Blog



CMS.DataEngine.CollectionPropertyWrapper`1[CMS.DataEngine.BaseInfo]
Profile Image Verifile
| Verification Chronicles
September 28, 2026
Blog Article Image

Verification Chronicles: The Backdated Certificate

The candidate answered in a day.

In screening, that usually means somebody organised, somebody who wants the job and keeps their paperwork where they can find it. A quick reply is the one you hope for.

Here, it was the first thing that gave him away.

A client had asked us to check his criminal record in Dubai, where he had lived and worked for years.

We'll call him Martin*.

The check that has to go through the candidate

We can usually ask the organisation that holds the record. A university confirms a degree. An employer confirms a job. The answer comes back from the organisation holding the record, and the candidate never touches it on the way.

Criminal records are different. In some countries the law lets us ask for a candidate's record ourselves. In others, the law does not, and the record can only be released to the person it belongs to. The UAE, and specifically the Dubai Police Clearance Certificate, is one of those. For Dubai, we ask the candidate to get their own Police Clearance Certificate, which is what a criminal record check in Dubai produces, and to send it to us. Then we check what arrives. A request a person has to make for their own records has a name, and the name is a subject access request.

The certificate therefore reaches us from Martin, and not from the Dubai Police.

Altering any document is fraud, whatever the document is. The ones we most often see altered are employment dates and degree grades. This was a criminal record certificate, and a criminal record check is arguably the most important check anybody runs. Many of our clients ask for one in every country a candidate has lived in during the period being verified, not only the one they live in now. Martin had spent years in the UAE and Dubai, so it was on the list.

We sent Martin the instructions. The certificate came back the next day, as a PDF.

Two things that could not both be true

A Dubai Police certificate takes twenty-four hours to two days if you apply from inside the UAE. From outside, it takes three to five days. Martin was applying from outside the UAE.

Then we looked at the date on the certificate itself.

It had been issued five days before we sent him the instructions.

Martin had not been quick. The certificate had existed before we asked for it.

The service that checks itself

We could not ask the Dubai Police for Martin's record. We could ask them about the certificate he had sent us, because the Dubai Police run an online verification service. Enter the reference number and the security code printed on a certificate, and the service confirms whether the certificate matches a real record.

We entered Martin's reference number and security code.

The Dubai Police document verification service showing a red Document Expired message.
The Dubai Police verification service, with the reference number and the security code removed.

The service returned two words. Document Expired.

The message shows for a few seconds and then disappears. Our verifier had to read it and screenshot it before it vanished.

Printed on the certificate itself, inside a red box near the foot of the page, is the line that makes the result impossible.

"This certificate is valid for three month."

A certificate really issued five days earlier could not have expired.

The Dubai Police database holds the date the certificate was really issued. Martin's certificate showed a different date, printed on the document itself. The database was right, and the certificate had run out long before Martin sent it to us.

We told the client what the database had returned. We also sent them our own comparison of Martin's certificate against a genuine one, so they could see the difference for themselves.

The parts nobody thinks about

We had the answer our client had asked for. We went further, and put Martin's certificate side by side with a Dubai police certificate belonging to another case, one we had already checked against the database and knew to be genuine.

A Dubai police certificate carries two crests along the top of the page. One belongs to the Government of Dubai and one belongs to the Dubai Police.

On the genuine certificate, the Government of Dubai crest is the one the emirate adopted in 2024. On Martin's certificate, it is the crest the emirate used before then.

The Dubai Police crest, printed beside it, is the same on both documents. Of the two crests on Martin's page, one is right and one is years out of date.

Two Government of Dubai emblems side by side. The genuine certificate carries the emblem adopted in 2024. The certificate we were sent carries the one used before then.
The Government of Dubai emblem on a genuine certificate, and on the one we were sent.

To the right of the two crests, both certificates name the department that issued them, the General Department of Criminal Investigation. On the genuine certificate those words sit in one typeface. On Martin's they sit in another, at a different size, and they do not line up the same way.

