challenged the whole financial system. They roots of this crisis developed over the previous three decades. For example, the securitisation of sub-prime mortgages, which were risky and sold to investors as safe investments, led to financial instability.[2] The lack of international ‘…common standards and regulations…’[3] was also a factor. The FCA rules seek to prevent a recurrence of the financial crisis, provide a fairer deal for consumers, protect against unauthorised transactions, and increase security for investments. [4] The FCA rules support consumers through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) and Payment Services Regulations 2009 (PSRs), the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) and, FCA Handbook.[5] The FCA rules include minimum standards of service that a client can expect when contacting financial institutions. For instance, financial organisations should conduct their business openly and honestly.[6] This means that the organization should be clear about the interest, yields or fees. All paperwork, commercial offers and advertising must carry complete, transparent and accurate information about the financial product or offer.[7] The second principal of the FCA rules is that financial organisations should be conducted professionally, with due responsibility and effort.6 The next FCA principal is that all financial organisations must treat customers fairly and respectfully.6This means that financial companies should establish an effective risk management system, be responsible and establish robust controls for any financial transactions.6 Another FCA principal is that financial companies involved in investing should implement and establish financial policies according to MIFID.[8] FCA Principle 5 (market behaviour) extends to the international market6. If relations between companies have an unfair or negative effect on the UK financial system, the FСA will consider taking regulatory action and take into account the standards expected in the market in which the firm operates.[9] Also, the customers’ interests should be taken into account seriously and financial institutions should treat their customers fairly.6FCA Principal 7 is that financial institutions are obliged to provide information in a form which is ‘…clear, fair and not misleading…’6 This means that the information should be clearly stated, transparent and explain the benefits and disadvantages, if any, of any financial deals.6Also, conflict of interests between financial organisations and clients must be handled fairly and not infringe on each other’s interest, which is FCA Principal 8.6 The next FCA principle is 9 and states that all financial deals, must be both affordable for customers and financially sustainable for the financial organisation.6 Client asset protection is the focus of 10 principle of FCA.6 This means that financial organisations must make arrangements to protect customer investments and financial transactions.6 The last FCA principle is that financial companies should openly collaborate with the regulator.6 The company must disclose all the pertinent information about the company to the FCA.6 These principles support financial organisations to protect customer financial transactions and provide a fair, transparent and fair experience.
如果公司之间的关系对英国金融体系产生不公平或负面影响，FСA将考虑采取监管行动，并考虑公司运营所在市场的预期标准。此外，应认真考虑客户的利益，金融机构应公平对待客户。原则是金融机构有义务以“清晰、公平且不误导”的形式提供信息。这意味着信息应清晰、透明，并解释任何金融交易的利弊（如有）。此外，金融机构和客户之间的利益冲突必须得到公平处理，不得侵犯彼此的利益，这是FCA原则8。下一个FCA原则是，并规定所有金融交易都必须是客户负担得起的，并且金融机构的财务可持续性。客户资产保护是FCA 10项原则的重点。这意味着金融机构必须作出安排，保护客户投资和金融交易。FCA的最后一项原则是金融公司应公开与监管机构合作。公司必须向FCA披露有关公司的所有相关信息。这些原则支持金融机构保护客户金融交易，并提供公平、透明和公平的体验。
However, The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) which deals with complaints[10] and the FCA have published many cases where organisations have interpreted the FCA regulations differently. Some have failed to meet FCA rules to communicate in a fair, clear and non- misleading way with customers. Financial companies violating these principles face serious consequences. The FOS or FCA might publish the case on their websites (which may then be reported in the media), thereby damaging the company’s reputation.[11] In order to show the importance of implementing and complying with these principles, this essay will explore a selection of cases published in the FCA and FOS. This essay, will critically discuss the failure to communicate in a fair, clear and non- misleading way with customers using specific case studies. Finally, it will show the consequences of misleading communications for financial organisations.
