Money Covered: The Week That Was – 13 March 2026

Welcome to The Week That Was, a round-up of key events in the financial services sector over the last seven days.

Our latest edition of the Financial Ombudsman Newsletter is out now and can be found here.

On the fifth episode of Season 4 of our podcast, Money Covered – The Month That Was, Mel is joined by David Allinson to discuss the FCA’s proposed section 404 consumer redress scheme for vehicle finance.

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

Generali and Zurich reach agreement over sale

On 9 March 2026, Generali announced that it had reached an agreement with Zurich Insurance Group AG to sell its property and casualty (P&C) business in Ireland.

The agreement involves the sale of the Irish and Northern Irish branches of Generali Spain, housed under the RedClick brand, to Zurich Insurance Europe AG and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd, UK Branch, for €337 million in cash. Generali Spain will retain an additional €51 million in excess capital that is currently allocated to the Group's Irish P&C businesses.

From Generali's perspective, the sale forms part of the Group's wider focus on core insurance markets where it already holds scale and a leading presence.

From Zurich's perspective, the purchase of the RedClick team and customers will cement Zurich as a top-three provider of life and non-life insurance in Ireland.

To read more, please click here.

Pensions

Pensions sector told to do more to protect against impersonation fraud

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has warned more than 35,000 pension sector professionals on the risks posed by fraudsters seeking to impersonate savers. This warning following a sharp rise this year in reports of impersonation fraud affecting UK savers. This sharp rise follows a year-on-year rise over the last decade, with over £17million being lost to pension crime in 2024.

Trustees and pension administrators are being urged to:

• Review their identity and verification check policies and procedures. These procedures should include overseas verification where appropriate.
• Encourage members to strengthen their own online security; and
• Report any suspected fraudulent activity as soon as possible

To read more, please click here.

FCA regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA confirms it will finalise the VFM framework rules this year

The FCA has confirmed it will finalise its Value For Money (VFM) rules this year in order to give firms time to implement changes before the rules come into force in 2028.

The report 'Regulatory Priorities – Pensions' identifies four areas it will target over the next 12 months:

1. Ensuring well-run schemes that provide value for money to savers.
2. Encouraging effective support for consumers.
3. Supporting growth and innovation; and
4. Modernising pensions and long-term savings

In respect of VFM – a clear priority based on the report – the regulator confirms it expects firms to:

• Engage with the regulator as it finalises the VFM framework and rules permitting transfer of savers – the FCA encourages firms to provide feedback on the draft framework and get ready to implement by considering what it will need to provide accurate data.
• Work to ensure savers will not remain in poorly performing workplace schemes: firms should plan to address schemes unlikely to be providing value. The FCA notes asset reallocation or transfers may be required.
• Plan for introduction of scale test: Liaise with the FCA in relation to business changes or acquisitions, and consider the operational impact on the business.

The FCA have previously called on pension providers to engage with them in building the VFM rules, so as to support innovation in pensions investment and encourage appropriate risk controls be put in place.

To read more please click here.

Relevant case law updates

Court of Appeal confirms approach for penalty appeals

In the recent case of HMRC v Sintra Global Inc and another [2025] Civ 1661, the Court of Appeal (CofA) determined that, in circumstances where a taxpayer is challenging a penalty on the basis that the underlying tax liability was wrong, a separate legal burden rests on the taxpayer to prove it.

The background to this case involved Sintra Global Inc (Global), Sintra SA (SA) and Mr Parul Malde. HMRC argued that, between 2004 and 2014, Global, SA and Mr Malde had been involved in a process called 'inward diversion fraud', to fraudulently divert alcohol into the UK from the EU.

This subsequently led to HMRC imposing various decisions and penalties against Global, SA and Mr Malde. Some of these were appealed by Global, SA and Mr Malde before for the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the FTT allowed some of the appeals. HMRC then appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which dismissed the appeals. HMRC then appealed to the CofA.

The key issue before the CofA, was whether, in circumstances whereby a taxpayer was seeking to challenge the penalty on the basis that underlying tax liability was wrong, the burden of proof fell on the taxpayer or HMRC.

The CofA concluded that, where a taxpayer wishes to contend that an underlying tax liability is wrong, a separate legal burden rests on the taxpayer to prove this. This is separate to the test whereby HMRC is required to establish the facts needed to justify imposing a penalty.

It is understood that the taxpayers are seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

To read the judgment, please click here.

To read RPC's blog, please click here.

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team below, or your usual RPC contact.

With thanks to this week's contributors:  James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas,  Rebekah Bayliss