Maria Belen Susana Montero-Cowell

Does the FCA think we are stupid? I was in contact with Simon Andriesz @SAndriesz. I wrote his story in August, before he took his own life in September, and I have kept writing since. That is why I am writing this today. Who chose the person to review how @TheFCA treated Simon Andriesz? The FCA's only record is one email, sent by its chairman Ashley Alder to the non-executive directors at 7.20pm on 5 October, the night before its public meeting.. The problem For weeks, the FCA has told the public, Parliament and John McDonnell MP @johnmcdonnellMP that its Board commissioned the review into how it treated Simon Andriesz after careful consideration. John McDonnell chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services @appgonifandffs. On 7 October, Jasthi Alom, a former FCA supervisor, asked the FCA for the records behind that decision under the Freedom of Information Act. On 4 November the FCA replied, reference FOI2026/02281, and produced one email. The FCA says it has found nothing else. John McDonnell says there is no record of the careful consideration and no record of the options the Board looked at. The reply also shows no record of any independence check, although the request asked for one. The FCA's public account and its own paper trail do not match. The proof Here is the order of events, from @thetimes, the FCA and John McDonnell's statement. 1 October 2026: Lea Paterson joins the FCA Board as a non-executive director. 5 October, 7.20pm: FCA chairman Ashley Alder sends an email to the non-executive directors. In that email, Ashley Alder tells them he asked Lea Paterson to conduct the review shortly after learning of the death, and that she agreed. Lea Paterson and FCA chief executive Nikhil Rathi are copied in. He says he is telling the directors now because of the likely publicity around the public meeting, where the review will be announced. 6 October: the next day, at the FCA Annual Public Meeting in Edinburgh, Ashley Alder tells the room the FCA considered the independence question very carefully before it appointed Lea Paterson. At the same meeting, Andy Agathangelou from @TransparencyTF asked Ashley Alder the right question, a yes or no question. Will you resign? October: according to the Times, FCA chief executive Nikhil Rathi tells MPs the Board asked for the review.. 2 November: the FCA says the review was commissioned by its non-executive directors. John McDonnell says Ashley Alder wrote to him the same thing. 5 November: the Times reports the FOI email. The FCA tells the Times that the Board discussed the idea of a review after Simon Andriesz died. The FCA says those talks took place outside a formal Board meeting, so no minutes exist. The FCA also says the directors discussed Lea Paterson's appointment and the terms of reference afterwards, and agreed the terms on 29 October. The FOI reply included no record of any of those talks. The FCA's own reply describes the email as informing the directors that the review is going to take place. That is the full record the FCA has shown. What John McDonnell MP says: John McDonnell says he is astonished. He sees two possibilities. In the first, one person made the decision and it was later presented as the considered view of the Board. In the second, the Board did decide and failed to record it. He says Simon Andriesz's family, other whistleblowers and Parliament deserve a clear and accurate account of who decided what, when and why. He says he will write to the FCA. What I think I support John McDonnell MP. I also support the Transparency Task Force. Andy Agathangelou, its founder, says the FCA is marking its own homework. He called the process a sham and a whitewash. Look at who is doing this review. The reviewer is an FCA director. The FCA chairman asked her to do it. FCA staff provide her secretarial support. Her report goes to the FCA's own directors. She will not look at whether Simon Andriesz's allegations were true. It looks to me like the FCA has not learned the lesson. In my opinion, how the FCA treated Simon Andriesz played a huge part in what happened to him. I have no doubts about that. The Parliamentary group says the FCA admitted that an official gave him wrong advice about losing his whistleblower protection, and that the FCA apologised. He deserved better from the regulator that was supposed to protect him. After he took his own life, his story went viral. Journalists around the world picked it up and the media followed. People in many countries are watching what the FCA does next. The questions will not go away. How much is a human life worth to the FCA if it keeps treating whistleblowers the way it treated Simon Andriesz before he died? In my opinion, that treatment was inhuman. I fear this review could turn into another cover up. We are watching, the world is watching, and we will keep watching. What needs to happen The FCA should publish every record showing who chose the reviewer, and when. It should appoint a reviewer it has no part in choosing, as John McDonnell MP asks. Please share this article. Simon Andriesz deserves a clear answer. @jameshurley @stevemiddi1 @premnsikka @nw_nicholas @JohnCleese @Victoria_Rixon @MLorrM @Wftproof @pjhlaw @CartlandDavid @ClareCraigPath