Follow this request

There are 2 people following this request

Offensive? Unsuitable?

Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).

If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators

Report this request

Act on what you've learnt

Similar requests

More similar requests

Event history details

Are you the owner of any commercial copyright on this page?

Albert Holmes

Keith Alexander Mallen made this Freedom of Information request to The Financial Services Authority

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, The Financial Services Authority should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

From: Keith Alexander Mallen

11 March 2011

Dear Financial Services Authority,

http://www.albertholmes.com/

Just spoken to someone on the phone who claimed to be the MD and
would not give a name beyond Mr Shelley.

I was quite surprised to get directly through to the MD. How often
does that happen?



[ irrelevant material removed ]

FOI

1) Being lazy How do I find out about this particular companies
registration with the FSA?

2) How many complaints have you received regarding this company?

3) What action have you taken?

[ irrelevant material removed ]

Yours faithfully,

Keith Alexander Mallen

Link to this

From: Keith Alexander Mallen

13 March 2011

Dear Financial Services Authority,

[ irrelevant material removed ]

Apparently he has his offices registered at and works from 'Canary
Warf'. It would seem that last time I called I ended up at the
'front desk' rather than being placed through by the 'exchange
system'.

Might I ask how many '[ potentially defamatory material removed]'
are actually housed in the building/locale?

Yours faithfully,

Keith Alexander Mallen

Link to this

From: Keith Alexander Mallen

13 March 2011

Dear Financial Services Authority,

[ irrelevant material removed ]

[ irrelevant material removed ]

Trust me.. I have Faith.

Yours faithfully,

Keith Alexander Mallen

Link to this

From: Freedom of Information
The Financial Services Authority

17 March 2011

Telephone: 0207 066 7192
Email: [FSA request email]

Our Ref: FOI2044

Dear Mr Mallen

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).

Your request was received on 11 March 2011 and will be processed in
accordance with the Act. A further two e-mails were received from you on
13 March 2011 which will not be taken forward under the FOIA Act. We note
that your correspondence with us has been expressed in hostile and abusive
language, and we would respectfully ask that you phrase any future
requests more constructively.

Finally, there may be a fee payable for the information you have
requested. If that is the case, you will be informed of the likely
charges before we proceed. The fee must be paid before the information is
released.

If you have any queries please contact me.

Yours sincerely

Susan Currington

Information Access Team

Susan Currington | Information Access Team | Operations Services
|Operations Business Unit|

Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5HS

( 020 7066 1000

[1]www.fsa.gov.uk

show quoted sections

This communication and any attachments contains information which is
confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. It is for intended
recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy,
distribute, publish, rely on or otherwise use it without our consent. Some
of our communications may contain confidential information which it could
be a criminal offence for you to disclose or use without authority. If you
have received this email in error please notify [email address]
immediately and delete the email from your computer.

The FSA reserves the right to monitor all email communications for
compliance with legal, regulatory and professional standards.

This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal
relations or contractual relationships. This email has originated from

The Financial Services Authority (FSA)
25 The North Colonnade,
Canary Wharf,
London
E14 5HS
United Kingdom

Registered as a Limited Company in England and Wales No.1920623.
Registered Office as above

Switchboard: 020 7066 1000
Web Site: http://www.fsa.gov.uk
*****************************************************************

References

Visible links
1. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/

Link to this

From: Keith Alexander Mallen

17 March 2011

Dear Freedom of Information,

Thank you for your reply.

I note that the original information requested regarding Albert
Holmes,

1) Being lazy How do I find out about this particular companies
registration with the FSA?

2) How many complaints have you received regarding this company?

3) What action have you taken?

Is being treated as an FOI request and will, if necessary, be
subject to costs of which I will be informed.

I might note that

Item 1) probably takes the form of information available via the
internet for which you will be able to provide a link.

Item 2) should be a number that you can extract from a database.

Item 3) assuming the answer for item 2) was zero will be nothing
and I might assume that when it becomes one as a result of my
complaint it will be nothing again.

I look forward to your cost breakdown.

[ irrelevant material removed ]

[ irrelevant material removed ]

Thank you for your previous intervention in relation to one of my
other requests.

