A Court of Appeal decision has sent shockwaves through regulated financial firms, signalling a dramatic shift in expectations around client categorisation.
The case centred on a London School of Economics professor who appeared on paper to be an ideal elective professional client, claims Muinmos.
He held a net worth of £2.2m, had a portfolio worth £800,000, worked in the financial sector for a year and had experience trading equities and contracts for difference. Despite these credentials, he was still deemed mis-categorised – and awarded compensation.
The judgement is being seen as a wake-up call for firms relying too heavily on formal processes and paperwork rather than a genuinely robust assessment. The business in question had collected signatures, followed what looked like a clean process and retained forms confirming the categorisation decision. Yet the Court found these steps did not demonstrate adequate regulatory compliance and upheld the compensation claim.
The ruling exposes a growing issue for financial organisations. Although firms may be confident in their procedures, the Court made clear that “tick-box” approaches do not meet regulatory standards. This gap – between recorded process and regulatory intention – is now where a major share of today’s complaints is emerging. In practical terms, complaint advisors and claims management firms increasingly encourage clients to challenge decisions on categorisation, suitability, experience and evidence gathering.
Recent cases show recurring themes. If a customer provides inconsistent statements, firms are expected to identify and resolve the inconsistency. If supporting evidence is missing, then the obligation lies with the firm to request and obtain it. Even signed self-certifications carry little weight if the underlying categorisation assessment is weak. Simply keeping a form on file is no longer enough.
The financial consequences can be significant. A £100,000 client loss, for example, may turn into a far larger exposure once compensation calculations begin. Payouts are typically based on benchmark low-risk returns, backdated to the date of loss and multiplied across every client in a similar position. Scaled across a book, that represents a potentially costly liability.
Industry specialists increasingly argue for a different approach to categorisation. Instead of relying on static tick-box procedures, firms need adaptive, regulation-driven workflows that capture full documentation trails.
Scoring methodologies, auditable digital processes and better evidence collection are becoming essential, particularly for cross-border client bases that must withstand ombudsman scrutiny. With complaint volumes showing no signs of slowing, businesses are now rethinking categorisation from day one if they hope to stem the surge in claims.
Copyright © 2025 RegTech Analyst
Copyright © 2018 RegTech Analyst