The header band of both certificates, one above the other. On the certificate we were sent, the department's name sits in a different typeface, at a different size, and does not line up the same way.
The top of both certificates. The department's name is set differently on the one we were sent.

And along the bottom of Martin's certificate, on a document supposed to be weeks old, is the logo for Expo 2020. What the team felt when they found it was amusement, at an oversight nobody had thought to look for.

The footer of the certificate we were sent, with the Expo 2020 logo ringed in red.
The foot of the certificate we were sent, with the Expo 2020 logo ringed.

What Martin probably did

Nobody had asked us to look at Martin's CV. It had been uploaded with the rest of his file, so we read it, and it showed exactly when he had been working in Dubai.

Anybody employed there at that time would have needed a Police Clearance Certificate, and would have gone through the proper process to get one. Our team's reading is that Martin already had one, and that he changed the date on it instead of applying for a new one.

Why he did that, when a new certificate would have taken a week, is the one thing in the file nobody can answer.

What to do when a document comes from the candidate

Where the law puts the candidate in the middle, they stay in the middle. What an employer can change is what happens after the document lands.

Ask the body that issued it whether they will confirm it. Many now run an online service where you type in the certificate's own reference number and get an answer back in seconds, and that answer is worth more than an hour spent looking at the page.

Get hold of a genuine certificate of the same kind and put the two side by side. If you have not got one, search for images of the document online. Plenty of people publish redacted copies, and even a rough idea of what the real thing looks like will tell you whether the crest, the colours and the fonts are right.

Then look at the document as an object rather than as information. Are the lines clean? Is everything aligned? Does any part of it look unprofessional, or simply odd?

Check the date it was issued against your own records. A certificate dated before you asked the candidate for it needs explaining, and so does one that came back faster than the issuing body could have produced it.

And read the top and the bottom of the page. On Martin's certificate, those two strips carried the old emblem and the Expo 2020 logo, and both had survived every other change he made.

What settled it

A document that reaches you through the person it describes tells you what that person wanted you to know. It becomes a verification at the moment somebody asks the source. In this case, the source was a database, and Martin's own certificate carried the number that let us ask it.

Names and certain details have been changed for confidentiality.

Verification Chronicles is our record of the cases that come through our verification team, real files, names changed, told as they happened. We publish them because the next employer to see one of these should recognise it faster than we did.

Read more episodes →

Read More
CMS.DataEngine.CollectionPropertyWrapper`1[CMS.DataEngine.BaseInfo]
Profile Image Verifile
| Zoom Out
September 22, 2026
Blog Article Image

Zoom Out: The CV the candidate never saw

Not every lie on a CV belongs to the candidate. Typically, 60% of the CVs we check carry at least one discrepancy. In our verification team's experience, most of those discrepancies are the candidate's own work, and a few are put there by somebody else.

olena-kholina-MhqUBTxQ3Hw-unsplash-600.jpg

Here is how a discrepancy ends up on a CV without the candidate putting it there, in a pattern our verification team has seen over the years.

A recruitment agency puts a candidate forward for a job. The agency sends the employer the candidate's CV, set out in the agency's own template with the agency's logo at the top. The agency CV says the candidate has a 2:1, the class of degree many UK employers ask for.

The employer sends the agency CV to us. We put the agency CV side by side with what the candidate declares on our screening form, and we check the degree against the university's own records.

On the form the candidate declares a 2:2, one class lower than the agency CV says. Our report flags the difference to the employer. The university confirms the 2:2.

The candidate is telling the truth, and the employer wants to know who is not. The employer asks the candidate for the CV they first sent the agency, before the agency put it into its own template. The candidate's own copy says 2:2 as well.

The degree class changed when the CV changed hands. The candidate never saw the version the employer read, and the change came from the party least suspected in the whole process, the agency.

The lesson is not the 2:1. The candidate's original CV shows the change at a glance, and the original is the one document nobody in the process is using.