Might I ask how things are going with regard to your your enquiries
with AIM on that matter or has that disappeared down the standard
black hole?

Yours sincerely,

Keith Alexander Mallen

Link to this

From: Freedom of Information
The Financial Services Authority

5 April 2011

Direct line: 0207 066 7192

Email: [FSA request email]

Our Ref: FOI2004

Dear Mr Mallen

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the
Act), for information in relation to Albert Holmes.

1. "How do I find out about this particular companies registration
with the FSA?

2. How many complaints have you received regarding this company?

3. What action have you taken?"

Your request has now been considered. I can confirm that we hold some of
the information you have requested. I shall take each point of your
request in turn.

In relation to point 1 of your request, I refer you to the FSA Register
where you can search for firms that are, or have been, regulated or
registered by us. The FSA Register, with step by step instructions on
different search options, can be found on the FSA external website at the
following link: [1]http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/home.do

In relation to point 2 of your request, we can neither confirm nor deny
whether the FSA has received any complaints in relation to the firm Albert
Holmes because, if such information were held by us, this would be
information which the FSA has received for the purpose of carrying out its
regulatory function under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
("FSMA"), and so the following exemption applies.

* Section 44 (Prohibitions on disclosure)

Section 44(1)(a) of the Act provides that information is absolutely
exempt from disclosure if its disclosure (otherwise than under the
Act) is prohibited by or under any enactment. Section 348 of FSMA
restricts the FSA from disclosing "confidential information" it has
received except in certain limited circumstances (none of which apply
here).

Section 44(2) of the Act provides that the duty to confirm or deny
does not arise if the confirmation or denial that would have to be
given to comply with section 1(1)(a) of the Act would (apart from the
Act) be prohibited by or under any enactment.

Confidential information for these purposes is defined as non-public
and non-anonymised information which relates to the business or other
affairs of any person and which was received by the FSA for the
purposes of, or in the discharge of, any of its functions under FSMA
and which is not in the public domain.

The information requested amounts to confidential information
received by the FSA in the discharge of its functions under FSMA.
Disclosure of any such firm specific confidential information,
without the consent of the provider of the information, or, if
different, the consent of the person to whom the information relates
would be in breach of section 348 of FSMA and would be a criminal
offence.

Section 44 is an "absolute" exemption, and so it is not
necessary to balance the public interests
for and against disclosing the information.

In relation to point 3 of your request, the FSA does not normally
comment publicly on whether or not it is investigating a particular
matter. This policy is set out in the FSA's Enforcement Guide (EG); see
in particular EG 6 on Publicity. This may be found on the FSA website
through the following link:
[2]http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/extra/5125.pdf.

In the event that the FSA is investigating a particular individual/
entity and formal enforcement action is subsequently taken, details of
the action will generally be published on the FSA's website in the form
of a Final Notice and associated press announcement. This serves to
inform the public of the action taken and the reasons for that action.

In terms of the information you have requested in point 3 above, we are
of the view that section 31 (Law Enforcement) of the Act and section 43
(Commercial Interests) of the Act are applicable in that confirming or
denying whether we hold the information you have requested:

* would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by the FSA of
its functions under FSMA (section 31); and
* would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of
any person (including the credit union mentioned in your request)
(section 43).

Further details on our application of the section 31 and section 43
exemptions are set out below.

. Section 31 (Law enforcement)

Section 31(3) of the Act provides that the duty to confirm or deny does
not arise if the confirmation or denial that would have to be given to
comply with section 1(1)(a) of the Act would, or would be likely to,
prejudice the matters mentioned in section 31(1)(g) (the exercise by the
FSA of its functions for any of the purposes specified in section
31(2)).

Were the FSA to hold the information requested, if disclosed, it would,
or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by the FSA of its
functions for the purpose of ascertaining (i) whether any person has
failed to comply with the law (section 31(2)(a)), (ii) whether any
person is responsible for conduct which is improper (section 31(2)(b)),
(iii) whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in
pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise (section 31(2)(c)), or
(iv) a person's fitness or competence in relation to the management of
bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity
which he is, or seeks to become authorised to carry on (section
31(2)(d)). We consider therefore that there would be a real risk to any
possible ongoing enforcement investigation or any subsequent action if
such information were to be disclosed.