然而，负责处理投诉[10]的金融监察员服务处（FOS）和金融监管局公布了许多案例，其中各组织对金融监管局条例的解释有所不同。有些公司未能满足FCA的规定，无法以公平、清晰、无误导的方式与客户沟通。违反这些原则的金融公司将面临严重后果。FOS或FCA可能会在其网站上公布该案件（随后可能会在媒体上报道），从而损害公司的声誉。为了说明实施和遵守这些原则的重要性，本文将探讨FCA和FOS中公布的案例选择。本文将通过具体案例研究，批判性地讨论未能以公平、清晰和不误导的方式与客户沟通的问题。最后，它将向金融机构展示误导性沟通的后果。
Misleading information by non-authorised company. 非授权公司提供的误导性信息
According to FCA review from 2018, many pension transfer advice companies failed to comply the FCA’s Handbook in providing suitable and clear advice to customers.[12] For instance, in 2018, the FCA assessed 18 pension companies out of 45 that provided advice in this area.12The 18 pension transfer advisors had 48,248 clients and processed 24,919 pension transfers.12After the review, two of these companies stopped providing independent advice on pension transfers altogether, and another two firms decided to withdraw their FCA certification to provide these services.12 For example, recently, the FCA was involved in civil court proceedings dealing with a breach of s19 FSMA, s21 FSMA, s397 FSMA and s89 Financial Services Act by Avacade Limited-‘Avacade’(in liquidation), trading as Avacade Investment Options, and Alexandra Associates (U.K.) Limited, trading as Avacade Future Solutions, and against individuals Craig Lummis, Lee Lummis and Raymond Fox.[13] Avacade and others provided misleading information regarding pension funds by encouraging clients to invest in alternative investments such as tree plantations, even though these activities were not authorised by the FCA or approved by FSMA 2000.13The FCA investigated on behalf of the affected consumers and found in favour of them. The FСA investigates regulatory violations and will impose injunctions to prevent further violations.13 Presently, the trial date for this case has not been set.13However, the FCA has identified a breach of the s19 FSMA, which is ‘carrying on regulated activities in the UK without FCA authorisation or exemption’.[14] It also breached s21 FSMA, which is ‘communicating financial promotions without the required authorisation or approval’.14Other violations are s397 FSMA14 and s89 Financial Services Act, which is ‘making misleading statements’.13 After the FCA began investigating Avacade, the business was liquidated.13 The senior officers named above will be prosecuted in civil court. To conclude, the consequences for Avacade and others were substantial as the FCA investigated the case and referred it to the civil courts.
根据FCA 2018年的审查，许多养老金转移咨询公司未能遵守FCA的手册，为客户提供适当和明确的建议。例如，在2018年，FCA评估了45家在该领域提供咨询的养老金公司中的18家。18名养老金转移顾问拥有48248名客户，处理了24919笔养老金转移。在审查之后，其中两家公司完全停止提供关于养老金转移的独立建议，另外两家公司决定撤销其FCA认证以提供这些服务。例如，最近，FCA参与了民事法庭诉讼，处理Avacade Limited（“Avaccade”（清算中）作为Avacate投资期权交易，以及Alexandra Associates（U.K.）Limited作为Avcacade Future Solutions交易，并针对个人Craig Lummis、Lee Lummis和Raymond Fox违反FSMA、FSMA、FSMA和金融服务法的行为。Avacade和其他人通过鼓励客户投资于替代投资，如树木种植园，提供了关于养老基金的误导性信息，即使这些活动未经FCA授权或FSMA 2000批准。FCA代表受影响的消费者进行了调查，发现对他们有利。FСA调查违反监管的行为，并将发布禁令以防止进一步违反。目前，本案的审判日期尚未确定然而，FCA已确定违反了FSMA，即“未经FCA授权或豁免在英国开展受监管活动”。它还违反了《金融服务管理法》第21条，该条规定“未经必要授权或批准就传播金融促销”。其他违反FSMA和《金融服务法》的行为是“做出误导性陈述”。FCA开始调查Avacade后，该业务被清算。上述高级官员将在民事法庭受到起诉。总之，随着FCA调查该案件并将其提交民事法院，对Avacade和其他人的影响是巨大的。
Santander breached FCA principles 3,6,11 between 2013-2015.
