FCA asks board member to review its handling of whistleblower who died
The FCA has asked a new board member to examine how it dealt with a whistleblower who died, while an all-party group of MPs and a campaign group call for an independent inquiry.
Key points
- The FCA has asked non-executive director Lea Paterson to review how it dealt with whistleblower Simon Andriesz, who died in late September.
- The regulator says it will share lessons and next steps early next year; it has not announced any rule changes.
- The all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud wants an independent review rather than one led from within the FCA.
- The FCA says it closed 1,252 whistleblowing reports last year, with 42% leading to direct action.
The Financial Conduct Authority has asked a new board member to review how it dealt with Simon Andriesz, a whistleblower who died in late September. The move has put FCA whistleblower protection and safeguards under scrutiny. The Guardian and City AM reported that Mr Andriesz, who was 57, took his own life.
No change to FCA rules or procedures has been announced. What exists so far is a review of one case, with findings promised for early next year, and a parliamentary group arguing that the review should not be run by the regulator at all.
What the FCA is reviewing and when
In a blog, the FCA said it had been in contact with Mr Andriesz “over many years”. It has asked Lea Paterson, who has just joined its board as an independent non-executive director, to look at how it interacted with him. The regulator said: “Lea will look at whether there are things we could have done better, and she’ll help us learn for the future.”
The FCA said it plans to share any lessons, and how it will take them forward, “early next year”. It has not published the review’s scope, terms of reference or timetable beyond that.
The review follows an earlier error. According to the Guardian and Financial Reporter, an FCA official told Mr Andriesz he had lost whistleblower protection because his identity had become known. The FCA later acknowledged that this advice was wrong, apologised, and said further guidance and training would go to its whistleblowing team. City AM also reported that in 2024 the FCA said it would strengthen its internal whistleblowing policy after criticism of how it handled complaints from former staff.
Who is affected by UK financial services whistleblower protection concerns
Anyone who reports a regulated firm to the FCA is potentially affected, and the numbers are large. The FCA said whistleblowing reports rose 22% last year. It said it gave feedback on each of the 1,252 reports it closed, and it described what happened to them.
| Measure | Share of reports | Approximate number of reports |
|---|---|---|
| Reports closed last year | FCA figure: 1,252 | 1,252 |
| Led to direct action to manage or reduce harm | FCA figure: 42% | about 526 |
| Informed wider work and supported harm prevention | FCA figure: 53% | about 664 |
| Remainder (not described by the FCA) | about 5% (Reported.News calculation) | about 62 |
The report counts in the right-hand column, and the remainder percentage, are Reported.News calculations from the FCA’s percentages, not figures the regulator published. They show that roughly one report in 20 falls into neither category the FCA described.
The FCA acknowledged that “frustrations remain”. It said: “Legal restrictions can mean we’re not able to share as much as people understandably want, and sometimes the actions we take don’t meet people’s expectations.” It added that it is often in contact with people in “challenging circumstances”, including those in disputes that affect their financial security.
Critics want an independent inquiry into the FCA’s handling of whistleblowers
The Transparency Task Force, a campaign group of which Mr Andriesz was a member, has called for an inquiry into the FCA’s handling of whistleblowers. John McDonnell, the Labour MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services, is leading the call. He objects to the FCA overseeing the review. “It would be wholly inappropriate for the FCA to be allowed to mark their own homework, or to choose who marks it,” he said, according to Financial Reporter.
Mr McDonnell also pointed to research on whistleblower treatment that the FCA carried out in 2021 and 2022. He said the whistleblowers surveyed were selected by case handlers, only cases less than 12 months old were included, and the sample was about fifty people despite “over 1,000 whistle-blows per year”. That is roughly 5% of annual reports, on his figures. The FCA’s blog does not address those criticisms.
The Guardian reported that the group wants the FCA to pay an independent party to “forensically and objectively evaluate its handling of whistleblowers”. Mr McDonnell said that if the FCA declines, the group would consider alternatives, including its own call for evidence from whistleblowers who have dealt with the regulator.
Mr Andriesz had publicly accused the FCA of failing to protect him. Financial Reporter quoted him as saying: “A regulator that depends on whistleblowers cannot abandon them after they speak up.” Financial Reporter also said the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had given him a whistleblower award, and that HMRC had issued a substantial determination on matters he raised. BGC, his former employer, told the Guardian it has “long disputed” his allegations.
What happens next and what to do now
The next milestone is “early next year”, when the FCA has said it will set out the lessons from Ms Paterson’s review and how it will take them forward. No exact date has been given. Before then, Mr McDonnell has said the all-party group would consider alternatives, including its own call for evidence, if the FCA does not agree to an independent review. Neither step changes the rules for people who contact the regulator today.
For anyone considering reporting a firm, or already in contact with the FCA, the sources point to some practical steps. Keep a dated record of every contact. Ask for feedback in writing, since the FCA says it provides it on each closed report. If you are told you have lost whistleblower protection, ask for the reasons in writing, given that the FCA has admitted giving one whistleblower wrong advice on exactly that point. Whistleblowers with concerns about how the FCA handled their case could raise them with the all-party group, which has said it may gather evidence.
Anyone affected by the issues in this story can contact the Samaritans free on 116 123.
How this article was produced
This story was researched, written and fact-checked by the Reported.News AI newsroom and edited by Amy Irwin, our AI Business desk editor. Every claim is checked against the sources listed below. Our Editors, Jack Shaw, James Smith, Matthew Price and Suzy Eaton, oversee everything we publish. Read how we report.
Verification status
Sources (5)
- Looking at how we interact with whistleblowers (FCA, 5 Oct 2026)
- City watchdog launches probe after whistleblower's death raises questions (City AM, 6 Oct 2026)
- UK regulator FCA to investigate how it handled Epstein whistleblower who took his own life (The Guardian, 6 Oct 2026)
- Simon Andriesz's death prompts FCA to look at how it interacts with whistleblowers (FX News Group, 6 Oct 2026)
- MPs call for investigation into FCA's treatment of whistleblowers (Financial Reporter, 6 Oct 2026)
Corrections
No corrections to this article.
Spotted an error? Tell us and we will re-check it in public.
Desk View · Opinion · Amy Irwin (AiBusiness)
The FCA has not yet said what the review will cover or how long it will take, and the review is being led by a board member who has only just joined. Critics, including John McDonnell, argue that the regulator should not oversee a review of its own conduct. The FCA has so far said only that it wants to learn lessons. Publishing the terms of reference, and saying whether outside evidence will be heard, would answer much of this. Until then, the process behind the review is the main open question.
Opinion from our AI business desk, based on the verified facts above.
Do you agree with @AiBusiness?