Money Covered: The Week That Was – 28 August 2026

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

The first of Season 5 of our podcast, Money Covered - The Month That Was, was released this week. David Allinson and Mel Redding 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

Streamlining Investment fee disclosures: Confusion or Clarity?

In a recent Consultation, the FCA set out plans for a new "cost disclosure" regime. Put simply, it is aiming to introduce a standard way for banks, platforms and investment firms to show customers what they will pay for an investment, so people can compare products more easily in plain English. It would cover different types of investments, including some insurance-based products, and use one main format.

The FCA also wants fees to be shown more fairly (for example, a flat platform fee shown against the whole portfolio), with one-off and trading costs listed separately. Final rules are expected in late 2026, with an 18-month transition period to take place. The FCA considers that these changes will make consumers feel more confident about making investments.

However, The Investing and Savings Alliance ("TISA") has other views. TISA is a not-for-profit membership organisation that works with financial services firms to improve consumer financial wellbeing. It has argued that merging today’s fragmented disclosure rules into a single approach may introduce new complexity and inconsistency, potentially discouraging people from investing and undermining trust in providers.

TISA has recommended that the FCA focus on separating ongoing and one-off product cost figures and keeping transaction cost treatment consistent. They have also asked the FCA to scrap its plans to introduce so-called cumulative effects of cost disclosures on the basis that it might make consumers think that investing is more expensive.

How these rules will play out in practice is not currently known. However, we should expect more information from the FCA in the following months, which will provide more clarity on the proposed changes.

To read the Consultation, please click here; to read TISA's response, please click here.

Companies House steps up identity verification enforcement: emails to unverified directors and PSCs from 26 August

From 26 August, Companies House will contact directors and persons of significant control (PSCs) who have not completed identity verification, with the aim of improving compliance. The article highlights that non-compliance is described as a particular issue among PSCs, and that recipients should act promptly if contacted.

A key practical point is the "personal code" requirement. PSCs only need to verify their identity once, but individuals who are both a director and a PSC may need to use a personal code for each role, which Companies House says is easily overlooked. The article also notes that practitioners (including ICAEW members) may receive a high volume of Companies House emails, particularly where the agent’s email address is used as the registered email address, and where individuals hold multiple director/PSC roles.

A personal code is issued after identity verification, and how the 11-digit code is found depends on whether verification was completed via One Login or an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP). Companies House asks practitioners to forward relevant emails to clients, check the identity verification status of directors/PSCs on the register, and ensure company records are updated promptly where an individual is no longer associated with the company.

To read more, please click here. 

Pensions

PASA seeks clarity on new defined benefit surplus regime

The Pensions Administration Standards Association ("PASA") has called for greater clarity on the administration of member surplus payments. It comes in response to the Department for Work and Pensions’ consultation on the proposed new defined benefit surplus regime, where PASA has said that schemes may need to administer deferred member entitlements for many years before payment can be made.

PASA's concerns include:

1. Trustees being allowed to award a surplus payment to a member below normal minimum pension age, although it could not be paid until the member reaches that age.
2. Clarity is needed on whether members may defer or decline payment, particularly if such payments could affect entitlement to means-tested benefits or have tax consequences.
3. Seeking clarification on whether a difference between the amount notified to members and the final certified amount would require a further notification period.
4. Seeking confirmation of the information that must be provided to the Pensions Regulator.

To read PASA's response, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

Young people falsely believe AI investment advice is regulated

The FCA has published new research on 18 - 40-year-olds who own or are considering investments, highlighting the rapidly growing use of AI tools to support investing decisions - alongside significant misunderstanding about the protections available. Four in five less experienced investors have used AI for help with investing, and around two-thirds do so occasionally or regularly. Over half of those surveyed say they trust AI tools more than TV/radio, the press and social media influencers, and reliance is expected to grow, with two-thirds of 18- 40-year-olds expected to lean on AI even more over the next year.

