FCA bans adviser and fines him £742,700 over unauthorised DB pension transfer advice

The Financial Conduct Authority has decided to ban Daniel Thomas from working in financial services and to fine him £742,700 over unauthorised defined benefit pension transfer advice — a dual enforcement action supported by a formal decision notice published by the regulator in 2026.

What the FCA Found

Thomas served as both a director and a financial adviser at DPT Financial Solutions Limited. According to secondary reporting by Codego Press, which cites figures the editorial team could not independently verify from the primary FCA sources at time of publication, Thomas advised 53 clients on 63 separate transfers out of defined benefit pension schemes over a five-year period.

The FCA's core finding, confirmed in its own press release and decision notice, is unambiguous: Thomas was neither qualified nor permitted to give defined benefit pension transfer advice. The regulator characterised his conduct as reckless — a term that, in regulatory terms, sits at the more serious end of the culpability spectrum under the FCA's enforcement framework, though readers should note this contextual framing is editorial analysis rather than a direct citation of FCA guidance.

The FCA found that Thomas gave pension transfer advice he was neither qualified nor permitted to provide, and described the resulting conduct as reckless.

The Enforcement Action

The FCA has decided to:

• Ban Daniel Thomas from performing any function in relation to any regulated activity carried out by an authorised or exempt person, or exempt professional firm.
• Fine him £742,700.

Both sanctions are recorded in the decision notice for Daniel Philip Thomas (2026), published by the FCA. The specific basis on which the £742,700 figure was calculated — including any potential disgorgement or financial penalty components — is not derivable from the source material available to this editorial team at time of publication and has been excluded from this report.

Regulatory Context

Defined benefit pension transfer advice is a specialist, highly regulated activity. FCA rules require advisers giving such advice to hold specific pension transfer qualifications mandated under its conduct of business sourcebook; the precise qualification standard applicable to Thomas's case has not been independently confirmed by this editorial team against the FCA's rules and is therefore described here in general terms only.

The FCA has, in published policy and supervisory documents — including but not limited to its policy and thematic review outputs — signalled concerns about the quality of DB transfer advice across the industry. Whether and to what extent Thomas's clients may be entitled to redress, or whether the Financial Services Compensation Scheme has any involvement, is not confirmed in any of the sources reviewed for this report.

Procedural Status

The FCA has published a decision notice, which is a provisional regulatory instrument. Under the procedural framework governing FCA enforcement — rooted in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the FCA's own Decision Procedure and Penalties manual — a decision notice may be referred by the subject to the Upper Tribunal before it takes final legal effect. Whether Thomas has exercised or intends to exercise that right is not confirmed in any source available to this editorial team.

Why It Matters

The action underscores the FCA's continued focus on defined benefit pension transfer misconduct, an area where the regulator has invested sustained supervisory and enforcement resource. The involvement of a firm director who personally advised clients without the necessary permissions or qualifications illustrates the dual accountability — personal and corporate — that the FCA's enforcement approach is designed to capture.

In analytical terms, the scale of the fine and the totality of the ban represent a significant individual enforcement outcome, though any comparative assessment of this action relative to other FCA enforcement cases is editorial opinion and is presented as such. The secondary-source figure of 53 clients across 63 transfers, if accurate, would point to a pattern of conduct extended across a material client base over multiple years — though, as noted above, those specific figures await independent verification from the primary decision notice.

Primary sources: FCA press release; Decision Notice: Daniel Philip Thomas (2026). Secondary source: Codego Press. Readers are directed to the FCA's published decision notice for the authoritative account of findings.