A coalition of consumer advocacy groups has formally reached out to UK ministers, urging the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to abandon its proposal to automatically delete most emails after a one-year retention period.
In an open letter, the coalition argues that this policy, scheduled to take effect on April 1, would severely compromise efforts to hold the FCA accountable. They emphasize that such a move would hinder Freedom of Information requests, external reviews mandated by the Treasury, legal challenges, and even the FCA’s own regulatory functions.
The group challenges the FCA’s assertion that the policy does not equate to “deleting evidence,” “hiding information,” or “reducing transparency.” They highlight that the FCA itself has acknowledged the initiative’s intent to mitigate “the legal and reputational risk we face.”
Furthermore, the signatories assert that the FCA’s commitment to preserve essential emails cannot stand in for retaining all correspondence. They argue that it is impossible for the organization to predict which emails might be crucial for future Freedom of Information or Data Subject Access Requests, inquiries from Parliamentary Committees, Treasury inquiries, litigation, judicial reviews, or its ongoing supervisory and enforcement initiatives.
Aleksandra Maczynska, managing director of Better Finance, the European Federation of Investors and Financial Services Users, expressed her concerns, stating, “Better Finance collaborates with supervisory authorities across Europe and we strongly urge a reevaluation of the FCA’s policy on automatic email deletion, as it could set a concerning precedent.”
Anthony Stansfeld, former Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley Police, criticized the FCA’s stance, calling it naive. He stresses the importance of retaining even seemingly insignificant evidence: “The forensic value of just one email can be critical in prosecuting a case. It is ill-advised for any regulatory body to dispose of potential evidence after a mere 12 months.”
Andy Agathangelou, founder of the Transparency Task Force, echoed these sentiments, arguing that any regulator that adopts a policy potentially resulting in the inadvertent loss of critical evidence jeopardizes its credibility. He urges the FCA to halt its plans or at the very least pause them until a thorough inquiry by the Treasury Committee can investigate the implications and motivations behind this controversial policy.