The employer has never been sent the original. We are sent the agency's version, which has replaced the original. The candidate, the person with the most to lose, is the only one holding the document that settles the question, and nobody has asked for it.

cht-gsml-qf9L-0nvLkw-unsplash-600.jpg

The same can happen to a job title, a date or a line of responsibilities, on a page the candidate never approved. A title raised a level, or a date moved to close a gap, is found the same way when the past employer is asked. Universities have seen the same risk from the candidate's side. The University of Cambridge Careers Service tells its students that once a CV has gone to an agency, "Your CV may be rewritten (possibly inaccurately) before being sent out."

Why might an agency change a CV?

An agency that alters what a candidate has told it is the exception. Many agencies present a candidate's experience more clearly than the candidate did, or tailor the CV to the role. An employer still cannot assume that the CV it receives from an agency is the document the candidate wrote.

Agencies have honest reasons to change a CV. The branded template tells the employer which agency introduced the candidate, and the paragraph at the top is openly a sales pitch. The agency may have reformatted the candidate's own CV or built the document from scratch from what the candidate supplied.

An agency also has an interest of its own. It is paid when its candidate is placed, and a candidate with a stronger CV is easier to place.

Andrew Fennell, founder of the CV-writing firm StandOut CV, draws the line for recruiters on the recruitment site The Undercover Recruiter. In his words: "The experience and qualifications a candidate entered should not be adjusted, but elements such as formatting or highlighting key strengths are acceptable changes." He also tells recruiters to ask the candidate's permission before changing anything.

Both UK recruitment trade bodies bind their members to the same rule. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the REC, requires in its Code of Professional Practice that a member "shall not knowingly make a false or inaccurate statement, fail to disclose a material fact, or make a representation as to future matters without having reasonable grounds for making it" when representing a candidate.

The Association of Professional Staffing Companies, APSCo, uses near-identical words in its Code of Conduct. Its members "shall not knowingly make a false or inaccurate statement, mislead or otherwise allow those with whom it deals to operate with a false impression". Both codes bind members only, and not every agency is a member.

What candidates change themselves

Most of the discrepancies we find are the candidate's own. Some leave a job off the form that is on their CV, usually because they decide the job is not relevant to the new role. Some stretch the dates on the CV to cover a gap. Some move a grade or a degree class up a notch to get the interview.

vitaly-gariev-xQydhL4LmlA-unsplash-600.jpg

Our CV Comparison check puts the CV the employer received beside what the candidate declares on our form and reports the differences. An education check with the awarding body or an employment check with the past employer then settles which version is right. What no check can tell an employer is who made the change, and that is the question an agency CV adds.

Next steps for employers

  1. Ask the agency for the candidate's original CV alongside the branded version, and keep both on file.
  2. For each version, note when it arrived and who sent it. If a claim is queried later, the note shows where it came from. An applicant tracking system, the software many employers use to hold applications, keeps that record for you.
  3. Treat the candidate's own declaration, on your application form or on a screening form, as the version they stand behind.
  4. Verify every qualification with the awarding body and every recent employment with the employer, whichever CV the claim arrived on.
  5. When the agency's CV and the candidate's declaration differ, ask who made the change before you decide what the difference means.
  6. Find out from the agency whether the candidate saw the version you received.
  7. Before you add an agency to your supplier list, explain how your screening works and ask whether the agency will work within it. An agency that understands why you check is the easier partner when a difference turns up.

Key sources

  1. Verifile, "Verifile's review of 2022", 1 February 2023, 60% of CVs checked in 2022 carried at least one discrepancy. Read here
  2. Verifile, "60% of job applicants have lied on their CV", 20 February 2020, the same rate in 2019. Read here
  3. Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Code of Professional Practice, principle 2. Read here
  4. Association of Professional Staffing Companies, Code of Conduct, Education Sector Group edition, October 2023, rule 2. Read here
  5. University of Cambridge Careers Service, "Using recruitment agencies". Read here
  6. The Undercover Recruiter, "Is It OK to Edit a Candidate's CV?", by Andrew Fennell. Read here

