Latest news with #FSCS
Reuters
22-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
UK's Financial Services Compensation Scheme cuts 2025/2026 levy on sector
LONDON, May 22 (Reuters) - Britain's Financial Services Compensation Scheme said it would impose a lower than expected 356 million pounds ($478.04 million) levy on the sector for the 2025/2026 financial year, after a "strong year" in recovering cash from failed firms. In a statement on Thursday, the FSCS - which protects customers of authorised financial services firms if they fail, or have stopped trading - said the total levy payable was 38 million pounds lower than it forecast in November. "In 2024/25, we had another strong year of recoveries, recouping more than 56 million pounds from the estates of failed firms and relevant third parties. This led to higher opening balances carried forward from 2024/25 in certain classes," CEO Martyn Beauchamp said. "These recoveries put money back into the financial services sector and to the customers who use it, helping to build trust and confidence in the sector," he added. The FSCS expects to pay 332 million pounds in compensation to customers during 2025/26, 36 million pounds lower than previously forecast. The scheme protects deposits held in banks, building societies and credit unions, investments, pensions, endowments, insurance and funeral plans. ($1 = 0.7447 pounds)
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bank of England's PRA raises deposit thresholds for international banks
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), part of the Bank of England, has announced updates to its regulatory framework for international banks operating in the UK. These changes clarify the PRA's expectations regarding the operations of branches, booking models, and liquidity reporting for these institutions. In a move to adapt to inflationary pressures, the PRA has raised the existing £100m ($133.7m) and £500m ($668.5m) thresholds for Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS)-covered deposits by 30%. This adjustment is intended to provide international banks with greater capacity to expand their activities within UK branches. However, the PRA has also introduced a new indicative threshold of £300m ($401m) for total retail and small business instant access deposits. This measure aims to mitigate the risks associated with increased openness, particularly the potential for contagion. Should deposits exceed this threshold, international banks are generally expected to establish subsidiaries in the UK instead of operating as branches. This approach is designed to enhance the PRA's oversight and influence over these firms, reflecting insights gained from the recent collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. PRA CEO and Prudential Regulation Deputy Governor Sam Woods said: 'hese changes will maintain the UK's very open approach to international banking, while filling a gap we identified in our regime and increasing some thresholds to support competitiveness and growth. In July 2024, the PRA issued a policy statement outlining revisions to its supervisory framework for international banks in the UK. This follows the consultation, which examined the PRA's supervisory approach to branches and subsidiaries. The updates aim to strengthen the regulatory framework while ensuring continued access for international banks, acknowledging their importance to the UK economy. This follows PRA's proposal to raise the FSCS deposit protection limit from £85,000 ($109,944) to £110,000 ($142,281), aiming to enhance consumer confidence by ensuring deposits are protected in case of a bank, building society, or credit union failure. "Bank of England's PRA raises deposit thresholds for international banks" was originally created and published by Retail Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Daily Mail
19-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Manager sacked after standing up with no pants on work video call claimed he was being racially discriminated against for being made to work on a bank holiday
A £60,000-a-year manager who was sacked after exposing his genitals during a work video call because he stood up with no pants on has had his case thrown out. The digital production manager for Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) was fired on January 30 last year after a disastrous virtual meeting in which he inadvertently flashed his colleagues. But the employee took the firm to a tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal as well as racial discrimination. His dismissal centred around a Microsoft Teams work call with a consultancy firm on May 8 2023 - which was a Bank Holiday because of King Charles III's Coronation. During the call, the manager stood up to adjust a cable behind his computer, but stunned his colleagues as he was wearing nothing from the waist down and his genitals were on show. A tribunal at London Central heard that an investigation was launched after a complaint was lodged by colleagues. After his line manager started a probe, the worker claimed: 'That was a bank holiday and l did not realise when l folded the laptop camera was on and pointing to the floor and then immediately shut down the camera so that don't know