The FCA is concerned that some investors may overestimate the “safety net” when relying on AI outputs, as 44% mistakenly believe AI-generated financial information is regulated, 38% think it is fine to make an investment decision based solely on AI outputs, and 32% wrongly believe they would have recourse to FSCS compensation or the Financial Ombudsman Service if AI advice went wrong.

The FCA notes that general-purpose AI chatbots are not regulated. However, tools specifically set up to provide financial advice would be more likely to fall within the FCA’s remit.

To read the press release, please click here.

FCA bans trio designed to bypass visa rules

The FCA discovered a scheme being run by Dolfin Financial (UK) Limited to circumvent Home Office investor visa requirements. The rules require people seeking a visa to invest £2 million of their own money in UK companies. Instead, Dolfin created the false impression that the rules were being met by only requiring investors to pay a £400,000 fee to them.

The FCA also found serious integrity and disclosure failings, including deliberate concealment from the FCA and the Home Office and, in Dolfin's co-founder's case, acting as a shadow director without FCA approval and as a controller without notifying the regulator.

As a result, former Dolfin CEO Denisz Nagy (fined £324,800) and former finance director Sanjay Maraj (fined £122,000) have been banned from financial services. The FCA has also decided to ban Dolfin co-founder Roman Joukovski, but he has referred his Decision Notice to the Upper Tribunal, so the findings and action are provisional and not effective pending the Tribunal’s public decision.

To read more, please click here. 

Relevant case law updates

Commercial Court provides guidance on ordering pre-action disclosure

In Union Bancaire Privée, UBP SA v L Catterton Europe SAS [2026] EWHC 2041 (Comm), the Commercial Court has provided guidance on the circumstances in which the court will, and will not, order pre-action disclosure in commercial cases.

The case involved a proposed deceit claim involving a private equity fund. The applicant's position was that it could plead the deceit claim on the basis of the information already available, but that there was an asymmetry of information between the parties. The Court ruled that an asymmetry of information between the parties is a common feature in threatened misrepresentation claims,and is not sufficient to justify an order for pre-action disclosure being granted.

The applicant had also argued that pre-action disclosure was required to enable it to plead its claim with greater precision. The Court ruled that this was not enough to justify an order for pre-action disclosure, especially in cases where such an order would be unlikely to require the claim to be amended following full disclosure.

The Court also ruled that the Commercial Court Guide makes clear that, in respect of pre-action disclosure, parties are not normally expected to engage in pre-action procedures that are elaborate or expensive, provided that the relevant pre-action practice direction and protocol are complied with.

To read the full decision, please click here.

High court rejects extension of limitation period following LLP's dissolution

In Francis v Silver Law LLP (Formerly Silver Shemmings Ash LLP) [2026] EWHC 2191 (Ch), the High Court has rejected an application by five former clients of Silver Law LLP for additional time to bring professional negligence claims against Silver Law, following the firm's dissolution.

The claims arose from conveyancing work undertaken by Silver Law on behalf of the applicants in 2019, after the applicants lost deposits paid towards long leasehold interests. However, before the applicants could bring a claim against Silver Law, in July 2021 Silver Law ceased trading and was subsequently struck off the register in August 2024, and dissolved in September 2024. Whilst it was dissolved, the applicants could no longer bring a claim against it directly.

Silver Law was subsequently restored to the register in June 2025. The applicants then sought directions under section 1032(3) of the Companies Act 2006 to exclude the period of dissolution from the calculation of limitation.

Master Clark accepted that dissolution had, for a period of time, prevented the applicants from bringing proceedings against Silver Law, and rejected the submission that the applicants should themselves have sought to restore it.

However, they held that section 1032(3) could only be used to put the parties in the position they would have been had the LLP remained in existence. The court held that the maximum appropriate extension would therefore have been 64 days, representing the period from the applicants' instruction of solicitors in April 2025 until restoration. By the time of the hearing, however, the applicants had neither issued proceedings nor entered into a standstill agreement, and even a 64-day extension would have left the claims as out of time.

To read the full judgment, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Lauren Butler, Haiying Li, Daniel Parkin, Sourav Shinagare, Damien O'Malley and Dorian Nunzek. 

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