Read More
CMS.DataEngine.CollectionPropertyWrapper`1[CMS.DataEngine.BaseInfo]
Profile Image Verifile
September 8, 2026
Blog Article Image

Legislation in Focus: Bullying, Harassment and the FCA Conduct Rules

The Financial Conduct Authority has extended its conduct rules, the standards of behaviour it sets for people working in financial services, so that serious bullying, harassment and violence count as misconduct in around 37,000 more firms. The change took effect on 1 September 2026 and reaches regulated firms that are not banks. Until then it was often unclear when this behaviour amounted to a conduct rules breach in such a firm. Guidance on how the same behaviour bears on a person's fitness for their role took effect on the same day.

Key takeaways

  • What changed. Before 1 September 2026 it was often unclear when serious bullying or harassment amounted to a conduct rules breach in a firm that is not a bank. Since that date the conduct rules reach it.
  • Which firms. Banks were already covered. The change reaches around 37,000 other regulated firms, and it leaves out firms outside the regime, such as payments and e-money firms.
  • Which behaviour. Unwanted conduct that violates somebody's dignity or creates a hostile environment for them, and violence. Discrimination and victimisation were not brought in, though the FCA asks firms to consider whether such conduct could still breach a conduct rule.
  • What it means for a reference. No reference rule changed on 1 September 2026. What changed is the conduct a reference can be required to disclose.
  • What it means for fitness checks. No new duty arrived, but the guidance now names two findings it did not name before, one from a tribunal or a court and one from a firm's own disciplinary process.
Colleagues working together around a table.

What the conduct rules are, and who they covered before

The conduct rules are a short set of standards the FCA writes for individuals rather than for firms. They sit inside the Senior Managers and Certification Regime, the rules that make named individuals personally accountable for what happens on their watch. They bind the people the Handbook calls conduct rules staff, which is not everybody a firm employs.

At a bank those rules already reached conduct across the business. In other regulated firms they reached it primarily where the behaviour was tied to the firm's financial services activity, and that link was hard to make for bullying between colleagues.

Announcing the change, the FCA said that "previously, it was often unclear when these types of behaviours would amount to a conduct rules breach in a firm other than a bank". The same conduct could therefore be a clear breach at a bank and an open question at an investment firm.

What it means to break a conduct rule

A firm that concludes somebody has broken a conduct rule takes on obligations that an ordinary disciplinary outcome does not create.

The firm may have to tell the regulator. Disciplinary action has a narrow meaning in this context, covering a formal written warning, suspension, dismissal, or cutting or clawing back pay. Where a firm takes such action against somebody and the reason is conduct that broke a conduct rule, it must notify the FCA.

For everybody below senior manager level those notifications go in once a year on a single form, and a firm with nothing to report sends nothing. Disciplinary action on its own does not trigger the duty, because the conduct also has to break a conduct rule.

The same facts bear on whether the person is fit and proper. The FCA's view is that the most important considerations are a person's honesty, integrity and reputation, their competence and capability, and their financial soundness.

Firms assess that at least once a year for senior managers and for certified staff, whose firm signs off each year that they are fit and proper for the role.

The record can also follow the person. Disciplinary action for a conduct rule breach is disclosable in a regulatory reference, which is the reference a regulated firm must give about a current or former employee when another regulated firm asks for one.

Most employers close a bullying case with the disciplinary outcome and the file stays in the building. At a regulated firm those same facts may reach the regulator, sit in a file the firm revisits every year, and follow the person to a future employer for six years, with no time limit where the misconduct is serious.

Why the FCA made the change

The FCA had been saying for years that this behaviour was already misconduct.

Megan Butler, then an executive director at the FCA, told a committee of MPs in September 2018 that "we view sexual harassment as misconduct which falls within the scope of our regulatory framework". The Treasury Committee reported in March 2024 that "there has been a disappointing lack of progress on sexual harassment and bullying, including serious sexual misconduct".