Santander has kept £183 million from the estates of customers who have died. In accordance with section 206 of FSMA 2000, the FCA imposed a fine of £ 32,817,800 for Santander.[15]. The bank did not have an effective procedure for paying money to inheritors from accounts in the event of a client’s death, according the FCA.15 After the FCA investigation, it was revealed that 40,428 people were still waiting for payments from the Santander.[16] Some of beneficiaries did not know about their dead relative’s accounts, whereas others could not receive money as Santander failed to identify the total amount for deceased customers.16 Santander did not have robust controls over the tracking of probate proceedings. In this regard, the bank had no idea if probate was closed and when they should transfer the money to the heirs.[17] This delayed the process of transferring funds to the heirs. Moreover, from 2013 until 2015, Santander had meetings with the FCA but did not mention such breaches, even though the bank knew about this problem.[18] This meant that the bank violated FCA principal 11 failing to communicate with the FCA.[19] According to Section 4.64 of the FCA Final Notice to Santander, it was discovered that some deceased customers of this bank might also have duplicate profiles in the bank’s IT system, which might be connected to different accounts and investments made. It also appears that in the UK people have no specific identification number, and therefore it is possible to open a duplicate profile in the bank and this might cause issues.[20] This means that it is difficult to identify and connect a deceased customer’s profile with their IT profiles. FCA recognises that financial organisations have issues in the development of effective management and monitoring of loss processes, dead customers and dealing with probate.[21] However, with respect to the issues that underlie this Final Notice, it is clear that Santander’s behaviour did not meet basic regulatory requirements.21 It revealed that the bank violated the FCA principles 3, 6 and 11 between 2013-2016 because it did not have a proper payment process and there was no effective management to avoid risks and they did not treat customers fairly.[22] The consequences of such unfairness and misleading miscommunication with clients by Santander were not long in coming. Santander must pay a financial penalty of £32,817,800 to the FCA no later than 9 January 2019.[23] This Final Notice and the decision were made by FCA in accordance with section 390 of the FSMA. The following statutory rights are important.[24] This case was published under Sections 391(4), 391(6) and 391(7) of the Act by the FCA which may well risk the bank’s reputation.[25] To sum up, the FCA rules on treating customers and clients fairly, communicating clearly and not providing misleading information were infringed and caused significant financial challenges to Santander.
桑坦德从死亡客户的遗产中保留了1.83亿英镑。根据FSMA 2000第206节，FCA对桑坦德处以32817800英镑的罚款。FCA称，如果客户死亡，银行没有有效的程序从账户中向继承人付款。FCA调查后发现，仍有40428人在等待桑坦德银行的付款。一些受益人不知道其已故亲属的账户，而其他人无法收到款项，因为桑坦德未能确定已故客户的总金额。桑坦德对遗嘱认证程序的跟踪没有强有力的控制。在这方面，银行不知道遗嘱认证是否结束，也不知道他们何时应该将这笔钱转移给继承人。这推迟了向继承人转移资金的进程。此外，从2013年到2015年，桑坦德银行与FCA举行了会议，但没有提及此类违规行为，尽管该银行知道这一问题。这意味着银行违反了FCA原则，未能与FCA沟通。根据FCA给桑坦德银行的最终通知第4.64节，发现该银行的一些已故客户在银行的it系统中也可能有重复的个人资料，可能与不同的账户和投资有关。此外，在英国，人们似乎没有特定的身份号码，因此有可能在银行中打开重复的个人资料，这可能会导致问题。这意味着很难将已故客户的个人资料与其it个人资料进行识别和连接。FCA认识到，金融机构在制定有效管理和监控损失流程、死亡客户和处理遗嘱认证方面存在问题。然而，关于本最终通知所涉及的问题，桑坦德的行为显然不符合基本监管要求。该报告显示，2013-2016年期间，该银行违反了FCA原则3、6和11，因为它没有适当的支付流程，没有有效的管理来规避风险，他们没有公平对待客户。桑坦德公司与客户之间的这种不公平和误导性错误沟通的后果很快就会出现。桑坦德必须在2019年1月9日之前向FCA支付32817800英镑的罚款。[23]本最终通知和决定由FCA根据FSMA第390节做出。以下法定权利很重要。FCA根据该法案第391（4）、391（6）和391（7）节公布了本案，这可能会危及银行的声誉。综上所述，FCA关于公平对待客户和客户、清晰沟通和不提供误导性信息的规定遭到了违反，并给桑坦德带来了重大财务挑战。
Financial sustainability. 财政可持续性