what was seen in the floor [sic].' The unnamed employee, who joined the FSCS in 2020, admitted he did not always 'wear full dress' at home and added: 'It is just an accident and apologies.' The manager argued that he was not culpable for what happened because the meeting took place on a Bank Holiday, adding: 'Expecting me to work during public holidays is a racial discrimination.' The tribunal heard that he holds dual Australian and British citizenship but he is Indian as he was born there. Sabah Carter, a senior figure at the FSCS, rejected the suggestion the dress code did not apply on public holidays. She found his actions had damaged the company's reputation and said he 'had not offered any reassurance that the incident wouldn't happen again'. And she noted he had 'not shown any remorse or apologised for his actions but rather sought to blame the external contractors on the call'. Ms Carter also pointed out his inconsistent evidence who initially admitted his genitals were visible before claiming he was wearing 'nude-coloured underwear'. As well as claiming unfair dismissal, he also claimed racial discrimination on over being passed over for a promotion. The employee said: 'The entire process and outcome is nothing but racial discrimination, mental harassment, unfair dismissal.' But the tribunal ruled that he had not been made to work on the bank holiday and had actually chosen to. 'Even if he were required to work inappropriately, that is no reason for appearing in a state of undress,' they noted. Although the panel accepted he had initially apologised for the incident, they found he later 'sought to obscure or deflect blame' and did not 'consistently show remorse'. The tribunal panel threw out all of his claims for unfair dismissal and racial discrimination. They concluded that his application for a promotion had been 'poor and failed to reveal sufficient relevant experience'. 'The position applied for was approximately twice the claimant's salary and FSCS was seeking relevant experience, particularly in heading departments,' they noted. Employment Judge Hodgson concluded: 'We find that the claimant chose not to wear either trousers or underwear... instead he deliberately chose to be naked from the waist down. 'This led to an obvious risk. If at any point he should need to stand, it was likely that he would reveal his genitals, if his camera was on. 'The claimant was an employee in a leadership role. He was dealing with external consultants. He should have realised that being naked was inappropriate, regardless of any policy. 'If he chose to wear no clothes from the waist down, he should have taken care to ensure that this fact did not become apparent. 'The claimant's action caused embarrassment to the employer and was inconsistent with his position and role.' Throwing out the claim, the judge said: 'All the claims of race discrimination fail. The claim of unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed. The claim of wrongful dismissal fails and is dismissed.'
Wales Online
16-05-2025
- Business
- Wales Online
Man sacked after standing up in Microsoft Teams call with no pants on
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info A middle-ranking employee was sacked after inadvertently exposing his private parts during a video conference. The man, whose identity has not been disclosed in court documents, challenged his former employer for unfair dismissal at a tribunal, but his claim was rejected. In 2020, the individual joined the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) – a statutory organisation designed to safeguard customers when financial services companies collapse – as a change specialist. His role was subsequently upgraded to digital production manager the following year, resulting in a salary increase of approximately £4,000, bringing his annual earnings to £58,580. On 8 May 2023, which was a bank holiday due to the King's coronation, the employee was participating in a Microsoft Teams work call with external contractors from the Capgemini tech consultancy. During the call, he stood up to adjust a cable behind his computer. He was not wearing any clothing below the waist, and his genitals were visible. The employment tribunal was informed that the incident led to a complaint from colleagues. Following the initiation of an investigation by his line manager, the employee provided his version of events, reports Wales Online. He claimed: "That was a bank holiday and l did not realise when l folded the laptop camera was on and pointing to the floor and then immediately shut down the camera so that don't know what was seen in the floor [sic]." The employee went on: "It is just an accident and apologies." He admitted he did not always "wear full dress" at home. He also argued he was not culpable for his actions because they occurred on a bank holiday, adding: "Expecting me to work during public holidays is a racial discrimination." The tribunal heard he holds dual Australian and British citizenship but states he is Indian and was born in India. Sabah Carter, a senior figure at the FSCS, rejected the suggestion that its dress code did not apply on public holidays. Ms Carter found the employee's actions had damaged the FSCS' reputation. She noted he had "not