Judicial Review decision looms on capital framework for Sipp firms

A decision on whether a Judicial Review concerning the new capital adequacy rules will be allowed to go ahead should be known in the next few weeks. The Association of Member-Directed Pension Schemes began proceedings after taking legal advice on how the FCA dealt with the consultation process last year and applied for a Judicial Review.The organisation made the move after discussions with members who questioned whether the way the regulator went about creating the new capital framework for Sipp operators led to the outcome being "seriously flawed".Neil MacGillivray, chairman of AMPS, told Sipps Professional: "We hope that we will have the judgement by the court within the next few weeks as to whether or not we have a been granted approval to proceed with the Judicial Review and we will update further at that time."{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}The Judicial Review was sought in October after legal discussions, with AMPS reporting that the advice it received was that the FCA's decision ought to be quashed because "it has been taken pursuant to an unfair procedure and inadequate process of consultation".The announcement of the capital framework changes had been in the pipeline for nearly two years before being finalised.AMPS said it had consistently supported an increase in the capital requirement for Sipp operators.It said: "Our challenge to the FCA is in regard to its apparent disregard for fairness of procedure and adequacy of consultation, which leaves Sipp operators facing an illogical basis of capital requirement which proper consultation might well have seen rejected."In a statement released to explain the seeking of the review, AMPS said: "The FCA has failed to provide any adequate or intelligible reasons for its proposals and has adopted the decision without providing affected persons with a fair opportunity of dissuading it from doing so."The body claimed the FCA had "breached its duty to make sufficient enquiries to enable it to reach a rational and lawful decision" and also "acted unreasonably and failed to have regard to relevant considerations and relied on irrelevant considerations".Sipps Professional contacted the FCA for a response but the regulator said it would not be making any comment on the matter.MoretoSipps principal John Moret, known as Mr Sipp, wrote in his most recent blog for Sipps Professional: "I think there is a chasm of misconception and misunderstanding between the FCA's view of the Sipp market and the industry's view of the regulator. That is unhealthy – and I'm not sure that seeking a judicial review of the FCA's conduct on the introduction of the new capital requirements is a route to bridging that chasm."The new rules are set to take effect in September 2016.

Judicial Review decision looms on capital framework for Sipp firms

Related items