All financial deals, must be both affordable for customers and financially sustainable for the financial organisation which was describe above in FCA principle 9. However, in reality it is a significant issue for some banks. According to the Financial Ombudsman Service, one bank’s officer provided £4000 as a loan to a Mr J who had a learning disability, and limited work experience as a warehouse assistant. He applied for a loan to setup his own business as a handyman, even though he did not have a business plan, or experience in that area to pay the loan back.[26] The bank’s officer made a positive decision based only on the client’s good credit history.26The loan was spent on buying tools and a van. However, he could not find any work as a handyman and could not repay the loan. His details were sent to a debt collection organisation. Mr J urgently sold his van and tools at a significant loss.26 He tried to repay the loan as much as he could. Mr J asked Ms Y-the local community worker to help deal with the bank as he did not know how to pay the loan back. Ms Y became involved in this case and dealt with the bank on behalf of Mr J. After the bank’s rejection, the FOS investigated the loan application and other related documentation. After investigating, the bank’s officer agreed that he knew that Mr J had a disability. The officer’s defence was that he was told that the client had a good credit history and because of this, it was possible to arrange such a loan.26 The FOS decided that in such circumstances Mr J would not receive a loan from any lender, especially as Mr J was very clear that he lives on social benefits and had no other income. The FOS ordered the dismissal of the loan agreement between the bank and Mr J. It also forced the bank to refund all charges made because of failed loan repayments. FOS arranged a £300 payment to the customer as moral compensation.26 To sum up, the terms of the financial deal should be suitable for both the bank and the customer, since the two parties should benefit from these financial relations. Financial organisations should provide training to employees to reduce such issues.
所有金融交易必须既能让客户负担得起，又能让金融组织在财务上可持续发展，如FCA原则9所述。然而，在现实中，这对一些银行来说是一个重大问题。根据金融监察员服务，一家银行的官员向一位有学习障碍、仓库助理工作经验有限的J先生提供了4000英镑的贷款。他申请了一笔贷款，作为一名杂务工开办自己的企业，尽管他没有商业计划或在该领域的经验来偿还贷款。银行管理人员仅根据客户良好的信用记录做出了积极决定。这笔贷款用于购买工具和一辆面包车。然而，他找不到任何杂务工的工作，也无法偿还贷款。他的详细资料被送往一家债务催收机构。J先生紧急出售了他的货车和工具，损失惨重。他尽力偿还贷款。J先生请当地社区工作者Y女士帮助处理银行的问题，因为他不知道如何偿还贷款。Y女士卷入了本案，并代表J先生与银行打交道。银行拒绝后，FOS调查了贷款申请和其他相关文件。经过调查，银行官员同意他知道J先生有残疾。该官员的辩护是，他被告知该客户有良好的信用记录，因此，有可能安排此类贷款。FOS决定，在这种情况下，J先生不会从任何贷款人处获得贷款，特别是因为J先生非常清楚，他靠社会福利生活，没有其他收入。FOS命令撤销银行与J先生之间的贷款协议。它还迫使银行退还因未能偿还贷款而产生的所有费用。FOS安排向客户支付300英镑作为道德赔偿。总之，金融交易的条款应适用于银行和客户，因为双方应受益于这些金融关系。金融机构应为员工提供培训，以减少此类问题。
Haider Abdullah v Credit Suisse. 海德尔·阿卜杜拉诉瑞士信贷案
It is important that any loans do not expose borrowers to a substantial risk of over-indebtedness.[27] However, in the case of Haider Abdullah v Credit Suisse, Credit Suisse apparently misunderstood the FCA rules and provided misleading information to the Haider Abdullah family from Kuwait, by selling unsuitable at-risk products.[28] In May 2008, the claimants purchased Note 18 worth $US 20 million from Credit Suisse.[29] Later, the bank advised the client to increase their investment by buying Note 19 for USD $2.4 million.[30] The final note 20 was purchased during the financial crisis in October 2008.[31] Later in October 2008, the bank arranged for most of the Claimants’ existing portfolio to be switched into a consolidated note, which put their investments at greater risk. The bank advised that this deal would not entail additional costs.[32] However, as soon as the transaction was completed, the bank demanded additional payments to support the leverage on the portfolio. [33] The claimants decided not to pay the ‘margin call’ of the bank and so the bank liquidated their account.