Further, such a disclosure would also provide an insight (or what may be
perceived to be an insight) into the FSA's regulatory priorities. Firms
and/or the public at large may conclude that the FSA's priorities lay in
particular circumstances, or in a particular sector or product.
Likewise, it might lead those firms and/or the public at large to
conclude that the FSA's regulatory priorities lay elsewhere. Either
eventuality might lead them to take steps designed to frustrate the
regulatory process.

The likely result would be that the FSA would receive less information
and cooperation on a voluntary basis from its regulated firms and/or
approved persons and other third parties. This would harm the FSA's
effectiveness in carrying out its functions and possibly require the FSA
to take formal action to obtain information it would otherwise have been
provided with voluntarily.

Section 31 is a qualified exemption, and we have therefore considered,
as required by the Act, where the balance of public interest lies.

In favour of disclosure:

* There is a strong public interest in favour of transparency, and
in the public being made aware of any information we may or may
not have received in relation to the firms and/or individuals
who are operating in the financial services industry,
particularly where these matters may impact on the public
directly.

. Disclosure of such information would reassure the public
about the effectiveness of the regulatory approach taken by the FSA
(including its enforcement work), and demonstrate how the FSA
responds to matters arising within the sector it regulates.

Against disclosure:

* There is a strong public interest in the FSA being able to carry
out its functions in the most effective manner possible.
Disclosure could lead to widespread speculation which could
hinder and prejudice the progress of any current and/or future
FSA enquiries, considerations and/or action.
* Confirmation of the information we may or may not have received
as part of a regulatory investigation has the potential to
mislead and prejudice the financial markets and consumers. This
is because readers may conclude, incorrectly, either misconduct
or a clean bill of health from the disclosure.
* Where any formal regulatory action is taken against a firm or an
individual, the public are (save in exceptional circumstances)
informed of the final outcome of the proceedings. Final Notices
are published on the FSA website ([3]http://www.fsa.gov.uk/) and
may be widely reported in the press. This serves to promote the
public interest in transparency of regulatory action, in
accordance with due legal process.

* Section 43 (Commercial interests)

Section 43(3) of the Act provides that the duty to confirm or deny
does not arise if the confirmation or denial that would have to be
given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to,
prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the
public authority holding it) mentioned in section 43(2).

The commercial interest of the firm named in the request (above) is
likely to be harmed by confirming whether or not we hold the
information requested. Were it to be the case (which we cannot
confirm) that we hold any of the information requested, a
confirmation that this was the case could lead to unfair or
unjustified adverse comment and speculation in connection with this
firm. This could affect the firm's brand and reputation in the
market in which they operate in the absence of due process having
been followed - i.e. in the absence of any formal finding of
misconduct and without the firm having had the opportunity to
comment. Any loss of confidence can have serious, adverse
consequences for a firm and its stakeholders, including employees,
investors and creditors.

There is a strong public interest in the firm's legitimate commercial
interests not being undermined unless and until such time as there
has been any formal finding of misconduct following the conduct of a
full investigation (which, may or may not be the case in this
instance) and details of that is permitted to be made public under
FSMA.

Section 43 is a qualified exemption and therefore I have balanced the
public interests for and against confirmation/denial, as required by
the Act. The factors in favour and against disclosure are identical
to those set out for section 31, above.

In our view, we are satisfied that overall the balance of the public
interests in this case comes down in favour of maintaining the exemptions
under section 31 and section 43 of the Act; and in neither confirming nor
denying that we hold any information that falls within the scope of your
request.

If you have any queries or are unhappy with the decision made in relation
to your request please contact me. If I am not able to resolve your
concerns I will advise you of the process for an internal review. If you
wish to exercise your right to an internal review you should contact us
within three months of the date of this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you also
have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 700

Website: [4]www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Susan Currington

Information Access Team

Susan Currington | Information Access Team | Operations Services
|Operations Business Unit|

Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5HS

( 020 7066 1000

[5]www.fsa.gov.uk

show quoted sections

This communication and any attachments contains information which is
confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. It is for intended
recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy,
distribute, publish, rely on or otherwise use it without our consent. Some
of our communications may contain confidential information which it could
be a criminal offence for you to disclose or use without authority. If you
have received this email in error please notify [email address]
immediately and delete the email from your computer.

