TenetConnect Limited

Activities and protection

What the record covers, and how you are protected

• In an insolvency process
  Money the firm held is returned through the appointed office holders, which takes time and can fall short. The FSCS covers eligible claims up to its limits, and the Ombudsman can still look at a complaint.

Track record

Action taken against them

1 fine in 2004. This is part of the official register record and is worth reviewing before going ahead.

• Fined on 9 June 2004

  1. The FSA has decided to impose a financial penalty on Interdependence Limited (Interdependence) in respect of breaches of PIA Rules and SIB Principles and the FSA Rules and that occurred between 1999 and March 2002 and arose in respect of the following failures on the part of Interdependence: 1.1. failure adequately to monitor and control its Appointed Representatives in relation to the sale of pension fund withdrawal (PFW) business; and 1.2. failure to keep adequate records in relation to that business. 2. Interdependence's failings are particularly serious as they potentially affected the pension assets of customers who were approaching retirement. Such customers are vulnerable because they do not have sufficient time to make up any shortfalls caused by any mis-selling of PFW contracts. Early vesting can have seriously detrimental consequences for over 50's as their retirement income can be substantially reduced because underlying investment funds have less time to grow with the risk that resultant annuity rates may be materially lower than they could be at normal retirement. 3. Interdependence's failings were made all the more serious by the following factors: 3.1. the failings represented a material breach of Interdependence's fundamental obligation under the regulatory system. That is that, as the operator of a network of Independent Financial Advisers (IFAs) who are its Appointed Representatives, Interdependence undertakes compliance responsibility for all parts of their businesses, including ensuring that they comply with all relevant regulatory requirements. By failing to monitor its Appointed Representatives adequately in relation to PFW business, Interdependence exposed several hundred potentially vulnerable consumers to significant risk of loss; 3.2. the failings occurred after and notwithstanding that previous disciplinary action had been taken against Interdependence in November 1998 in respect of issues which, although not directly concerned with PFW business, did arise out of material failings in the control of its Appointed Representatives and also notwithstanding that problems with its system for ensuring appropriate supervision of PFW business by technical specialists were first identified in May 1999; 3.3. the failings occurred notwithstanding that detailed regulatory guidance had only recently been re-issued to the industry in the form of PIA Regulatory Update 67 as to how the requirements of the SIB Principles should be met in the context of PFW business; and 3.4. the failings did not represent isolated incidents but continued over a lengthy period of time and went to the heart of Interdependence's Appointed Representatives' PFW sales process. 4. Interdependence's failings therefore merit a significant penalty. In fixing the amount of the proposed penalty, however, the FSA recognises the steps which Interdependence has taken to improve the operation of its PFW business. The FSA also notes that Interdependence is undertaking a past business review which will identify and compensate those customers who may have been affected by its failings. 5. Whilst recognising these matters, the FSA nevertheless notes, that although Interdependence had begun its own investigations into the failings, these failings had not been notified to the FSA by the time the information came to the FSA's attention.

Common questions

Frequently asked questions