[34] The Claimant family was left with an overdraft of $US 300,000, after the claimant family had invested approximately $US 30 million, as indicated by the contract.34Credit Suisse provided misleading information about the investment risk and also put the bank’s reputation at risk as this case was published in the FCA website and other internet sources. According to Section 138D FSMA 2000, Mr. Abdullah claimed damages through the court.[35] The client presented three arguments. Firstly, Credit Suisse did not ensure that their investment advice was appropriate for their client, even when the client clearly wanted to minimise financial losses.[36] Therefore, the bank violated the FCA standard COBS 9.2.1R.[37] Next, the bank misled the client and did not notify him about possible investment risks and financial losses, especially since the client had no experience in this area.[38] In this regard, the bank neglected the COBS 9.2.2R.37 Finally, Credit Suisse violated COBS 4.2.1R[39] of the FCA rules because it did not provide honest and clear information about the investment deal, thereby misleading the client.[40]. Credit Suisse claimed that Mr. Abdullah was interested in obtaining the greatest profit, and he knew about the financial risk. [41]. Therefore, they claim that the client received good advice from the bank and wittingly purchased the risky investments. The bank also claimed that the financial losses happened due to the global financial crisis. [42] Therefore, it was not the bank’s breach of duty. The court’s rejected the weak defences of Credit Suisse. The bank did not explain the financial deal and the client did not understand the terms and conditions of this investment.[43]. The bank did not complete a client profile form to ensure that Credit Suisse had no doubts about the client’s investment objectives.43. The judge also rejected the bank’s argument that the loss of the client’s investments happened because of the financial crisis.[44]. The court explained that the bank’s financial advisor is obliged to protect the client’s investment and therefore any financial deals from market failures which is FCA Principle 10.[45]. To sum up, the consequences of such misleading, unfairness and dishonesty from Credit Suisse is that the bank must pay a significant amount to Mr. Haider Abdullah. Also, Credit Suisse was penalised significantly “in respect of a breach of Principles 2 and 3 of the FSA’s Principles for Business which occurred between 30 September 2007 and 19 February 2008”. [46]. More importantly, this case was published in the media. Therefore, any investors might hesitate to engage in any financial deals with Credit Suisse. To sum up, such misleading communication and treating the customer unfairly damaged the bank’s reputation as well as incurring penalties from regulator.
重要的是，任何贷款都不会使借款人面临过度负债的重大风险。然而，在Haider Abdullah诉瑞士信贷案中，瑞士信贷显然误解了FCA规则，并通过出售不合适的风险产品向科威特Haider阿卜杜拉家族提供了误导性信息。2008年5月，索赔人从瑞士信贷购买了价值2000万美元的票据。后来，银行建议客户以240万美元购买票据，以增加投资。最后一张票据20是在2008年10月的金融危机期间购买的。2008年10月份晚些时候，银行安排将索赔人的大部分现有投资组合转换为合并票据，这使他们的投资面临更大的风险。该行表示，这笔交易不会带来额外成本。然而，一旦交易完成，银行要求额外付款以支持投资组合的杠杆作用。索赔人决定不支付银行的“追加保证金通知”，因此银行清算了他们的账户。如合同所示，在索赔人家庭投资了约3000万美元后，索赔人家庭获得了30万美元的透支。瑞士信贷提供了有关投资风险的误导性信息，并将该银行的声誉置于风险之中，因为该案件已在FCA网站和其他互联网来源上公布。根据2000年《金融服务管理法》第138D节，阿卜杜拉先生通过法院要求赔偿。客户提出了三个论点。首先，瑞士信贷没有确保其投资建议适合其客户，即使客户明确希望将财务损失降至最低。因此，本行违反了FCA标准COBS 9.2.1R。其次，银行误导了客户，没有通知他可能的投资风险和财务损失，尤其是因为客户在这方面没有经验。在这方面，世行忽略了COBS 9.2.2R。最后，瑞士信贷违反了FCA规则的COBS 4.2.1R，因为它没有提供有关投资交易的诚实和清晰的信息，从而误导了客户。瑞士信贷声称，阿卜杜拉有意获得最大利润，他知道金融风险。. 因此，他们声称客户收到了银行的良好建议，并有意购买了风险投资。该银行还声称，金融损失是由于全球金融危机造成的。因此，这不是银行的失职行为。法院驳回了瑞士信贷无力的辩护。银行没有解释金融交易，客户也不理解该投资的条款和条件。该行没有填写客户简介表，以确保瑞士信贷对该客户的投资目标毫无疑问。法官还驳回了该行关于该客户投资损失是由于金融危机造成的论点。法院解释说，银行的财务顾问有义务保护客户的投资，从而保护任何金融交易不受市场失灵的影响，这是FCA原则10。总而言之，瑞士信贷这种误导、不公平和不诚实的后果是，该银行必须向海德尔·阿卜杜拉支付一大笔款项。此外，瑞士信贷“因2007年9月30日至2008年2月19日期间违反FSA业务原则第2和第3条”而受到重大处罚。更重要的是，该案件已在媒体上公布。因此，任何投资者都可能不愿与瑞士信贷进行任何金融交易。总而言之，这种误导性的沟通和对客户的不公平对待损害了银行的声誉，并招致了监管机构的处罚。