The FSA reserves the right to monitor all email communications for
compliance with legal, regulatory and professional standards.

This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal
relations or contractual relationships. This email has originated from

The Financial Services Authority (FSA)
25 The North Colonnade,
Canary Wharf,
London
E14 5HS
United Kingdom

Registered as a Limited Company in England and Wales No.1920623.
Registered Office as above

Switchboard: 020 7066 1000
Web Site: http://www.fsa.gov.uk
*****************************************************************

References

Visible links
1. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/home.do
2. http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/extra/5125.pdf
3. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/
4. http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/
5. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/

Link to this

From: Keith Alexander Mallen

5 April 2011

Dear Freedom of Information,

Uhm.. Thanks.

I might note that I got a bit miffed about Albert Holes[sic] cold
calling techniques and someone else's loss of money as a result.

It is, indirectly, skin off my nose.

I did not know you lived at Canary Warf, apparently the place is
suffering from an extreme infection, so I should apologise for your
possible interpretation that I would have been suggesting you might
be dodgy as well.

Not sure what the rest of your response means other than a
suggestion that those you are supposed to regulate can carry on
regardless coz if you dobbed them in they might not cream loads of
dosh and you would get less of a cut.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Alexander Mallen

Link to this

From: Keith Alexander Mallen

15 June 2011

Dear The Financial Services Authority,

I note ITM is now trading, if that would be the word, at 35p or
half price compared to the time, when it was 70p, when Albert
Holmes went through their cold calling exercise to shod the rubbish
off onto the unsuspecting.

Do you have an update beyond the wordy stuff implying the
opportunity for shoddyboys to dobb themselves in and say sorry
before recreating themselves and running the same scam over again?

Colour me cynical but I have watched that Esther Rantzen Program
from the 70's plus that Builders From Hell Program so I know what
is going on.

I might note that the person concerned is only £5,000 down on the
deal so that will be peanuts and like, hey, tough. I might be
certain they were advised to speak to a Financial Advisor...

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Might I ask how I would be able to get in on the act?

Eight hour day, 30 minutes per call, £80,000 profit per day, 5 day
week £400,000 a week, £20,800,000 a year. Blimey, that's enough to
fund Phorm for three months.... and pay the FSA a cut for
'appropriate regulation'. ;-)

I'd be particularly interested in the 'Alias Smith and Jones' deal
whereby I can dobb myself in, say sorry and get started up again as
quick as possible. Any pertinent literature would be appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Keith Alexander Mallen

Link to this

From: Freedom of Information
The Financial Services Authority

16 June 2011

Dear Mr Mallen

Thank you for your email of 15 June 2011 sent to our Freedom of
Information Team. This is not a request for information and your comments
have been forwarded to our Consumer Contact Centre (CCC) as they are the
most appropriate area to respond to your query. Please be aware that CCC
work to a service level of 12 working days. Due to current workloads, they
are working up to the limit of this service level.

Yours sincerely

Sandra Collins | Information Access Team | Operations Services |
Operations Business Unit
Financial Services Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf,
London E14 5HS

Tel: 020 7066 7120

[1]www.fsa.gov.uk

show quoted sections

This communication and any attachments contains information which is
confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. It is for intended
recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy,
distribute, publish, rely on or otherwise use it without our consent. Some
of our communications may contain confidential information which it could
be a criminal offence for you to disclose or use without authority. If you
have received this email in error please notify [email address]
immediately and delete the email from your computer.

The FSA reserves the right to monitor all email communications for
compliance with legal, regulatory and professional standards.

This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal
relations or contractual relationships. This email has originated from

The Financial Services Authority (FSA)
25 The North Colonnade,
Canary Wharf,
London
E14 5HS
United Kingdom

Registered as a Limited Company in England and Wales No.1920623.
Registered Office as above

Switchboard: 020 7066 1000
Web Site: http://www.fsa.gov.uk
*****************************************************************

References

Visible links
1. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/

Link to this

From: Keith Alexander Mallen

29 June 2011

Dear Freedom of Information,

OK Tah..

