Information on BSPS redress scheme - November 2023

1.  All the data which you have relied on and discussed, which refers to and supports your determination that awards for stress is likely to be modest.

2.  Any information from medical specialists which will support the same.

3.  All internal discussions in relation to the redress scheme, and correspondence to and from FOS and FCS, which refers to the subject of identifying assessing and compensating for stress and inconvenience.

4.  Any subject matter which you may have compiled based on discussions or surveys that you have held with steel workers to determine the impact of BSPS stress on them and their families in their lives.

5.  Whether or not you took the existing FOS tariff for compensating for stress and inconvenience into account when making your statement.

6.  The forms which IFA firms sent to steelworkers for the redress scheme, asking them about stress in order for its impact to be evaluated, and a copy please of the FCS form and the FOS form which refers to compensating for stress (having identified it).

In response to question 1, we have identified information within scope of your request, but we are exempted from the duty to disclose it under section 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. This is because the information constitutes or directly relates to legal advice from Counsel. In respect of this information, a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings and such information is exempt from disclosure under section 42 of FOIA.

For more information on why this exemption applies please see Annex B.

Further to the above, and for the avoidance of any doubt, please note that:

• the FCA has not made any determinations about individual cases and whether those individual cases are eligible for redress covering distress and inconvenience. Accordingly, the FCA does not hold any information about individual case determinations.
• Your request for information is based on a reference to the term “modest” in a wider statement that is available on the FCA website. Therefore, it is important to contextualise this reference to “modest”. The relevant statement is made within a webpage intended to assist consumers (and firms) by summarising how redress will be calculated by firms and what consumers can do if they receive a redress offer that they think has not been properly calculated.
• In this context, the reference to “modest” is intended to convey to consumers that the relative size of an award for distress and inconvenience is likely to be modest relative to the amount of redress that may be calculated as being owed due to the unsuitable transfer advice. The reference to “modest” is also qualified in the sense that the preceding part of the sentence expressly makes clear that the actual amount of an award for distress and inconvenience will “vary depending on individual circumstances”.
• In forming a view that the size of a distress and inconvenience award is likely to be modest the FCA has had regard to the legal principles by reference to which such awards should be assessed. Information recording the discussions which have taken place, internally and with the FOS and FSCS to inform the FCA’s view in this regard, are legally privileged and therefore exempt from disclosure.

We can confirm we do not hold any information relevant to question 2.

In response to question 3, we have identified some information within scope of your request, but we are exempted from the duty to disclose it under section 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. This is because the information constitutes or directly relates to legal advice from Counsel. In respect of this information, a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings and such information is exempt from disclosure under section 42 of FOIA.

• Other information has been withheld because we are prohibited from disclosing it to you, as it constitutes ‘confidential information’ for the purposes of section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), which the FCA has received in the discharge of its public functions. We are therefore exempted from the duty to disclose this information under section 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA.
• Further to the above, please note that:
• Information identified as within scope of your request which does not attract the legal professional privilege and does not constitute confidential information is provided in the attached Annex C. Please note that some of this information has been redacted because it constitutes or directly relates to legal advice from Counsel. In respect of this information, a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings and such information is exempt from disclosure under section 42 of FOIA.

Names of some FCA staff have also been redacted within Annex C. We are unable to disclose this information to you under section 40 (personal data) of FOIA. This is because disclosing this information would reveal personal information about the individuals concerned. In line with FCA policy, the names of current staff below management level and their direct FCA contact details, as well as the names of former FCA staff, are not disclosed under FOIA if these are not already in the public domain.

For more information on why these exemptions apply please see Annex B.

We can confirm we do not hold any information relevant to question 4.

Regarding question 5, we can confirm that the existing FOS tariff and other FOS material relating to awards for distress and inconvenience were taken into account when considering this issue and publishing the statement on our website. Any discussions on that point are exempted from the duty to disclose it under section 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. This is because the information constitutes or directly relates to legal advice from Counsel. In respect of this information, a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings and such information is exempt from disclosure under section 42 of FOIA.

In response to question 6, we do not hold any information relating to forms sent to steelworkers by the FSCS or FOS.

The letters that firms are required to send to steelworkers are publicly accessible in the FCA handbook. In particular, please see the following from CONRED 4:

CONRED 4 Annex 10 Redress calculation, further information: initial request - FCA Handbook[1]

CONRED 4 Annex 11 Redress calculation, further information request: final reminder - FCA Handbook[2]

The letters are required to be sent if unsuitable advice was provided, which include a requirement for firms to ask consumers about any other losses for which they may be owed compensation. If consumers would like firms to take into account other losses when calculating redress they can complete the ‘Other Losses’ form.