Clear communication with customers. 与客户的清晰沟通
The legal cases above demonstrated the significant consequences if a breach of FCA principles occurs. It is important that financial organisations clearly explain any financial deals to customers and ensure customers understand the Terms and Conditions of any General Agreements between them, which is FCA Principle7.[47]However, some banks fail to meet such requirements. For instance, Ms A was incentivised by another bank’s promotion to change her bank account and receive a £100 incentive payment from her new bank.[48] However, the new bank refused to pay the £100 incentive saying that Ms A did not meet one of the requirements.48 Ms A set up three direct debits with the new bank as was described in the terms and conditions of this bank’s offer.48The new bank argued that one of the Ms A’s direct debits was set up “…more than 30 days after the switch…”48to the bank account. The bank’s offer conditions included opening three active direct debits, and depositing at least £ 500 to her new account, which she did, within 30 days after the transfer was completed.48 According to Ms A, the terms and conditions of this offer were not clear. After the bank’s rejection, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) began its investigation.48FOS agreed with Ms A that the offer did not identify a time limit identified for the creation of the three direct debits.48The FOS made the bank pay the £100 incentive to Ms A.48It seems that the bank violated the FCA principal 7 which is to communicate with customers in a clear manner, treat them fairly and not provide misleading information. To summarise, when financial institutions provide unclear information, the financial implications can be significant for financial organisations as it shows above.
上述法律案例表明，如果违反FCA原则，将产生重大后果。重要的是，金融机构应向客户明确解释任何金融交易，并确保客户了解他们之间任何一般协议的条款和条件，这是FCA原则7。然而，一些银行未能满足此类要求。例如，A女士受到另一家银行晋升的激励，改变了她的银行账户，并从她的新银行获得了100英镑的奖励金。然而，新银行拒绝支付100英镑的奖金，称A女士不符合其中一项要求。Ms A在新银行设立了三笔直接借记，如该银行报价的条款和条件所述。这家新银行辩称，A女士的一笔直接借记是在“转换后30多天……”转入银行账户的。该银行的报价条件包括开立三笔活跃的直接借记，并在转账完成后30天内将至少500英镑存入她的新账户。据A女士称，该要约的条款和条件不明确。银行拒绝后，金融监察局（FOS）开始调查。FOS同意A女士的意见，即要约未确定创建三笔直接借记的期限。FOS要求银行向A女士支付100英镑的奖励。似乎银行违反了FCA原则7，即以明确的方式与客户沟通，公平对待他们，不提供误导性信息。综上所述，当金融机构提供不清楚的信息时，财务影响可能对金融组织产生重大影响，如上所述。
Breach of FCA principles by sale of PPI to all customers. 向所有客户销售PPI违反FCA原则
Creating an effective mechanism for receiving and handling customer complaints might be used to improve an organisation’s operations, according to FCA.[49] Each complaint must be taken seriously, fully investigated and resolved in a timely manner and without bias.[50] However, in the legal case regarding Payment Protection Insurance (PPI), banks and other financial organisations not only violated the FCA rules to communicate in a fair, clear and non-misleading way with customers, but also rejected more than 1,500 claims for PPI compensation in the early stages of the investigation.[51] For instance, banks, and other financial organisations sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) to clients who were not eligible or did not require it.[52]PPI was sold with loans, credit cards, mortgages, overdrafts etc.52PPI was designed to cover costs and expenses in certain circumstances. For example, in the case of dismissal, accident, illness, disability and death, clients might cover the costs through PPI.52This information looks attractive, until customers try to claim the PPI. For instance, PPI did not cover many customers as they did not meet certain requirements which were not explained to customers beforehand.51In some cases PPI was added to a financial deal without customer’s knowledge.[53]For instance, people who are self-employed cannot claim PPI.52It seems that financial institutions provided misleading information and treated customers unfairly by selling PPI without adequate explanation.
