How to Structure a RegData Remediation Submission to the FCA

When a firm discovers that historic RegData returns, whether COREP, FSA items, MIFIDPRU, or CMAR, have been submitted incorrectly, the instinct is often to quietly resubmit and hope the supervisor doesn't notice. That instinct is wrong. The FCA's Supervision team sees resubmissions daily; what distinguishes a routine correction from one that escalates toward Enforcement is the quality of the firm's own diagnosis, the integrity of the disclosure, and the evidence that governance has gripped the issue. A well structured remediation submission is not a defensive posture. It is proof that your control environment works.

Start With an Honest Materiality Assessment

Before touching RegData, quantify the error properly. That means understanding the gross impact on each affected return, the period over which the error persisted, whether prudential ratios, threshold conditions, or client money positions were misstated, and whether any third party (auditors, the PRA, investors) relied on the incorrect figures. Firms get into trouble when they assess materiality narrowly, for instance looking only at the current reporting period, and later discover the error ran for twelve quarters. Scope it fully before you speak to the supervisor.

The materiality view drives everything downstream: the urgency of notification, the seniority of the SMF owning the response, whether a Section 166 risk exists, and whether the board needs a formal paper.

Notify Under Principle 11 Before You Resubmit

SUP 15.3 and Principle 11 require prompt disclosure of significant matters. For any reporting error that touches capital, liquidity, client assets, conduct metrics, or that persisted across multiple periods, notify your supervisor in writing before the corrected return is filed. The notification should state what was wrong, the period affected, the quantified impact, the root cause as currently understood, the immediate containment steps, and the proposed remediation timeline.

What good looks like: a concise notification, signed off by the accountable SMF (typically SMF16 or SMF17, or the SMF2 for prudential returns), sent within days of discovery, not weeks. What goes wrong: waiting until the root cause investigation is complete before notifying. Supervisors expect an initial notification quickly, followed by a fuller update.

Structure the Remediation Submission Itself

The package the supervisor should receive, ideally in a single covering letter with annexes, contains:

1. A clear statement of the error, the returns affected, and the reporting periods.
2. The corrected figures, with a reconciliation showing original versus restated values and the delta.
3. A root cause analysis distinguishing proximate cause (e.g. a mapping error) from underlying cause (e.g. inadequate change control over the reporting taxonomy).
4. An impact assessment covering prudential, conduct, and third party dimensions.
5. A remediation plan with owners, milestones, and board or committee oversight points.
6. Controls uplift: what has changed in the first and second line to prevent recurrence, including any independent assurance planned.
7. SMF attestation that the corrected returns are accurate and that the governance around reporting has been reviewed.

Then, and only then, resubmit through RegData with the reason for resubmission clearly stated.

What Typically Triggers Escalation

Escalation to Enforcement rarely follows from the error. It follows from three patterns: delayed or partial disclosure once the firm knew the facts; a root cause analysis that reads as superficial or self exculpatory; and evidence that the same control weakness has been flagged before, internally or by a skilled person, and not fixed. If any of these apply to your situation, address them head on in the submission rather than hoping the supervisor will miss them.

The Decision Point

Before the submission leaves the building, the accountable SMF should be able to answer one question: if the FCA asked us tomorrow to walk through this error, our response to it, and our confidence that it will not recur, would the answer stand up without caveat? If not, the remediation is not yet complete, and the submission is premature.

Frequently Asked Questions

How quickly must we notify the FCA once an error is identified?

Principle 11 requires prompt disclosure. For significant errors, that generally means within days of credible internal confirmation, not after the root cause investigation concludes. An initial notification followed by a substantive update is the right pattern.

Does every RegData correction require a Principle 11 notification?

No. Minor, isolated errors with no prudential or conduct impact can be corrected through RegData with a clear resubmission reason. The test is materiality, persistence, and whether anyone relied on the incorrect figure. If in doubt, notify.

Should we commission a skilled person review ourselves?

Sometimes yes. Where the root cause points to systemic weaknesses in reporting governance, a voluntary independent review, scoped tightly, can demonstrate seriousness and often forestalls a Section 166 commissioned by the FCA on broader terms.

Who should sign the submission?

The SMF responsible for the affected reporting, typically SMF2 for prudential returns or SMF16/17 for compliance and MLRO related items, with visible CEO or board awareness where materiality warrants it.

What if the error affects PRA returns as well?

Notify both regulators in parallel, with consistent facts and timing. Inconsistent disclosure across the FCA and PRA is a recurring cause of supervisory concern.