Park's of Hamilton (Holdings) Limited

Activities and protection

What they can do, and how you are protected

• Give regulated advice FSCS may apply
  A claim for unsuitable advice is itself FSCS-protected, up to the limit that applies to the product you were advised on.
• Manage or trade investments FSCS may apply
  Eligible investment and pension claims are typically FSCS-protected up to £85,000 per person, depending on the product and your circumstances.
• Sell or arrange insurance FSCS may apply
  Eligible insurance claims may be FSCS-protected, often 90%, or 100% for compulsory or long-term cover.
• Lend or arrange credit No FSCS cover
  Consumer credit is not covered by the FSCS, so there is no compensation scheme if the firm fails.

Check your FSCS cover →

Complaints: You can refer a complaint about this firm to the Financial Ombudsman Service for free, whichever activity it relates to.

Track record

Action taken against them

1 fine in 2008, £61,600 in total. This is part of the official register record and is worth reviewing before going ahead.

• Fined £61,600 on 21 August 2008

  On 21 August 2008 the FSA imposed a financial penalty of £61,600 on Park's for breaches of the FSA's Principles and rules in respect of breaches of Principles 9 and 6 of the FSA's Principles for Businesses (the Principles) and associated rules between 14 January 2005 and 31 December 2007 (the Relevant Period) in relation to advised sales of payment protection insurance (PPI) from Park's car showrooms. Park's agreed to settle at an early stage of the FSA's investigation. It therefore qualified for a 30% (stage 1) reduction in penalty, pursuant to the FSA's executive settlement procedures. Were it not for this discount, the FSA would have imposed a financial penalty of £88,000 on Park's. The level of penalty reflects the FSA's announcement in the PPI thematic update of 26 September 2007 that higher fines will be imposed where this is warranted by the nature, seriousness and impact of the breach in question, and by the likely impact on deterrence. These breaches relate to Park's failure to: (1)take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice for any customer entitled to rely on its judgement (Principle 9);and (2)pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly (Principle 6). In particular, the following failings in respect of Park's procedures for dealing with customers and its other systems and controls were identified: (1) From January 2007 to December 2007, where Park's sales staff identified that a customer was eligible for a PPI product there was a significant risk that they recommended the highest level of cover available, rather than basing their recommendation on the suitability of the policy for the customer. The document used by the firm to monitor sales states that the largest highest level of cover should be recommended unless the customer is retired or a housewife. Completed monitoring checklists show that advisors were marked negatively if they did not recommend the highest level of cover. This meant that there was a significant risk that sales advisors were encouraged to recommend the highest level of cover without adequately investigating customers' circumstances to ascertain the suitability of the PPI product Park's recommended. (2) From 14 January 2005 to May 2007 Park's did not require its sales staff to gather, and take account of, sufficient information about customers' personal circumstances and objectives when making recommendations, for example the importance of the cost of the policy to the customer, and information regarding any existing cover or pre-existing conditions the customer might have. Park's therefore did not take adequate steps to ensure that its recommendations were suitable. (3) Throughout the relevant period, Park's did not provide its customers with adequate Statements of Demands and Needs (SODANs) to explain why Park's had recommended a specific PPI policy. (4) From 14 January 2005 to early 2007 Park's did not provide its customers with a statement of price. (5) Throughout the Relevant Period, Park's did not have effective systems to monitor its staff. In particular, the monitoring Park's undertook was a purely quantitative check, rather than assessing the quality of advice. (6) Throughout the Relevant Period, where the firm's monitoring did identify failures to comply with regulatory requirements, Park's did not take adequate remedial action regarding those failures. (7) Park's did not assess complaints received from customers at various times in the Relevant Period in a fair manner, and made unjustified and incorrect statements to complainants regarding the approach that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) would take in relation to their complaints. The firm's failings exposed 714 customers to the unacceptable risk of buying PPI policies that were not suitable for them during the Relevant Period. As a result of this, and its complaints handling failures, Park's failed to treat its customers fairly. The fm's failings are viewed as particularly serious because: (1) the failings arose against a background of a series of high profile communications by the FSA highlighting the need for firms to ensure that their PPI sales processes were meeting FSA requirements. In particular, the FSA published a report in November 2005 following its first phase of thematic work on PPI and a published a second report in October 2006 reporting on its second phase of thematic work; (2) the breaches occurred over an extended period. Furthermore in early 2007 changes were made to monitoring which assessed staff against recommending the highest level of cover if the customer was eligible - three months after the publication of the second FSA thematic report on PPI, and after the firm had been regulated for two years; and (3) Parks' amendments to the SODAN were not sufficient to ensure compliance with the FSA's Principles and rules. Park's failings therefore merit the imposition of a substantial financial penalty. In deciding upon the level of disciplinary sanction, the FSA recognised that a factor which mitigates the seriousness of Park's failings is that it began issuing customers with a Statement of Price in early 2007, following the FSA's publication of the Final Notice with regards to Eastern Western Motor Group.

Common questions

Frequently asked questions