The FCA then surveyed over 1,000 investment banks, brokers and wholesale insurance firms and published the findings in October 2024. Across 2021 to 2023, bullying and harassment came out as the most recorded concern at 26%, with discrimination at 23%.

A further 41% fell into an "other" group, which the FCA said "indicates how difficult it can be to categorise issues of personal misconduct".

In March 2025 the FCA's chief executive, Nikhil Rathi, told the Treasury Committee that the regulator did "not currently plan to publish new rules on diversity and inclusion". In the same letter he said the FCA would continue to prioritise its work on non-financial misconduct, or NFM, which is the term the regulator uses for misconduct that is not of a clearly financial nature.

One half of the package was dropped and the other half went ahead.

The FCA confirmed the rule in July 2025 and gave firms fourteen months to prepare. Sarah Pritchard, its deputy chief executive, said then that "behaviour like bullying or harassment going unchallenged is one of the reddest flags", because a culture where it happens "can raise questions about a firm's decision making and risk management". The guidance followed in December 2025.

People working together in a modern office.

What the rule now covers

The rule catches unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating somebody's dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. It separately catches conduct that is violent towards them.

The people it protects are not only employees. The rule reaches conduct towards six groups.

  • anyone who works for the firm or a company in its group
  • anyone who performs a function for either
  • anyone who provides services to either
  • the employees of a service provider
  • anyone who performs a function for that provider
  • anyone carrying out an activity that forms part of the firm's own activity.

The rule itself never uses the word serious. The FCA's guidance supplies it, saying the rule "only covers conduct that is serious", and the guidance lists what the regulator will weigh in deciding. Among the nine factors are:

  • whether the conduct is repeated or part of a pattern, and how long it went on
  • the size of the impact on the person it was directed at, which the guidance limits to effects that are "serious and marked" rather than real but lesser
  • the seniority of the person responsible, and whether they had control or influence over the other person's career
  • whether they had been warned or disciplined for similar conduct before, by the firm, a previous employer, the police or a regulator
  • whether the conduct is criminal, or would justify dismissal.

What the rule does not cover, and where banks stand

The rule does not work by naming categories of wrongdoing. It describes behaviour by what it does to a person, so conduct that humiliates or degrades a colleague is caught whatever label it carries.

Discrimination and victimisation were not brought inside the conduct rules for firms that are not banks. The FCA said the rule "covers sexual harassment but does not expand the scope of COCON in non-banks to cover other forms of conduct prohibited by the Equality Act, such as discrimination and victimisation". COCON is the FCA's Code of Conduct, which is where the conduct rules are written down.

In the same answer the FCA asked firms to keep thinking about it. They "should consider whether misconduct of these kinds, and other forms of NFM, may nevertheless be a potential breach of the conduct rules", and whether it does "will depend on whether the conduct falls within the scope of COCON as it applies to that firm".

The rule also leaves out a firm's business that has nothing to do with financial services, and the rule does not reach payments firms, e-money firms, investment exchanges or credit ratings agencies.

The rule says on its face that it applies to a firm inside the regime other than a bank. Banks are not exempt. The conduct rules at a bank were already wider, carrying no restriction based on whether conduct relates to a work colleague. Banks also sit inside the package, because the FCA applied its new harassment guidance to them expressly.

Does your fitness assessment need to change?

Nothing a firm must do changed here. The fitness rules are guidance from beginning to end, and the FCA describes the new material as "a clarification of our current approach to assessing fitness and propriety". It says firms are not expected to revisit assessments they have already made.

The list of matters a firm should have regard to gained two items on 1 September 2026. One covers a finding of harassment, victimisation or discrimination by a tribunal or a court. The other covers a finding of harassment, bullying, victimisation or discrimination following an internal disciplinary process.

That list has always been open-ended, describing matters that "include, but are not limited to" the ones written down. Separately, the offences a firm should weigh now expressly include offences of violence, sexual offences, and offences related to demographic characteristics such as racially motivated or aggravated offences.