shown any remorse or apologised for his actions but rather sought to blame the external contractors on the call". She was also unimpressed by inconsistent evidence from the employee who initially admitted his genitals were visible before changing his story to claim he was wearing "nude-coloured underwear". After being sacked the employee brought a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal as well as race discrimination. He claimed not only that he had been wrongly dismissed but also that he had been passed over for a promotion because of discrimination. The employee said: "The entire process and outcome is nothing but racial discrimination, mental harassment, unfair dismissal." But the tribunal panel noted he had not been required to work on the bank holiday and had in fact chosen to do so. They added: "Second, even if he were required to work inappropriately, that is no reason for appearing in a state of undress." Though the panel accepted he had initially apologised they found he later "sought to obscure or deflect blame" and failed to "consistently show remorse". The panel found it was reasonable for the FSCS to dismiss the employee. They also threw out his complaint about being denied a promotion, concluding his application had been "poor and failed to reveal sufficient relevant experience". They continued: "The position applied for was approximately twice the claimant's salary and FSCS was seeking relevant experience, particularly in heading departments." Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox Find out what's happening near you
North Wales Live
16-05-2025
- Business
- North Wales Live
Man sacked after standing up in Microsoft Teams call with no pants on
A middle-ranking employee was sacked after inadvertently exposing his private parts during a video conference. The man, whose identity has not been disclosed in court documents, challenged his former employer for unfair dismissal at a tribunal, but his claim was rejected. In 2020, the individual joined the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) – a statutory organisation designed to safeguard customers when financial services companies collapse – as a change specialist. His role was subsequently upgraded to digital production manager the following year, resulting in a salary increase of approximately £4,000, bringing his annual earnings to £58,580. On 8 May 2023, which was a bank holiday due to the King's coronation, the employee was participating in a Microsoft Teams work call with external contractors from the Capgemini tech consultancy. During the call, he stood up to adjust a cable behind his computer. He was not wearing any clothing below the waist, and his genitals were visible. The employment tribunal was informed that the incident led to a complaint from colleagues. Following the initiation of an investigation by his line manager, the employee provided his version of events, reports Wales Online. He claimed: "That was a bank holiday and l did not realise when l folded the laptop camera was on and pointing to the floor and then immediately shut down the camera so that don't know what was seen in the floor [sic]." The employee went on: "It is just an accident and apologies." He admitted he did not always "wear full dress" at home. He also argued he was not culpable for his actions because they occurred on a bank holiday, adding: "Expecting me to work during public holidays is a racial discrimination." The tribunal heard he holds dual Australian and British citizenship but states he is Indian and was born in India. Sabah Carter, a senior figure at the FSCS, rejected the suggestion that its dress code did not apply on public holidays. Ms Carter found the employee's actions had damaged the FSCS' reputation. She noted he had "not shown any remorse or apologised for his actions but rather sought to blame the external contractors on the call". She was also unimpressed by inconsistent evidence from the employee who initially admitted his genitals were visible before changing his story to claim he was wearing "nude-coloured underwear". After being sacked the employee brought a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal as well as race discrimination. He claimed not only that he had been wrongly dismissed but also that he had been passed over for a promotion because of discrimination. The employee said: "The entire process and outcome is nothing but racial discrimination, mental harassment, unfair dismissal." But the tribunal panel noted he had not been required to work on the bank holiday and had in fact chosen to do so. They added: "Second, even if he were required to work inappropriately, that is no reason for appearing in a state of undress." Though the panel accepted he had initially apologised they found he later "sought to obscure or deflect blame" and failed to "consistently show remorse". The panel found it was reasonable for the FSCS to dismiss the employee. They also threw out his complaint about being denied a promotion, concluding his application had been "poor and failed to reveal sufficient relevant experience". They continued: "The position applied for was approximately twice the claimant's salary and FSCS was seeking relevant experience, particularly in heading departments."
