Related provisions for SUP 10C.12.19
1 - 9 of 9 items.
Under section 63F of the Act, in assessing if a person is fit and proper to perform an FCA-specified significant-harm function, a firm must have regard, in particular, to whether that person:(1) has obtained a qualification;(2) has undergone, or is undergoing, training;(3) possesses a level of competence; or(4) has the personal characteristics,required by general rules made by the FCA.
(1) In cases where a certification employee's role changes to involve a new function involving an FCA-specified significant-harm function part way through the twelve-month period for which their certificate is valid, and that new function may have different requirements relating to:(a) personal characteristics;(b) the level of competence, knowledge and experience;(c) qualifications; or(d) training;the FCA would expect the firm to assess whether the employee is fit and proper to
The Act does not prescribe the matters which the FCA7 should take into account when determining fitness and propriety. However, section 61(2) states that the FCA7 may have regard (among other things) to whether the candidate or approved person:777(1) has obtained a qualification; or(2) has undergone, or is undergoing, training; or(3) possesses a level of competence; or(4) has the personal characteristics;required by general rules made by the FCA.7
It is the UK recognised body's responsibility to demonstrate to the FCA3 that a person who performs a function on behalf of the UK recognised body is fit and proper and able and willing to perform that function. The recognition requirement referred to in Regulation 6(3) applies to the UK recognised body and not to any person who performs any function on its behalf. In this context, for a person to be "fit and proper" does not necessarily imply that they are5 an authorised person,
2When considering whether to grant or refuse an application to revoke or vary a prohibition order, the FCA will consider all the relevant circumstances of a case. These may include, but are not limited to: (1) the seriousness of the misconduct or other unfitness that resulted in the order; (2) the amount of time since the original order was made; (3) any steps taken subsequently by the individual to remedy the misconduct or other unfitness; (4) any evidence which, had it been