The practical question is whether the annual fitness questionnaire a firm issues to senior managers and certified staff needs rewriting. No obligation changed, so nothing forces a rewrite. The guidance applies to every firm inside the regime, banks included, and names two findings for the first time.

The FCA publishes indicators of what a healthy fitness process looks like, and the two halves are worth reading together. It lists as positive that "F&P checks identify new issues with staff – some fail", and as negative that "F&P checks identify nothing new; a 'rubber stamp' exercise."

What a regulatory reference has to disclose

No rule about references changed on 1 September 2026. What changed is the conduct those rules can require a firm to disclose.

A firm does not have to ask for a regulatory reference every time it hires. It has to ask in three situations. The first is appointing somebody to a controlled function, which is a senior role the FCA approves itself. The second is issuing a certificate under the certification regime.

The third is appointing a board director, and that one applies only where the appointing firm is a core or an enhanced firm. In each case the firm must take reasonable steps to obtain regulatory references from the current employer and from everybody who employed the person in the past six years.

The mandatory template asks whether the firm has taken disciplinary action relating to conduct that "amounts to a breach of any individual conduct requirements" that applied to the person. The Handbook defines the individual conduct requirements, and the conduct rules are one of them.

The conduct rules widened on 1 September 2026, so the conduct capable of triggering that disclosure widened with them, and the reference rules did not have to change. The FCA put it this way in July 2025. "Serious, substantiated cases of poor personal behaviour will also need to be shared through regulatory references, in the same way financial misconduct currently is, making it harder for individuals to avoid consequences by moving from firm to firm."

Four further details matter to whoever completes the form.

  • The firm giving a reference must disclose everything it is aware of that it reasonably considers relevant to the receiving firm's assessment of whether the person is fit and proper. That duty is wider than the template's questions.
  • Most of what must be disclosed reaches back six years. For serious misconduct there is no time limit.
  • Where a firm concluded that somebody broke a conduct rule but took no disciplinary action, the FCA's guidance says it should not go under the disciplinary question. It should go under the catch-all question where it would be reasonable to consider it relevant.
  • A firm that has already given a reference must go back and correct it if it later takes disciplinary action that would have made the reference materially different. That duty runs for six years after the person leaves.
A person signing paperwork at a desk.

Does the change apply to older cases?

Partly, and the answer is different for the conduct rules, for a fitness assessment and for a reference.

The FCA says the new conduct rule does not have retrospective effect, and that misconduct occurring before 1 September 2026 should be handled under the version of the Handbook that was in force at the time. A reader should not take that as meaning the older behaviour sat outside the rules. The FCA also says the conduct rules at banks were already wider than at other regulated firms, and that the narrower scope elsewhere made it harder, rather than impossible, to link this behaviour to a firm's financial services activities.

Fitness is a separate question with a different answer. The FCA's position is that the version of the fit and proper test to apply is the one in effect at the date of the assessment, and that this may take account of earlier incidents. A firm assessing somebody now can therefore weigh a disciplinary finding of bullying from 2024.

The FCA published the position in a policy statement, not in the rules, and the FCA does not expect firms to revisit assessments they have already made.

For a reference the date is not the decider either. The disciplinary question turns on whether the conduct breached the rules as they stood at the time and whether the firm took disciplinary action. The wider duty to disclose anything relevant to fitness can reach a matter that was never a breach at all.

One question has no answer in any of this. The FCA has said nothing about conduct that began before September and carried on after it.

What has not changed

  • No reference rule changed on 1 September 2026. Every recent change in that chapter dates from 24 April 2026 and came out of a separate review of the regime.
  • The conduct rules still do not reach private and personal life, and the rule leaves a firm's non-financial-services business alone.

What to look at in your own checks

Where a firm appoints somebody to a senior role, certifies them, or puts them on the board, the reference request and the fitness file are where this change lands. Both were already part of the process, and what has moved is the range of conduct they can be asked to carry.

One deadline moved earlier in 2026, and the change came from the review of the regime rather than from the conduct rules. Since 24 April 2026 the FCA expects a firm answering a reference request to respond within four weeks, shortened from six.

