Community Trust ScoreVerified
The FCA ban stands. Richard Fenech and Heather Dunne are out of financial services — probably for good — after the Upper Tribunal upheld the regulator’s decision against both of them. The core issue: they handed the FCA a backdated appointed representative agreement. That’s dishonesty, full stop, and the Tribunal didn’t see it any other way.
Dunne ran her own outfit, Heather Dunne Independent Financial Adviser — HDIFA — working as a pension transfer specialist. She was an appointed representative of Financial Solutions Midhurst Ltd, the firm owned and managed by Fenech. So the two were linked operationally, and that link mattered a lot when the FCA started pulling on threads. Fenech’s job was to supervise Dunne’s work. He didn’t do it adequately. That failure, combined with Dunne’s own conduct, is what brought both of them here.
Between April 2015 and June 2017, Dunne advised roughly 92% of her clients to leave defined benefit pension schemes.
£126 Million Moved, Not All of It Appropriately
That 92% figure is striking on its own. But the number behind it is bigger: over £126 million transferred out of defined benefit schemes across Dunne’s client base during that two-year stretch. Some of those transfers went against client interests. Dunne also falsely claimed she had been advising certain pension schemes before she actually had. And she didn’t exercise proper care when giving that pension transfer advice. These weren’t minor slip-ups or paperwork errors. The Tribunal found genuine misconduct.
Fenech, for his part, failed to supervise her properly. He didn’t catch what she was doing, or didn’t act on it. Either way, the FCA held him responsible for that oversight failure.
The regulator’s original enforcement action — a 2024 decision notice — laid out the misconduct in detail. That document remains central to the case. Dunne and Fenech challenged it. The Tribunal heard them out and still upheld the ban.
Fines Cut, But Bans Stay Firm
Here’s where it gets a bit more nuanced. The FCA initially calculated fines based on all of Dunne’s advice being in breach of regulatory requirements. The Tribunal pushed back on that. It found that only 18% of her clients actually received unsuitable advice — not the full book. So the fines came down.
Dunne’s fine landed at £41,230. Fenech’s came in at £16,046, calculated specifically against the income he earned through his relationship with Dunne. Smaller numbers than the FCA probably wanted, but the bans themselves weren’t touched. Both individuals are still prohibited from working in financial services.
The Tribunal ruled on April 27 and July 27, 2026. From the decision date, Dunne and Fenech each have 14 days to appeal. That’s a tight window. Whether either of them takes it isn’t clear yet.
It’s worth stepping back for a second. Defined benefit pension transfers have been a flashpoint for UK regulators for years. These schemes offer guaranteed income in retirement — predictable, inflation-linked, often generous. Advising someone to walk away from that is a serious call. The FCA has consistently said that for most people, staying in a defined benefit scheme is the right move. Dunne was recommending exits at a rate that basically inverted that presumption. Ninety-two percent of clients told to leave. That’s not a pattern you can explain away easily.
The backdated document made everything worse. Regulators depend on what they’re given. When someone hands over paperwork designed to misrepresent a timeline, it doesn’t just breach a rule — it attacks the foundation of how oversight works. The Tribunal was clear that both individuals acted dishonestly. That word carries weight in these decisions.
Customers who took Dunne’s advice and suffered losses aren’t necessarily left without options. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is available as a potential route for those affected. The FCA pointed to that directly. No details on how many former clients have already made contact or filed claims — that wasn’t part of the Tribunal’s ruling.
The FCA also used this case to flag something broader. The regulator has been working to tighten its oversight of appointed representatives — the network of firms and individuals who operate under the umbrella of larger, FCA-authorised businesses. It’s a structure that can create gaps. Dunne and Fenech’s arrangement is a pretty clear example of how those gaps get exploited. Fenech authorised Dunne’s business. Dunne gave advice that moved £126 million. The supervision chain broke down somewhere in the middle.
The FCA said it wants investigations to be faster and more thorough going forward. Vague, maybe, but the direction is clear enough.
Fenech operated Financial Solutions Midhurst Ltd. Dunne operated HDIFA under that firm’s authorisation. The FCA’s 2024 decision notice spelled out what went wrong. The Tribunal agreed with the core of it, trimmed the fines, and left both bans exactly where they were.
Fourteen days to appeal. The clock’s running.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the final fines handed to Dunne and Fenech by the Upper Tribunal?
The Tribunal set Heather Dunne’s fine at £41,230 and Richard Fenech’s at £16,046, reduced from the FCA’s original figures after the Tribunal found only 18% of Dunne’s clients received unsuitable advice.
What specifically did Dunne and Fenech do to get banned by the FCA?
Both provided a backdated appointed representative agreement to the FCA, which the Tribunal found constituted dishonesty; Dunne also gave unsuitable pension transfer advice and made false claims about when she began advising certain schemes, while Fenech failed to supervise her work adequately.
Why It Matters
This ruling underscores the increasing scrutiny that financial advisors are facing from regulatory bodies, particularly in the pension transfer sector, which has been historically vulnerable to misconduct. The FCA's firm stance against dishonesty not only serves as a warning to other financial professionals but also reinforces the importance of transparency and compliance in maintaining market integrity. As the industry grapples with trust issues, such decisions may lead to heightened regulatory oversight and impact the operations of similar advisory firms.