FCA表示，建立一个有效的接收和处理客户投诉的机制可能有助于改善组织的运营。必须认真对待每一项投诉，及时、无偏见地进行充分调查和解决。然而，在有关支付保护保险（PPI）的法律案件中，银行和其他金融机构不仅违反了FCA规则，以公平、明确和不误导的方式与客户沟通，而且在调查的早期阶段拒绝了1500多个PPI索赔。例如，银行和其他金融机构将支付保护保险（PPI）出售给不符合条件或不需要的客户。PPI与贷款、信用卡、抵押贷款、透支等一起出售。PPI旨在支付某些情况下的成本和支出。例如，在解雇、事故、疾病、残疾和死亡的情况下，客户可以通过PPI支付费用。在客户试图申请PPI之前，这些信息看起来很有吸引力。例如，PPI没有涵盖许多客户，因为他们不符合某些事先未向客户解释的要求。在某些情况下，PPI是在客户不知情的情况下添加到金融交易中的。例如，自营职业者不能申请PPI。金融机构在没有充分解释的情况下出售PPI，似乎提供了误导性信息，并对客户不公平。
According to The Times, in 2012, banks rejected more than 1,500 claims for PPI compensation, even though banks promised to settle complaints fairly just 18 months previously.51Despite the court decision where banks lost their legal case and were made to pay PPI compensations back to customers, another issue arose. Some financial organisations, tried to suggest that they were never involved with PPI and had always treated customers fairly and with respect.51 This argument was rejected by the FCA. After the FCA and FOS investigation, they established online procedures to claim PPI until 29 August 2019.52 To sum up, in the PPI case the FCA rules to treat customers and clients fairly, communicate clearly and not provide misleading information were infringed and caused significant financial challenges to financial organisations.
据《泰晤士报》报道，2012年，银行拒绝了1500多项PPI赔偿申请，尽管银行承诺在18个月前公平解决投诉。尽管法院判决银行败诉并被要求向客户支付PPI赔偿，但另一个问题还是出现了。一些金融机构试图表明，它们从未参与PPI，始终公平、尊重地对待客户。FCA驳回了这一论点。FCA和FOS调查后，他们建立了在线程序，在2019年8月29日之前申请PPI。综上所述，在PPI案件中，FCA公平对待客户、清晰沟通和不提供误导性信息的规则被违反，并对金融组织造成了重大财务挑战。
Overdraft and miscommunication. 透支和沟通失误
As the case above shows, FCA rules are important for relations between financial organisations and customers as both parties have interests in the relationship. This is not always understood by every organisation. To illustrate, the Financial Ombudsman organisation published a case where Mr. F was a bank customer for many years.[54]Sometimes, he used an overdraft and repaid it without any issues. However, after checking his account, he noticed that his bank was charging at the rate for unauthorised overdrafts for his overdraft. He discovered that he no longer had an authorised overdraft. His bank had not notified him about it. When he learned this he changed banks in a very short time. Nevertheless, his previous bank still claimed the interest and asked him to pay it.54The bank’s argument was that telephone calls were made to explain such changes. Mr F explained that he considered the bank’s calls as bank advertising and so he did not answer these calls. Also, the bank pointed out that Mr. F had some financial issues. For instance, his cheques were not always covered by sufficient funds and the current account was not kept in “…good order…”54 In the end, the case was resolved in favour of Mr F as the bank did not find other ways to engage with Mr F and explain the issues and changes which were made to his bank account. FOS concluded that it was unfair to charge bank interest without authorisation from the client. FOS ordered the bank to pay £150 to Mr F for any trouble caused.54To conclude, in all circumstances, financial organisations must treat customers fairly and respectfully and find a way to engaged with customers and explain any bank charges.