The FCA's guidance says a firm asking for a reference should give the firm answering it enough information to know that these requirements apply and which ones.

The fitness and propriety declaration a candidate completes is the natural place to reach the matters the guidance now names, alongside the FCA regulated reference itself. Where the guidance's expanded list of offences is relevant to the role, a criminal record check reaches them.

The FCA was not the only one moving

Employers have owed a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees since 26 October 2024, under the Equality Act. Since 6 April 2026 a disclosure that sexual harassment has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur counts as a qualifying disclosure for whistleblowing, which means the person making it is protected from being penalised for it.

Two further measures would strengthen that duty and make employers liable for harassment by third parties, and neither is law yet. The government has said both are expected from 30 October 2026, and on 4 September 2026 the legislation still recorded them as prospective with no commencement date.

What is still coming

The FCA has treated its own policy work here as finished. Its policy statement says the publication "brings our policy work on NFM to a close" and that the regulator "will now focus on how firms are tackling it in practice". It has promised no review, no survey and no date.

The FCA finished the first phase of its review in April 2026 and said that if the Treasury's proposed changes proceed, it expects to consult on a second phase later in the year. No such consultation had appeared by 4 September 2026. A bill before Parliament would remove the certification regime from the legislation altogether, including annual recertification, and it had not completed its passage by that date.

Next steps for employers

  1. Establish whether the new rule reaches your firm. It applies to regulated firms that are not banks, and not to firms outside the regime.
  2. Check that your policy on bullying and harassment says what happens next in regulatory terms, not only in employment terms, so a manager handling a case knows a notification and a future reference may follow.
  3. Read the two new items in the fitness guidance against the questions your annual assessment already asks, and decide whether the questions reach them.
  4. Agree who decides, and on what evidence, whether conduct that led to disciplinary action also broke a conduct rule. That judgement starts the notification and the reference disclosure.
  5. For any case open now, work out which of those two things it triggers, and check whether you have already given a reference for anybody involved.

Key sources

  1. FCA Handbook, COCON 1, the conduct rules and who they apply to, including the new rule in force from 1 September 2026. Read here
  2. FCA Handbook, COCON 4, whose section 4.3 carries the guidance on harassment in force from 1 September 2026. Read here
  3. FCA Handbook, SYSC 22, regulatory references, including the template and the six-year period. Read here
  4. FCA Handbook, SUP 15.11, notification of conduct rule breaches and disciplinary action. Read here
  5. FCA Handbook, FIT 1, the general guidance on fitness and propriety, including the list of offences a firm should weigh. Read here
  6. FCA Handbook, FIT 2, the matters a firm should have regard to, including the two added on 1 September 2026. Read here
  7. FCA, PS25/23, "Tackling non-financial misconduct in financial services: Guidance in the Code of Conduct (COCON) and the Fit and Proper test for Employees and Senior Personnel (FIT) sourcebooks", 12 December 2025. Read here
  8. FCA, "FCA clarifies expectations on bullying, harassment and violence to deepen trust in financial services", 2 July 2025. Read here
  9. FCA, "Culture and non-financial misconduct survey - findings", published 25 October 2024. Read here
  10. FCA, "Fitness and Propriety (F&P)", the page carrying the positive and negative indicators quoted above. Read here
  11. FCA, PS26/6, the Senior Managers and Certification Regime review, April 2026. Read here
  12. Letter from Megan Butler, FCA, to the Women and Equalities Committee, 28 September 2018. Read here
  13. Letter from Nikhil Rathi, FCA, to the Treasury Committee, 11 March 2025. Read here
  14. Treasury Committee, "Sexism in the City", 8 March 2024. Read here
  15. Equality Act 2010, section 40A, the duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. Read here
  16. Employment Rights Act 2025, section 23, in force 6 April 2026, on disclosures about sexual harassment. Read here
  17. Employment Rights Act 2025, section 20, which would strengthen the preventative duty and was not in force on 4 September 2026. Read here

Read More