It seems we are now down to 25p. 33% of the original enticement.
Still, I suppose it is quoted on AIM so Hey Ho.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Alexander Mallen

Link to this

From: IFF Research on behalf of the FSA

9 August 2011

Dear Keith Mallen

You recently contacted the Financial Services Authority (FSA) with an enquiry and
they would like to know what you thought of the service you received. The FSA have
asked IFF Research as an independent market research company to conduct
this research on their behalf. Your help with this would be greatly appreciated and
would enable the FSA to improve their service for the future.

Please click on the link below to access the survey.

[1]https://survey.iffresearch.com/mrIWeb/mr...

If the link doesn’t work, please copy the link and paste it into the address
bar. If you still cannot access the survey and you would be willing to participate
by telephone then please get in touch and let me know your phone number so I can
arrange for an interviewer to call you back at a time that suits you.

We would be grateful if you could complete the questionnaire by Sunday 14th August

Responses will be entirely confidential and will not be attributed to any
individual or organisation, in line with the Code of Conduct of the Market Research
Society. Results will be reported in the form of aggregated statistics.

If you would like to know more about IFF Research, you can contact me on 020 7250
3035 or at [2][email address]. If you would like to verify that this is
a legitimate piece of research commissioned by FSA, you can call the FSA's Customer
Contact Centre on 0845 606 1234.

Best Wishes,
Alice Large
Research Executive

IFF Research
Tel: 020 7250 3035
[3]IFF Research
[4]Click here to unsubscribe

References

Visible links
1. http://iffresearch-dm.com/2K4-HZ9D-4GTJ7...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://iffresearch-dm.com/2K4-HZ9D-4GTJ7...
4. http://iffresearch-dm.com/2K4-HZ9D-524GT...

Link to this

From: Keith Alexander Mallen

18 August 2011

Dear IFF Research on behalf of the FSA,

Hi Alice.

We have 'met'.

Please thank the FSA for once again doling out my e-mail address to
third parties without my permission.

In this case,

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/al...

You might notice there is no mention that this might happen and no
opportunity given to refuse such action, presumably after the
event.

As a result of this action initiated by the FSA and followed
through by yourself I have been invited to take part in a
'satisfaction survey' run by yourself on behalf of the FSA and the
link to that survey has been made public,

https://survey.iffresearch.com/mrIWeb/mr...

Other examples including mine,

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/al...
https://survey.iffresearch.com/mrIWeb/mr...
FSA

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th...
https://survey.iffresearch.com/mrIWeb/mr...
FSA

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bu...
https://survey.iffresearch.com/mrIWeb/mr...
FSA

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ta...
https://survey.iffresearch.com/mrIWeb/mr...
FSA

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/li...
https://survey.iffresearch.com/mrIWeb/mr...
FSA

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ba...
https://survey.iffresearch.com/mrIWeb/mr...
FSA

I note that these links include date stamps and ID numbers,
presumably Unique despite your claims of anonymity,

CCCAUG11WEB&id=c00621
CCCAPR11WEB&id=b01525
CCCOCT10WEB&id=j01700
CCCFEB10WEB&id=f00670
CCCAPR09WEB&id=a00732
CCCAPR09WEB&id=a00658
CCCJUN11WEB&id=c000003

and would therefore assume that they are capable of being linked
back to myself as a result of someone seeing such a publicly
published link and filling it in on my behalf.

I have not touched it.

However if it includes an 'additional comments' section perhaps
someone else might feel the need to inform you that the FSA are a
self-serving worthless bunch of numpties and as a result a dirty
nuclear bomb has been planted under Canary Warf.

Next thing I know is that the Police are turning up on my doorstep
asking questions and looking for my stash of Unobtanium 432, the
strong beta emitting one.

All because the FSA dole out my e-mail address to third parties
without asking permission first and then those third parties
arbitrarily shunt out links to all and sundry so they can fill out
'my' survey for me.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Alexander Mallen

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
The Financial Services Authority only: