The Upper Tribunal has upheld the FCA's decision to ban two advisers involved in £126 million worth of defined benefit pension transfers — but the details reveal something every IFA should understand about how the regulator builds enforcement cases, and where it sometimes overreaches.
The Basic Facts
Christopher Dunne operated as a pension transfer specialist through an appointed representative arrangement with Financial Solutions Midhurst, which was directed by Joanne Fenech. Between them, they facilitated a substantial volume of DB to DC pension transfers.
The FCA banned both. Dunne for providing unsuitable advice under a flawed two-adviser model. Fenech for failing to properly oversee the AR business she was responsible for.
Neither ban was overturned on appeal. But the Tribunal's findings on the numbers matter enormously.
The FCA Said 100%. The Tribunal Said 18%.
This is the part that should get your attention.
The FCA's original position was that Dunne's entire book of pension transfer business was unsuitable. Every client. Every transfer. That's the kind of finding that ends careers and generates headlines.
The Upper Tribunal disagreed. After examining the evidence, it concluded that 18% of Dunne's clients received unsuitable advice — not 100%.
That's still a serious failure. Nearly one in five clients receiving unsuitable pension transfer advice is indefensible. But it's a fundamentally different picture from the regulator's initial characterisation.
The distinction matters for several reasons. First, it affects the financial penalty calculation significantly. Second, it reveals how the FCA's enforcement approach can sometimes paint with too broad a brush during investigations. Third, it shows that challenging regulatory findings — when the facts support it — can produce meaningfully different outcomes.
The Two-Adviser Model Problem
The Tribunal found that Dunne operated what it called a "deficient two-adviser model." This is worth understanding because variations of this approach are common in the advice market.
The issue wasn't the two-adviser structure itself. Many firms legitimately separate pension transfer analysis from broader financial planning. The problem was that Dunne failed to consider whether his clients' overall investment strategy was suitable when recommending the transfers.
In other words, he was looking at the pension transfer in isolation rather than as part of the client's complete financial picture. A transfer might be technically appropriate based on the pension analysis alone, but unsuitable when you consider what the client actually needs their money to do.
This is basic suitability stuff, but it's easy to let process override substance. If your firm uses any kind of specialist or segmented advice model, this case is a reminder to check that someone is actually looking at the whole picture for each client.
The AR Oversight Failure
Fenech's ban came down to oversight — or the lack of it.
As the sole director of the principal firm, she was responsible for supervising the appointed representative relationship. The Tribunal found she failed to provide adequate oversight of the AR business.
This is increasingly common in FCA enforcement. When something goes wrong at an AR, the regulator looks upstream. Who was supposed to be watching? What systems were in place? Were they actually being used?
The FCA has made AR supervision a priority area. If you're a principal firm with ARs, or you're considering becoming one, the message is clear: paper compliance isn't enough. You need demonstrable, active oversight with proper documentation.
What This Means for Your Practice
Three practical takeaways from this case:
Document your holistic assessment. If you're involved in pension transfers — or any significant financial planning recommendation — make sure your file clearly shows you considered the client's overall position, not just the specific product or transaction. The Tribunal specifically criticised the failure to consider "overall investment strategy."
AR relationships require real oversight. If you have appointed representatives, you need systems that actually catch problems before they become enforcement cases. Regular file reviews, clear escalation procedures, documented supervision. The FCA will hold you accountable for what happens under your permissions.
Challenge the numbers when they're wrong. The FCA isn't infallible. This case saw the unsuitable advice figure revised from 100% to 18% on appeal. That's not a minor adjustment — it's a fundamental recalculation. If you ever face regulatory action, scrutinise the methodology behind the findings.
The Broader Pattern
This case fits a clear FCA enforcement pattern. Pension transfers remain a high-priority area. DB to DC transfers in particular continue to generate enforcement action years after the transfer boom peaked.
The regulator is also increasingly willing to pursue individuals, not just firms. Both Dunne and Fenech received personal bans. The FCA wants advisers to understand that individual accountability is real.
For IFAs, the lesson is straightforward: pension transfer work requires meticulous documentation, genuine suitability analysis, and — if you're operating under any kind of AR or specialist arrangement — clear evidence that someone competent is overseeing the whole process.
PostGuard automatically checks your social media posts against FCA financial promotion rules before you publish. Catch problems before the FCA does — start with 3 free checks at postguard.online