如上述案例所示，FCA规则对于金融组织和客户之间的关系非常重要，因为双方都有利益关系。并非每个组织都理解这一点。为了说明这一点，金融监察员组织公布了一个案例，F先生多年来一直是银行客户。有时，他使用透支，并在没有任何问题的情况下偿还。然而，在检查了他的账户后，他注意到他的银行正在对他的透支收取未经授权透支的利率。他发现自己不再有授权透支。他的银行没有通知他这件事。当他知道这一点时，他在很短的时间内换了银行。然而，他的前一家银行仍然要求他支付利息。银行的论点是，打电话解释了这些变化。F先生解释说，他认为该银行的电话是银行广告，因此他没有回答这些电话。此外，世行指出，F先生有一些财务问题。例如，他的支票并不总是有足够的资金支付，经常账户也没有保持“良好的秩序……”最后，该案件得到了有利于F先生的解决，因为银行没有找到其他方式与F先生接触并解释对其银行账户所做的问题和更改。FOS认为，未经客户授权收取银行利息是不公平的。FOS命令银行向F先生支付150英镑，以补偿由此造成的任何麻烦。综上所述，在任何情况下，金融机构都必须公平、尊重地对待客户，找到与客户互动的方式，并解释任何银行收费。
Conclusion 总结
In conclusion, banks must to be mindful of the consequences of their actions. Failure to treat customers fairly, misleading customers, and not conducting their business openly and honestly will result in loss of reputation, fines and other costs.
总之，银行必须注意其行为的后果。不公平对待客户、误导客户以及不公开诚实地开展业务将导致声誉损失、罚款和其他成本。
Santander knew about their account problems with deceased customers for years but preferred not to disclose the information to the FCA until later. Disclosure might have reduced the bank’s financial penalties and solved this issue more quickly. The bank failed the FCA principles 3, 6 and 11 between 2013-2016. The bank did not have a proper or effective process. It also did not treat customers fairly. Santander was not only obliged to pay fines, but it must deal with complaints from more than 40,428 disappointed clients. This case was published not only in the FСA, but also on the Internet, which most likely undermined the bank’s reputation. The case with Credit Suisse, explored above, shows that the bank failed FCA’s principles 2 and 3. The bank mislead Mr Abdullah with the investment deal, did not protect his investments, and did not notify him about possible investment risks and financial losses. Credit Suisse lost this legal case and was substantially penalised. It seems that companies may implement FCA rules and spell out the company’s policies, but these internal documents for some financial organisations remain unused. This is probably due to poor employee training. Understanding these rules can raise awareness of the meaning of fair treatment in relation to customer needs and expectations. Financial organisation’s policy should not only be set out as company rules, but also put into practice and compliance enforced to such standards. Good customer service will boost the customer base and increase the demand financial services. Compliance with the law, will reduce the number of complaints and lawsuits. Thus, financial organisations will build trust with the regulator and reduce doubts about the organisation’s work. To summarise, it is important that financial institutions communicate in a fair, clear and non-misleading way with clients and that financial institutions treat customers better.
Dissertation范文提到桑坦德多年来一直知道他们与已故客户的账户问题，但宁愿以后再向FCA披露这些信息。披露信息可能会减少银行的财务处罚，并更快地解决这个问题。2013-2016年期间，本行未能遵守FCA原则3、6和11。本行没有适当或有效的流程。它也没有公平对待客户。桑坦德不仅必须支付罚款，还必须处理40428多名失望客户的投诉。这起案件不仅在FСA上公布，而且在互联网上公布，这极有可能损害该银行的声誉。上述瑞士信贷的案例表明，该银行违反了FCA的原则2和3。该银行在投资交易中误导了阿卜杜拉，没有保护他的投资，也没有通知他可能的投资风险和财务损失。瑞士信贷在这起诉讼中败诉，并受到重大处罚。看起来，公司可能会执行FCA规则并详细说明公司的政策，但一些金融机构的这些内部文件仍未使用。这可能是由于员工培训不佳。理解这些规则可以提高对公平对待与客户需求和期望相关的含义的认识。金融组织的政策不仅应作为公司规则制定，还应付诸实践，并按照这些标准执行。良好的客户服务将扩大客户群，增加对金融服务的需求。遵守法律，将减少投诉和诉讼的数量。因此，金融机构将与监管机构建立信任，减少对机构工作的疑虑。总而言之，金融机构必须以公平、明确和不误导的方式与客户沟通，并更好地对待客户。本站提供各国各专业Dissertation代写或指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。